Paleo diet

Originally Posted by munchausen

Click to expand...

400 years ago most people's diets consisted mostly of carbs and they weren't as likely to be obese as we are. We just have so much productive ability and food is so cheap for us that we find it easy to eat too much.
Well, that and also, 400 years ago, sugar was not such a ubiquitous substance in the diet, and there was no such thing as High Fructose Corn Syrup. We've only really seen a surge and surfeit of refined sugars and flours in our diets in the past 200 years, coinciding with the rise and prevalence of modern diseases, i.e., metabolic syndrome.

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

Well, that and also, 400 years ago, sugar was not such a ubiquitous substance in the diet, and there was no such thing as High Fructose Corn Syrup. We've only really seen a surge and surfeit of refined sugars and flours in our diets in the past 200 years, coinciding with the rise and prevalence of modern diseases, i.e., metabolic syndrome.
Would you consider sugar a poison?

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

Well, that and also, 400 years ago, sugar was not such a ubiquitous substance in the diet, and there was no such thing as High Fructose Corn Syrup. We've only really seen a surge and surfeit of refined sugars and flours in our diets in the past 200 years, coinciding with the rise and prevalence of modern diseases, i.e., metabolic syndrome.

I'm only speaking for myself but I much preferred the non-modern dietary diseases, like scurvy, beriberi, and kwashiorkor.

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

Would you consider sugar a poison?
I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but my answer to that question would be that sugar can be a poison, especially in its refined and processed form. To qualify, however, it is a chronic and dose-dependent poison, meaning, obviously, a tablespoon isn't going to kill you the way a tablespoon of a poison like arsenic might. However, continuous and heavy exposure, as we see in America today, will.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

I'm only speaking for myself but I much preferred the non-modern dietary diseases, like scurvy, beriberi, and kwashiorkor.
Interestingly enough, the vitamin-deficiency related diseases you've mentioned can actually, in a large part, be the result of the addition of sugar and flour into the diet. For example, scurvy, or a deficiency of vitamin C, we know can be ameliorated by the addition of fresh fruits and vegetables to the diet. However, this does not mean the disease itself is caused by the lack of fruits and vegetables in the first place. Rather, a carbohydrate rich diet will actually inhibit the proper absorption of the critical vitamins and minerals, which is really what's causing the whole deficiency in the first place.

She's never serious.

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, the vitamin-deficiency related diseases you've mentioned can actually, in a large part, be the result of the addition of sugar and flour into the diet. For example, scurvy, or a deficiency of vitamin C, we know can be ameliorated by the addition of fresh fruits and vegetables to the diet. However, this does not mean the disease itself is caused by the lack of fruits and vegetables in the first place. Rather, a carbohydrate rich diet will actually inhibit the proper absorption of the critical vitamins and minerals, which is really what's causing the whole deficiency in the first place.

Yes, scurvy is at epidemic rates on all first world countries where HFC and the like proliferate.



I love how you think you're lecturing folks.

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

The only real part of our ancestor's lives I think anyone is trying to idealize is their diet, which is certainly not the reason they may have had a lower life expectancy than modern day man. This can be attributed to the vicissitudes of living in nature, the dangers of hunting/predators, infant mortality rates, and a lack of acute medical care. They did not die of coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes from the food that they ate.

While it may be true that they had a shorter total life span, it was probably a healthier one than that those of typical Americans today: quality vs quantity. Today, we may be living older, but we are also dying longer.

When your average lifespan is in the 30's it is easy enough to look at the society and think they were healthier on the whole. Most of the diseases that people bring up in these types of arguments don't manifest themselves till past that age.

Times were harsh and it many struggled to keep themselves and their small communities fed. Malnutrition kept the general population low.

Yes, today we have the ability to mimic their diet with an abundance of food, but the point is there is little evidence that they were any healthier overall then we are today. People who follow the Paleo idet often have an idealized vision of what the average human looked like back then. I got news for you, it was not Daryl Hannah in a loincloth.

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

No, it does not. At some point humans very well will adapt to any diet necessary to survive by way of evolution, however, 2 million years of eating plants and animals vs 10,000 years of agriculture does not allow adequate time for us to be fully capable of adapting to such a diet. Relatively speaking, grain products in the human diet are a novelty. We simply haven't had enough time.

You could make the same argument for cooked foods. Fire didn't become widely used in the majority of societies till the Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age which spanned roughly from 300,000 to 30,000 years ago. Have humans had enough time to adapt to cooking meats?

Even saying all this, the simple fact of the matter is they ate grains. Grains were part of their diet and have been consumed by humans for longer then 10 thousand years.

Originally Posted by munchausen

Click to expand...

400 years ago most people's diets consisted mostly of carbs and they weren't as likely to be obese as we are. We just have so much productive ability and food is so cheap for us that we find it easy to eat too much.

This. It's overconsumption and the abundance of cheap food that is the core of the problem. Not carbs.

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, the vitamin-deficiency related diseases you've mentioned can actually, in a large part, be the result of the addition of sugar and flour into the diet. For example, scurvy, or a deficiency of vitamin C, we know can be ameliorated by the addition of fresh fruits and vegetables to the diet. However, this does not mean the disease itself is caused by the lack of fruits and vegetables in the first place. Rather, a carbohydrate rich diet will actually inhibit the proper absorption of the critical vitamins and minerals, which is really what's causing the whole deficiency in the first place.
Worst argument ever. EDIT: Pio beat me to it

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

Would you consider sugar a poison?

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

I'm only speaking for myself but I much preferred the non-modern dietary diseases, like scurvy, beriberi, and kwashiorkor.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

Worst argument ever.

EDIT: Pio beat me to it

Iammatt, Piob and HM are joining in. Feels just like CE.

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

Celiac disease?




I've never heard anyone make such an argument.

if as globetrotter says grains are 90% of human diet then why isn't everybody in the hopsital for celiac disease?


also when you say a carbohydrate rich diet prevents absorbtion of minerals are you talking of phytates or simply that a people dont eat fruits and vegetables simply because they're eating too much carbohydrates?

Originally Posted by indesertum

Click to expand...

if as globetrotter says grains are 90% of human diet then why isn't everybody in the hopsital for celiac disease?
I think that misdiagnosis, or under-diagnosis, has a lot to do with it.

also when you say a carbohydrate rich diet prevents absorbtion of minerals are you talking of phytates or simply that a people dont eat fruits and vegetables simply because they're eating too much carbohydrates?

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the competition of cellular-uptake between the vitamin-C molecule and glucose. Both are similar in configuration, and since glucose is greatly favored in the contest, the uptake of vitamin C by cells is inhibited when blood-sugar levels are elevated. In effect, glucose regulates how much vitamin C is taken up by the cells. If we increase blood-sugar levels, the cellular uptake of vitamin C will drop accordingly. Glucose will also impair the reabsorption of vitamin C by the kidney, and so, the higher the blood sugar, the more vitamin C will be lost in the urine. So, determining the level of vitamin C in our cells and tissues really has little to do with how much we are consuming in our diet, but more about the effect the starches and sugars we consume have in flushing it out of our system, while simultaneously inhibiting the use of what vitamin C we do have. It's not the absence of fruits and vegetables that causes the scurvy, but the presence of the refined carbohydrates.

Originally Posted by JMRouse

Click to expand...

This. It's overconsumption and the abundance of cheap food that is the core of the problem. Not carbs.

What do you believe is causing overconsumption in the first place?

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

I think that misdiagnosis, or under-diagnosis, has a lot to do with it.



I'm talking about the competition of cellular-uptake between the vitamin-C molecule and glucose. Both are similar in configuration, and since glucose is greatly favored in the contest, the uptake of vitamin C by cells is inhibited when blood-sugar levels are elevated. In effect, glucose regulates how much vitamin C is taken up by the cells. If we increase blood-sugar levels, the cellular uptake of vitamin C will drop accordingly. Glucose will also impair the reabsorption of vitamin C by the kidney, and so, the higher the blood sugar, the more vitamin C will be lost in the urine.

So, determining the level of vitamin C in our cells and tissues really has little to do with how much we are consuming in our diet, but more about the effect the starches and sugars we consume have in flushing it out of our system, while simultaneously inhibiting the use of what vitamin C we do have. It's not the absence of fruits and vegetables that causes the scurvy, but the presence of the refined carbohydrates.
That's absolutely preposterous for reasons that have been pointed out. How many people do you know with scurvy?

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

What do you believe is causing overconsumption in the first place?

Food is easier then ever to produce. This has lead to an abundance of cheap food and large portions.

Of course, I am sure you will have some kind of argument linking it to carbs, sugar and insulin levels that you read out of a diet book or on a blog. We need our demons after all.