Paleo diet

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

I don't really like the terms "natural" and "unnatural". To an extent, everything can be classified as natural. Heroine and cocaine are "natural"--they both are derived from plants--but just because it is derived from something that was found in nature doesn't necessarily make it good or bad, as you've pointed out. I think the issue, in the case of drugs, comes when you start isolating alkaloids, and take the substance of it's "natural" context. It's the same idea with sugar and flour--both substances derived from plants: sugarcane and grain, respectively. Once you strip the fiber, and refine the sugar and starch, you are taking the nutrients out of their original form, and this is where you can start to get into trouble.

The composition of whole foods is not just some sort of accident. The primary example is the fiber that is packaged with the sugars found in fruit: it is there for a reason, and it serves a distinct purpose in the digestion and metabolization of what you are consuming. Take the fiber away and just eat the sugar and you are, in my definition, eating something nature did not intend for you to, i.e., something "unnatural".
Glad to see you're so in tune with nature that you know what it (she?) wants us to do. Anthropomorphizing inanimate entities is always my preferred way of doing science.

This also seems to imply that we shouldn't take any medicine, use x-rays, or perform tasks with tools more complex than a chipped stone.

PALEO DIET

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

Glad to see you're so in tune with nature that you know what it (she?) wants us to do. Anthropomorphizing inanimate entities is always my preferred way of doing science.
You're putting words in my mouth. It's not a matter of if nature wants us to do it or not. It's a matter of the effect it will have on the health of human beings, which is something that we can clearly observe and measure.

This also seems to imply that we shouldn't take any medicine, use x-rays, or perform tasks with tools more complex than a chipped stone.

Click to expand...

Again, words: you are putting them in my mouth.

LO LO BROMEOS! LO LO DENDRITES! LO LO ELEUTHERIOS! LO LO ENORCHES! LO LO BACCHUS!

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

You're putting words in my mouth. It's not a matter of if nature wants us to do it or not. It's a matter of the effect it will have on the health of human beings, which is something that we can clearly observe and measure.



Again, words: you are putting them in my mouth.

No, I am addressing the words you used. You write: Take the fiber away and just eat the sugar and you are, in my definition, eating something nature did not intend for you to, i.e., something "unnatural".

There is no intent in nature, nature does not desire anything, it does not consider certain courses of action better than any other. Your definition, therefore, is nonsensical. If we were to take it to its logical conclusion, then we would still be scratching in the dirt with sticks as nature "intended."

Originally Posted by mm84321

Click to expand...

And I am offering you contrary evidence that being "carb deprived", as you put it, "for so long" will not cause any kind of vitamin or mineral deficiencies as you've purported it will from the study you've provided. And even if it somehow did, which it doesn't, the benefits of children who suffer from epilepsy that go on ketogenic diets would surely outweigh any adverse effects of ascorbic acid absorption.

Yes, you can get vitamin C in very small quantities from consuming animal products, and that's probably all you really need anyway.

WTF are you talking about? I "purported" no such thing. This proves what I've suspected. The words on your computer screen are not the same ones appearing on those of us that live in reality.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

No, I am addressing the words you used. You write: Take the fiber away and just eat the sugar and you are, in my definition, eating something nature did not intend for you to, i.e., something "unnatural".

There is no intent in nature, nature does not desire anything, it does not consider certain courses of action better than any other. Your definition, therefore, is nonsensical. If we were to take it to its logical conclusion, then we would still be scratching in the dirt with sticks as nature "intended."

I agree that nature does not desire anything, nor does it consider certain courses of action better than others, but, as humans, it should be our responsibility to make those considerations ourselves. If doing something will benefit us as a species, and it involves tampering with nature, then I'm all for it, but if it is going to hurt us, then it's probably a good idea to refrain.

I haven't read the whole thread and I'm not sure if this has been said so shoot me:

My biggest problem with a strict paleo diet is the amount of red meat and lack of grains. I do agree that an absence of refind food is the best thing for one's diet, but if carbs are essential if you are involved in any type of exercise. My diet consists of a lot of complex carbs from whole grains, brown rice, quinoa, sprout bread, etc. Only about 5-10%% of my carbs are refined such as french bread, and occasional berry juice. Thinking that glucose from fruit and other plant sources is adequate just won't work from someone who plays an intense sport such as waterpolo like I do. Not to mention carbs are great if you are trying to gain weight.

Second, a lot of paleo diet plans I've seen include red meat several times per week. Not only is this not "paleolithic", but it just isn't the best sources of lean protein. Most of my protein comes from sources like fish, nuts, eggs, and beans. These have the added benefit of beneficial ***** acids as opposed to the saturated fat in beef. I maybe have red meat once or twice a week.

lol.

this is going to be epic

Originally Posted by indesertum

Click to expand...

lol.

this is going to be epic

I'm just too tired to even bother.

Originally Posted by indesertum

Click to expand...

it might not have been how we ate 10000 bc to 2.6 mill years ago, but this is really no argument. you would have to show that grains are harmful to the modern human. simply because it wasnt available for human consumption a long long time ago doesnt necessarily mean its harmful for humans today

I am not saying that grains are harmful, not at all. I am saying that it makes sense that our bodies will do best with the foods that we evolved eating. there is a difference. it seems that there is ample evidence that overly refined rains aren't healthy. there is a certian segmant of the population that can't digest grains. also, diets heavy in grains and meat are very often less diverse than diets that limiit grains and meat - and their seems to be ample evidence that a more diverse diet is healthier. so its not a issue of harmful, it is an issue of what is best.

I'm also not saying to give up grains, I eat some grains, just a whole hell of a lot less than I did, or that I would probably eat, all other things considered.

i do think that in the general populace this idea of saturated fat being bad is quite pervasive. literally (and i actually mean literally) all of my friends think saturated fat is bad for you. same thing with cholesterol. me:my friends :: m&m1234:sf health body forum

Originally Posted by globetrotter

Click to expand...

I am not saying that grains are harmful, not at all. I am saying that it makes sense that our bodies will do best with the foods that we evolved eating. there is a difference. it seems that there is ample evidence that overly refined rains aren't healthy. there is a certian segmant of the population that can't digest grains. also, diets heavy in grains and meat are very often less diverse than diets that limiit grains and meat - and their seems to be ample evidence that a more diverse diet is healthier. so its not a issue of harmful, it is an issue of what is best. I'm also not saying to give up grains, I eat some grains, just a whole hell of a lot less than I did, or that I would probably eat, all other things considered.
totally agree with this. for the general populace refined grains arent the best choice. if you're trying to bulk up tho its difficult the carbs you need puretly from vegetables

Originally Posted by JMRouse

Click to expand...

Never-mind the fact that the argument is based on a false assumption that humans stopped evolving roughly when the Paleolithic age ended. This is completely incorrect, as evolution is an ongoing process and is still happening today.

we have hardly evolved at all in 10,000 years. it represents 2 percent of our time as modern humans, and a fraction of a percent of our time as huminoids.

Originally Posted by globetrotter

Click to expand...

we have hardly evolved at all in 10,000 years. it represents 2 percent of our time as modern humans, and a fraction of a percent of our time as huminoids.
but again the percentage of time that 10 000 years represents doesnt matter. if a gene is extremely evolutionarily disadvantageous (ie high selection pressure) then it'll get weeded out in little time

Originally Posted by indesertum

Click to expand...

but again the percentage of time that 10 000 years represents doesnt matter. if a gene is extremely evolutionarily disadvantageous (ie high selection pressure) then it'll get weeded out in little time

hmm, grains have been very very good to humans. they allow humans to reproduce alot better, to store food better, to plan for catastrophes better, so I would argue that any minor disadvantages that they cause wouldn't get weeded out. but those minor disadvantages are still there.