I just read about it and was going to start a thread like this.
>it's not necessarily a bad way to eat. fruits, vegetables, nuts, meat etc. are definitely things you can use in a good diet.
Okay, but what about carbs? I read that even OATS aren't considered paleo. What the fucking fuck fuck? Bodybuilders, pro cyclists, basically all athletes that I aspire to be, ALL eat loads of fucking oats because they're the healthiest fucking energy you can put in your fucking body
And unless I'm wrong, there's nothing wrong with healthy complex carbs like brown rice and wholemeal pasta, right? I mean obviously not in excess, but chicken and rice is like the bodybuilding staple for fuck's sake
>>35528907 >life expectancy used to be 30 that was in the industrial revolution, it doesn't apply to any other past time (the paleolithic, ancient greece etc.).
the other confusing factor is they use infant mortality to calculate the average at 30years, so most children dying age 3months will cancel out the few who survive even though if you survived child-birth you had more or less the same life expectancy as today (70s or 80s),
>>35528970 shampoo and soap are totally unnecessary, your skin and hair clean themselves - all shampoo and soap do is strip everything off, the dirt and the self-cleaning oils. You end up clean either way, but one way you buy industrially-produced chemicals.
I still brush my teeth but so do chimpanzees, they use a stick.
>>35529151 >why cavemen wouldn't just eat anything they could get their hands on that didn't make them vomit it up. it isn't about why cavemen -wouldn't- it's why they -didn't-. Obviously humans will eat whatever is tasty, however we didn't evolve with access to HFCS, carbonated drinks, refined sugar or as the paleo-dieters have it, any type of agriculturally produced grain (but oats were discovered to be paleo recently).
It's about what our systems have evolved to run on, not that paleolithic humans were smarter or more "intuitive" - the difference between paleolithic humans and now is that back then they hadn't changed their lifestyle, or so the thinking goes. They were supposedly living the lifestyle around which we evolved the digestive system etc. which we have now.
>>35529413 what is good/best for us =/= what cavemen ate they ate whatever they could find and wouldn't poison them now we have a bigger variety of food thanks to technology and geographical discoveries and some of that food is bad, like fastfood and candy but just because something is relatively new to our diet doesn't make it bad in any way
>>35528894 Some people may say oats aren't paleo, but in reality early human did eat wild versions of the grains we have today, including oats, wheat, barley, etc. You don't have to avoid grain carbs, just make sure any products are the whole grain (not whole wheat) version.
When you get right down to it paleo is just a fancy way of avoiding high GI foods, which we should all be trying to do anyway.
>>35529508 obviously. it just does more harm than good for an average person from 21st century so that's why I used it as an example the fact that it would be fucking great for cevemen is actually a good argument against paleo, kek. they'd totally switch from meat and berries to McDonald's if they could and would probably live easier and healthier lives
>>35528472 I like the idea. It's low carb, encourages eating various good foods with lots of micro nutritients that many people miss out on. Also it cuts back on lots of stuff that causes problems with digestion, skin and hair in a lot of people (dairy, eggs, white sugar and more). It's probably one of the more reasonable diets out there, even though it may sound weird at first.
>>35528894 Can someone quickly summarize what the benefits of oats actually are?
>>35532970 IIFYM >treat food like its fucking energy >count macros >find number that works for your goal >progress bro diet >treat food likes its a chemical that you take orally >have to follow strict timetables >forget to eat/eat too much >no progress/reverse progress Keep it simple stupid.
>>35532984 Carbs are a drug. Learn how they work nub.
Or keep eating inefficiently, and eat half the food I do at the same BF%. btw more food=higher quality of life. I'll say again learn how carbs/insulin works. Carbs ARE a drug, and should be treated as such.
just dont eat processed shit and dont over eat. Count your calories and eat a lot of greens to feel full. Lean meats and grains. Try not to eat grains in exess. My diet is like 40%green 30%meat 25% grains 5%others. By grains imean whole grains like oat and corn sometimes. Rice too. Fuck pasta tho, fucking piece of shit food
It's a really stupid diet but it's genius as a marketing strategy. You can get impressionable men in their 20s to buy anything if you pair some macho image with it, like a swole caveman with a strong jaw and a cavewoman on each side of him.
Some people will say "it's a basically good diet aside from the meme, it's just fruit, veg, and meat, can't go wrong," and those are the kind of people who just eat chicken breast, rice, and broccoli as their whole diet anyway.
>>35534852 Almost everyone eats a bunch of easy carbs in the form of bread, sweetened dishes, white rice and noodles. You need carbs, but the amount you need can be easily gleaned from stuff like sweet potatoes, quinoa and nuts that are rich in micronutrients, fiber and protein. Pasta, bread, white rice and sugary anything are mad overkill on carbs and will contribute to making you fatter than you need to be.
I don't know what an orthodox paleo diet looks like exactly (there are variations I guess) but don't be shy about eating lots of fat in the form of olive oil and occasional fatty meats.
Paleo's been rated "most retarded diet ever" atleast two times. Once by US News and World Report, and again by the British Dietetic Association, who put it in the same category as the urine-drinking diet and the eat-clay-to-remove-toxins diet.
Eating nothing but meat with some token fruit and veg on the sides isn't a healthy way to eat.
>>35536942 You have no idea what you're talking about. Glucose is the preferred fuel for every cell. Foods rich in carbohydrates (whole grains, starchy vegetables, fruits, legumes, etc) have well-known health benefits and are recommended by health organizations worldwide to make up a significant portion of calories in the human diet.
paleo is confusing, because somehow they beleive that certain carbs render differently for nutrition than other carbs. This is such a silly position to take. i have difficulty even trying to explain to someone that using coconut flour to make a pancake isnt different nutritionally than using wheat flour.
i am in favor of ANYTHING that gets people to realize corn finished beef is bad, that sugar added to everything is bad, that fat isnt unhealthy and that we should be able to recognize the majority of the food on our plate for what it came from.
>I would expect paleolithic man ate a ton of plant food in quantity and variety.
They did, but what paleolithic man ate is not "the paleo diet" as it's known today.
>there's some truth to it in that we know (or think we know) when the agricultural revolution happened and there isn't enough time since then for us to have evolved.
Either we did evolve in that amount of time to eat neolithic foods or we didn't require much adaptation to begin with. The fact is that, as far as modern science can tell, foods like whole grains, lentils, beans, etc ARE healthy foods and it's better to include them in the diet than it is to avoid them.
It would only make sense to start theorizing why we wouldn't be adapted to eating these things after discovering through scientific inquiry that they're bad for us, not after all the data we've gathered seems to tell us they're great foods.
This video is a good breakdown of the paleo "we didn't have enough time to adapt to grains and legumes" argument
>>35539757 >And when is your body trying to synthesize protein.....exactly Ideally all day long. Otherwise you'll have negative protein and nitrogen balance.
>It's called keto, very highly researched actually. It's highly researched as a last resort for treatment-resistant epilepsy and treatment-resistant obesity. Last resort, because of the numerous side effects and stringent elimination of healthy foods that everyone should be eating. Were you diagnosed with one of those?
>>35540033 How hard did you fail your intro to biology class?
If you poison whole body protein synthesis, you die. It has important housekeeping functions. Slowing it down, like with growth factor withdrawal, disinhibits amino acid catabolism from the increased availability of free amino acids. Incidentally, restricting dietary carbohydrate does the same
With muscle protein synthesis in particular, the recommendation is to eat throughout the day. Muscle protein synthesis can only be stimulated so much with one meal (the "muscle full effect") ergo protein balance is higher this way.
>which seems to be ok based on the particle size Familial hypercholesterolemics have large LDLs and die from heart disease. The fact is that all LDLs are atherogenic regardless of size and size has no significance as a risk factor once adjusted for LDL particle count. See the end of page 357 of http://www.lipid.org/sites/default/files/articles/expert_panel_paper.pdf for example.
>>35540893 >The fact is that all LDLs are atherogenic regardless of size and size has no significance as a risk factor once adjusted for LDL particle count. thats not true, and if you think it is, your knowledge is not current and/or based on internets vs medicine. sorry friend, you are blog smart and real world stupid. What you think you know is wrong, the problem with why it hasnt made it to your reddit level knowledge is that there havent been a lot of studies on it specifically yet. Ask any practicing cardiologist about it and you will learn a little bit more about atherosclerosis
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021915006002590 Both LDL subclasses were significantly associated with subclinical atherosclerosis, with small LDL confounding the association of large LDL with atherosclerosis. Future studies of LDL size should account for the strong inverse correlation of LDL subclasses.
>>35539956 >because of the numerous side effects and stringent elimination of healthy foods that everyone should be eating.
define healthy? that is not a medical term. You betray your level of kung fu with your blog speak. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in the US living full and rich lives in a dietary ketosis right now. What aspect of their "health" do you take issue with? What quality of their health do you think they are not receiving? Your argument is based on your opinion on what is healthy, which isnt even a proper word.
>>35541107 You seem confused. Practicing cardiologists think your fringe theories on particle size are crazy.
>Because evidence clearly indicates that all Apo B–containing particles are atherogenic(8), this reasoning is akin to the argument that an Uzi submachine gun is more deadly than an M16 or an AK47. Obviously all are potentially lethal, and although this assertion may interest gun aficionados, it matters little to law enforcement or to general public safety if the sole objective is disarmament! As has been demonstrated in clinical trials, if Apo B, or non-HDL-C or even LDL-C is decreased sufficiently, there will be a reduction of all types of particles, even if some are decreased slightly more than others, with a resulting beneficial impact on atherosclerosis and CAD. To suggest that shifting the focus from one particle to another without impacting the total circulating Apo B burden or reducing it will decrease CAD risk is, to use the gun analogy, like believing public safety will improve by switching gun users with Uzis to AK47s.
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021915006002590 That paper is cited by mine (http://www.lipid.org/sites/default/files/articles/expert_panel_paper.pdf), which you clearly did not even try to read. Apparently you didn't even read your own paper either. Let me quote from it for you:
>Moreover, both large and small LDL were significantly associated with carotid atherosclerosis in our study participants, whether or not they had diabetes mellitus. Our findings regarding the atherogenicity of both LDL subclasses have been confirmed in the VA-HIT trial, where both subclasses were significantly associated with coronary events once their correlation was taken into account .
They found that both large and small LDL are atherogenic. The effect size drops on large LDL once you control for small LDL, but remains statistically significant.
>>35541216 >They found that both large and small LDL are atherogenic. The no they didnt, they found that studies found corralations because they didnt look and discriminate on particle size, and suggest that there is a need to study discrete particle size.
>Conclusion >Both LDL subclasses were significantly associated with subclinical atherosclerosis, with small LDL confounding the association of large LDL with atherosclerosis.
sounds like you read it, but didnt understand it. do you need me to help you understand any of these big words like 'confound' in a science context?
>>35541421 >You seem confused. Practicing cardiologists think your fringe theories on particle size are crazy. >http://www.clinchem.org/content/52/9/1643.long
oh wow. i just looked at this link. you completely misunderstood this paper as well. The entire point of that article was that the testing methodology used in most studies does not discriminate properly due to a flaw in the testing approach. It actually goes on to reenforce my point, that particle size has NOT been studied sufficiently. >. A reasonable conclusion is that, although assessing LDL and HDL subclasses may be of academic and research interest, the solid evidence for their use in routine clinical practice is lacking, and the available evidence is conflicting and confusing. In addition, given that determination of LDL particle number may well be a more valid approach
goddamn why do i bother trying to participate in threads with second year college kids who "know everything" because they can skim articles on the internet. you are wrong, confused and have pasted articles making MY point, not your own. lol
>>35541440 >If you are too autistic to understand the definition of a word every kindergartener can in a matter of seconds, there's no hope for you.
you misunderstand, like the other bozo, you are foolish and stupid. Give me a MEDICAL definition of healthy. Give me the exact parameters that define healthy vs not healthy. That word does not mean what you think it means.
you are trying to participate in a conversation that is so far over your head, you dont even realize it. the word healthy has no definition in science.
>>35542213 >no they didnt >do you need me to help you understand any of these big words like 'confound' in a science context
Are you fucking kidding me? "Confound" does not mean "eliminate"
Here's figure 2. They clearly show a statistically significant positive association between large LDLs after controlling for small LDLs. But go ahead and tell me what you mistakenly believe it means. Since you apparently don't know shit about lipidology, I can only expect top tier comedic gold from your ignorance. Come on, entertain me, tard boy!
>suggest that there is a need to study discrete particle size. They suggest WHEN studying particle size you need to control for other particle sizes in your statistical model otherwise the associations are bogus. What is it about reading English that is so hard for you?
>>35542261 >The entire point of that article was that the testing methodology used in most studies does not discriminate properly due to a flaw in the testing approach. Yeah. Try reading the part that I greentexted again. With that autism of yours it's no surprise you couldn't understand it the first time.
>It actually goes on to reenforce my point, that particle size has NOT been studied sufficiently. What a cop out. Literally every scientific paper in existence calls for more research. When all existing data we have points to it not being useful, there is no reason to think to think it is right now. If you have something that suggests differently, please share it. Otherwise what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
All you guys arguing about lipids for ketogenic diets are tossing around studies from normal people, not studies based on people doing high fat low carb diets on ketosis. My wife has RA, and we have both been on a ketogenic diet for years to manage inflammation. Our bloods come back with high LDL-C (>250) with hdl-c in the 60-80 range and total chol around 350-400. Interestingly, since my wife has some other stuff, she gets quarterly CIMT scans. Despite having "go on lipitor" levels of fats, her inflammation is down, her crp is low and her imt has remained steady.
i'll stick with my n=2 study that tells me what a whole lot of diabetics already know, ketosis is healthy, a fat based diet with low carb and <130g protein macros is fine. Its not shocking to me that people want to defend the status quo. The american diabetes association recommends on thier website http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/understanding-carbohydrates/carbohydrate-counting.html >A place to start is at about 45-60 grams of carbohydrate at a meal.
meanwhile, if you dropped that to <10, it would cure your diabetes. Most doctors would rather put you on insulin to control your blood sugar than reduce your blood sugar so it doesnt need to be controlled. Why is that? keep on worrying about how keto is bad for you while i enjoy my cheese and bacon covered broccoli i had for dinner tonight.
>>35534917 >the amount you need can be easily gleaned from stuff like sweet potatoes, quinoa and nuts that are rich in micronutrients, fiber and protein. plus most of that shit has fuckton of fucking fiber which makes you feel motherfuckingly full and bitching healthy. SHIT FUCK ASS cock BITCH
>ketosis is healthy > Our bloods come back with high LDL-C (>250) with hdl-c in the 60-80 range and total chol around 350-400
You have pretty low standards of health
>meanwhile, if you dropped that to <10, it would cure your diabetes.
No, it would just ignore the underlying cause of the problem, insulin sensitivity. With diabetes already being a risk factor for heart disease, putting someone on a diet that's going to raise their cholesterol to 400 is the last thing you would want to do. Considering that high fat diets, especially high saturated fat diets, kill insulin sensitivity, it's also unlikely to work as a long term treatment for diabetes, much less a cure. A better option would be to feed people high quality carbohydrates that increase insulin sensitivity, which improves blood sugar control. Legumes have been used this way for centuries.
> Grains are just filler for calories and carbs. They have no real benefits, though.
They protect against cardiovascular disease and stroke, colorectal cancer, diabetes, hypertension, hemorrhoids, alzheimers, and other diseases. It's been a public health goal for decades to get people to eat more whole grains because they do come with a lot of health benefits.
>>35546989 >Looks like another quack health website lol, such a "quack". Thats a real deal "i can put you on dialysis" kidney doctor. He spent years treating the symptoms of type 2 diabetes, one common one is kidney problems, and decided to start trying to understand why. Well, using a simple protocol of fasting and ketogenic diet, he has literally cured diabetes for thousands of people. His practice is so successful, there is an eight month waiting list to see him.
>>35546943 >You have pretty low standards of health your opinion on what right looks like is of no concern to me. i have actual health professionals and expensive blood tests and ultrasounds of our actual IMTs over time that say that you are wrong in your belief.
>>35546943 >o. Considering that high fat diets, especially high saturated fat diets, kill insulin sensitivity, this is ridiculous, when i read this i realized you legitimately have no idea what you are talking about. i literally eat coconut oil and whole eggs every goddamn day for YEARS, and my fasted and OGTT glucose levels are so goddamn low the lab flags it as hypoglycemic.
>>35546981 >They protect against diabetes, R.O.F.L.
>Thats a real deal "i can put you on dialysis" kidney doctor. >he has literally cured diabetes for thousands of people
Has he conducted any studies that were published in peer reviewed papers? Because his views are inconsistent with the rest of the medical community, without good evidence for what he's saying, he's more than likely a quack. On that page, he says saturated fats aren't harmful based on a discredited paper funded by the dairy industry. Here's a video that breaks down that paper to explain why it's not well accepted by any experts
Now ask yourself if he read that study himself and thought it was so well done that it provided great evidence that saturated fats aren't bad for you, or if he knew how faulty it was and was just using it to further a quack agenda.
I also wonder what kind of doctors you're going to that see those insane cholesterol numbers and wouldn't agree with me that your diet is probably going to kill you.
Also yes, high fat diets, especially saturated fats, do harm insulin sensitivity, as noted in this WHO report
>Those are really just fiber benefits, not specific to grains. You can get fiber from leafy greens and root vegetables.
Cup of kale, 1g fiber. Cup of rolled oats, 8g fiber. Even if your diet is rich in vegetables, vegetables alone aren't going to give you enough fiber. 30g a day is the starting amount, 45+ is ideal. That's not realistically achieveable on a paleo diet.
Fiber from grains specifically may also have unique benefits compared to fiber from vegetables, because they also have more indigestible starch that feeds gut microbes, and a higher proportion of their phytochemicals are bound to the fiber, so they take effect further down the digestive tract and provide more protection there.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.