Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Validity of Paleo/Primal? Wheres the evidence?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Validity of Paleo/Primal? Wheres the evidence?

    Iv been eating paleo/primal for a few months now.
    Iv seen mark sission at a convention.
    Iv seen excellent results.
    HOWEVER, I have not found him posting any medical/clinical studies?
    Is there any actual, unrefutable evidence that supports his often sensationalist claims?
    Im a memeber on the Body Building forums and there are just as many, if not more people who have had the same and often better results than people here. Their ideology is simple IIFYM if it fits your macros. And it works!
    This thread is here for you to post relevant evidence/studies that SUPPORT the paleo/primal way of eating.
    I love it, but where is the real hard evidence? The science?
    Last edited by Jester123; 09-09-2011, 12:23 PM.

  • #2
    Check the ''Research'' part of the forum. You can also listen to Robb Wolf's podcasts, he's really into the science part of paleo. Mat Lalonde even more.

    No need for this thread, it has been done to death.

    Comment


    • #3
      In nearly every article where Mark makes a (sensationalist) claim he posts links. The Primal Blueprint is way more than just one thing to prove, it has all these tiny things such as eating fat, getting sleep, doing exercise this way and not that way, eating vegetables, etc. that have to be proved individually. So we can't just give you a few studies to proof The Primal Blueprint.

      For example, in his article about saturated fat apart from linking to a dozen blogpost (both of different sites and his own blog posts) which all have studies linked in them as well he also links to at least three studies and has two pictures taken from studies:
      Effect of High-Carbohydrate Feeding on Triglyceride and Saturated Fatty Acid Synthesis -- Hudgins 225 (3): 178 -- Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine
      http://www.willner.com/content/561_A.pdf
      Moved to LivinLaVidaLowCarb.com/Blog: Study: HDL, Triglycerides Better Markers For Cardiovascular Risk Than LDL
      http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/g...iovasc-men.gif
      http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/g...5e74d970b-.png

      You'd have to read the articles and the links in those articles if you want more proof, there's way to much to just link here.

      Comment


      • #4
        I doubt all claims that have ever been made by anyone identifying himself as Paleo or Primal can be substantiated. However, I don't think anyone has an obligation to post evidence that uppercase "supports" end uppercase eating in that kind of way in this forum. There are many different issues involved here. I suggest it's more fruitful for anyone to identify which ones seem interesting or potentially fruitful or controversial—for example, omega-3/6 ratio—and then pursue it himself in the literature.

        For a general up-to-date overview on the sort of things that people loosely involved with the movement are currently saying see here:

        Ancestry's videos on Vimeo

        Comment


        • #5
          i agree that there is really too much to be covered concisely in research; it's more the individual parts. there is plenty of research out there that points out the problems with grains, eating real food, exercise, sleep, sunlight, etc. not to mention the more idiosyncratic aspects that come along with the primal blueprint. but really, the best evidence is history. humans have survived and thrived for nearly 2 million years before agriculture came along. our very existence and a quick look at available foods throughout time and location are proof of the sustainability of this lifestyle. if you need more, i suggest taking a look at the research links and links from the above posters.

          are the body builders wrong? not necessarily, but it really depends on what you're after. the primal blueprint is about achieving your optimum potential, or homeostasis. those who follow this lifestyle are usually more interested in overall health and well being than they are getting huge muscles with single digit body fat (though, that is a goal for some). macros are definitely important for that particular goal, but the PB is about way more than that.
          http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread60178.html

          Comment


          • #6
            The "science" is what has lead to the mass destruction of health everywhere. Sometimes man has got to think for him and herself. When I got a dog and raw-fed him nine years ago, all I got was "the science!" "the science!" Fuck the science.
            Positively Radical Pigeonholes are for Pigeons!

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm sure there is tons of scientific evidence stating vegan is the healthiest way to eat, does that make it true?
              Primal Chaos
              37yo 6'5"
              6-19-2011 393lbs 60" waist
              current 338lbs 49" waist
              goal 240lbs 35" waist

              Comment


              • #8
                What's with the anti-science sentiment around here? There is good science and bad science, and if someone is smart they will read all of the evidence and come to the right conclusion. Paul jaminet for example Perfect Health Diet. He is a scientist and a competent one at that. The problem is lack of intelligence and competence, not the big bad science. Stop treating science as a personal entity when it is a method of empirical inquiry.

                There: US News “Best” Diets

                Biological explanations and controlled trials are usually what we want to base our beliefs on, not epidemiology, certain journalists' fetish where they go "THERE WAS A CORRELATION BETWEEN X THING AND DEATH SO THAT MEANS IT WAS CAUSATION RAWRR"
                Last edited by Stabby; 09-07-2011, 10:33 AM.
                Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Paleo is not a diet; its a problem/question. You have to be satisfied with not being satisfied.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Stabby View Post
                    Stop treating science as a personal entity when it is a method of empirical inquiry.
                    But, that is the problem... Each one of us is a personal entity, not the aggregate of individuals used to form a scientific study.

                    I suspect that much of the science of conventional wisdom is true for the collective. But what is true for the collective is not necessarily what is true for me, you, or quite possibly anyone else.

                    Since each of us ARE individuals, we need to individually evaluate the science, and determine what works for us, and what does not work for us.

                    I am having great sucess with a primal diet. My mother is having great sucess with a conventional diet. Which one of us is wrong? Well, I think most scientific studies will say that I am wrong. Does that mean I should abandon that, which is working for me in favor of a method that I have proven does not work for me?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by primalrob View Post
                      are the body builders wrong? not necessarily, but it really depends on what you're after. the primal blueprint is about achieving your optimum potential, or homeostasis. those who follow this lifestyle are usually more interested in overall health and well being than they are getting huge muscles with single digit body fat (though, that is a goal for some). macros are definitely important for that particular goal, but the PB is about way more than that.
                      This. There's a good percentage of us who don't ever want to measure our "macros" again. We want to use intuition and logic to find homeostatis simply and naturally.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        .

                        "Don’t fall for the crap that people are peddling on message boards, in magazines or on TV. Get your shit in order, and get your training in order. Start kicking ass, and take out the crap that doesn’t matter. Start doing and believing in the stuff that works, and do it today and forever. You want science and studies? Fuck you. I’ve got scars and blood and vomit." -Jim Wendler

                        .
                        There is a huge difference between talking about how to do something and getting it fucking done.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Waskydiver View Post
                          But, that is the problem... Each one of us is a personal entity, not the aggregate of individuals used to form a scientific study.

                          I suspect that much of the science of conventional wisdom is true for the collective. But what is true for the collective is not necessarily what is true for me, you, or quite possibly anyone else.

                          Since each of us ARE individuals, we need to individually evaluate the science, and determine what works for us, and what does not work for us.

                          I am having great sucess with a primal diet. My mother is having great sucess with a conventional diet. Which one of us is wrong? Well, I think most scientific studies will say that I am wrong. Does that mean I should abandon that, which is working for me in favor of a method that I have proven does not work for me?
                          I think that you have misinterpreted me. I meant that people shouldn't treat science as thought it was a personal entity, as if it was like a person and bad things that certain scientists do reflect poorly on all of science. It just doesn't work that way. It's a method.

                          I support self-experimentation, especially with lab testing. Many things are going to benefit or harm everyone to some degree, but there is variation in that. When starting out and when suggesting things to others it is best to go with what the evidence supports is best for the majority.

                          We should be very careful not to give too much credence to our own subjective appraisal, though. People simply aren't objective about what is good for them, and oftentimes they will make excuses for the ideas and practices that they have fallen in love with, until it is too late. Oftentimes we can't even see a subjective difference or a difference on basic lab tests, yet there is a big difference going on that will manifest itself in many months. Few people taking vitamin K2 feel any different, but the long-term benefit is staggering.

                          How does your mother know that a primal diet wouldn't be even better? "Great success" is so nebulous. This is just an excuse to not have to disagree on things. Everyone's an individual, wheeee, no arguing. I think that you have a little too much faith that conventional wisom is actually correct and you are just an outlier. I think that your mother's fate has much to do with that. If you read the article by Loren Cordain that I linked to, you will see that all of the specific paleo trials have fared better than the alternatives. I also think that much of the scientific literature is poorly interpreted, by dogmatists and biased researchers and authors. Nutrition really is a bitch, it's so complicated, don't think that because the conclusion section of a study says something that it was really demonstrated by the actual experiment.
                          Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                          Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Stabby View Post
                            How does your mother know that a primal diet wouldn't be even better? "Great success" is so nebulous. This is just an excuse to not have to disagree on things. Everyone's an individual, wheeee, no arguing. I think that you have a little too much faith that conventional wisom is actually correct and you are just an outlier. I think that your mother's fate has much to do with that. If you read the article by Loren Cordain that I linked to, you will see that all of the specific paleo trials have fared better than the alternatives. I also think that much of the scientific literature is poorly interpreted, by dogmatists and biased researchers and authors. Nutrition really is a bitch, it's so complicated, don't think that because the conclusion section of a study says something that it was really demonstrated by the actual experiment.
                            It's easy: She doesn't particularly like primal fare, while she does like foods from more conventional diets.

                            I love my ribeyes. She'd rather have a bowl of oatmeal (yuck).

                            If I tried to get her to eat a primal diet, she would fail. She would cheat. She would be miserable.

                            Likewise, try to get me to follow a conventional diet, and I'll have none of it. I'll constantly be sneaking in a bowl of captin crunch instead of the oatmeal, and I will fail.

                            So, for her, a diet crafted of whole grains, fruits and vegies, with lean meats sits very well. She can stick to it, and it is working for her.

                            With me, I scoff at the 80/20 "rule". I can be 100% faithful to primal nutritional principals without hardly thinking about it.

                            Here's another example: There is a lot of evidence to support that resistance training is much better for you than "chronic cardio".

                            So, for my first 4 or 5 months primal, I "tried" resistance training. Hated it. Always hated it. Always will hate it. So, I ended up spending my exercise time on the couch.

                            Recently, I started taking up running again: Long distance running. The most chronic of the chronic cardio. I'm now up to 15 miles per week, and am hoping to be building towards marathon training, with a 30-40 mile per week base building towards perhaps 60 miles per week.

                            Oh, the horror.

                            Which is better for me, resistance training, which I will not do, or chronic cardio, which I will throw myself into? Science can't answer that question. BUT, I do use science to try to keep myself from being injured and to understand how the cortosol, glycogen depletion and low carb diets might be working against me so that I can make the appropriate modifications.

                            Also, I am also using science for objective appraisals (lab tests). The results have been PHENOMINAL. A1C and LDL dropped like a rock. HDL skyrocketing. Trigs about 3 times lower.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Quality of life and sustainability are indeed important, and do contribute to bodily health as well. Sounds like she's fine, then. "I just can't live without Burger King for lunch" might be different. I've heard it before! Sheesh. Make your own burger FFS.
                              Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                              Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X