Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I wish Mark (or someone else) writes a response to this...

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

  • #31
    The phytic acid article, still cherry picking, nothing definitive there, regarding betaine easily available through a wide variety of other foods so still no points for wheat.

    The interesting point with regards to the phytic acid article is the early mention of the indigestability of gluten and the proliferation of a specific bacteria with regards to high gluten consumption, and this was passed off as a beneficial adaptation.
    Anyone who knows anything about microbiota, knows that any significant changes observed, come with 100's of changes not yet observed or understood, the proliferation of this bacteria may well be a significant contributer to the upsurge in chronic disease rates, so a very poor and superficial assessment IMO.
    "There are no short cuts to enlightenment, the journey is the destination, you have to walk this path alone"

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
      So what did you find in her rebuttal paper that is false?



      Studies? Also, those that eat higher portions of grains often tend to have a horrible diet overall. Saying that grains are the factor causing all of the issues is overly simplistic, and ignoring context of the overall diet.
      She was paid by the grain council. Everything was cherry picked and simplistic analysis. If you can't see that nothing I say will convince you.

      No studies basic USDA and UN info....it is all there and I am sure you are aware. As I am sure you are aware India one of the highest grain consumers also has the highest rate of diabetes

      Hmmm so the highest grains (most 3ed world counties) have the most "horrible diet overall" Why do you think that is? Could it an over reliance on grains???? Head Desk
      Last edited by Dirlot; 06-23-2013, 10:41 PM.
      Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
      PS
      Don't forget to play!

      Comment


      • #33
        A true carnivore eats very few vegetables, and those are largely predigested in the gut of prey (easily substituted with fermented vegetables if desired). Complete nutrition (and then some!) is easily found in a vegetable-free diet. Eating entire animals, seafood, eggs and a few berries and other fruits completely covers all RDA and usually vastly overshoots them at 3000 calories a day. So a virtually phytate-free diet is easily attainable. And I do find it interesting that the fewer phytates a food has, the more nutritious it tends to be. Coincidence?
        Crohn's, doing SCD

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Dirlot View Post
          Everything was cherry picked and simplistic analysis. If you can't see that nothing I say will convince you.
          Wasn't offering this as a definitive piece, just another side of the argument.

          Hmmm so the highest grains (most 3ed world counties) have the most "horrible diet overall" Why do you think that is? Could it an over reliance on grains???? Head Desk
          Maybe I should have been more clear. Of course, if you're over-consuming grains due to a lack of other sources of nutrients, your diet is going to be poor. The diet is poor because it's deficient in nutrients, and it's over-reliant on grains; not because grains themselves are inherently bad.

          Is it fair to draw the conclusion that grains are unhealthy because third world countries over-consume grains and they have high disease rates? No.

          Is the situation of third world countries relevant to this discussion? No.
          My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
            Interesting that you think investing in blood work is so crazy. Don't really have much in response to this, other than if you're concerned about gluten to the extent that you think you might be "gluten intolerant", I absolutely think it's worth paying for.
            I may be misunderstanding your point, but why spend good money on testing for it when you can simply eliminate it to find out?

            Incidentally, on the subject of being able to handle eating grains just fine, I think the number of people who can is less than you (they) believe. For example, neither my parents or I would ever have thought that we had issues caused be eating gluten, certainly the medical community never related any of our health issues to gluten. I could easily Polish of a whole least of white bread without issue, but if I ate the slightest amount of garlic or cooked onion and I'd experience major digestive distress. My dad had the similar but more advanced symptoms and had suffered from them for decades,to the point where basically the only "foods" which didn't result in issues was mushrooms on toast.

            Thanks to sites like mda I tried removing gluten only to find that my issues (e.g. lifelong issues with gut pain, constipation, bloating, diarrhea, cramps, etc. ) within days.

            Likewise with my dad, the same symptoms as mine in addition to acne (from his teens to his 50's), again they vanished within a couple of weeks of dropping the gluten. He was back to being able to eat food that previously would have caused him distress, such as broccoli, cabbage, etc.

            My mum's insomnia and restless leg syndrome drastically improved also within va couple of weeks.

            Forgive my rambling, my point is that until weknew bettermy family were "fine" eating wheat, either other food caused us problems or we had unexplained issues which didn't seem to be good related.

            We were also seemingly fit and healthy (apart from the symptoms mentioned above), my dad and I both keen athletes throughout our lives.

            How many other "fit, healthy and active" people are actually suffering a variety of issues that they either don't notice because that's just how they've always felt that way or from issues that they just don't realise are due to gluten?
            If you're interested in my (very) occasional updates on how I'm working out and what I'm eating click here.

            Originally posted by tfarny
            If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
              Okay, call them whatever you wish. Again, there are healthy people who eat large amounts of grains. It's the full context of the diet that matters.
              Inflammation is insidious - often with no symptoms until illness strikes.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Misabi View Post

                How many other "fit, healthy and active" people are actually suffering a variety of issues that they either don't notice because that's just how they've always felt that way or from issues that they just don't realise are due to gluten?
                good point - my situation was the same - though I too was fit and healthy ( with some issues)

                Doctor had drugs but no mention of grains or other food.

                I never suspected grains as the cause and they're said to be healthy.

                I stumbled on this crazy no-grain idea (no real help from medical doctors or dieticians - the experts), eventually I tried dropping grains after another health issue.

                After 10 days the issues went away - along with many other small ailments I carried for more than half a lifetime - again no one mentioned grains to me as a bad thing.

                I now don't consider grains a food group.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ahuderot View Post
                  Hi all!
                  My primal life is about a few weeks old, and I believe primal living have improved my life extensively. Though, I'm relatively new to this web site.
                  I'm reading several anti-primal or anti-paleo ideas from several sources over the internet. The latest one I read is in the following link:
                  Dissecting the Myth: Why Grains and Gluten Aren't Bad for You | Outlaw Fitness
                  The author is a grain-lover, and so he does not like the primal strategy offered by the Primal Blueprint. In the article, he quotes Mark and writes his responses to each point in some of Mark's articles on this site.
                  I wish Mark could write a response to that, and so enlighten the unknowledgeable ignorant such as I.
                  Alternatively, if any of you could do that (or point me to some direction), I would totally appreciate it.
                  Thank you for your consideration.
                  OK, I did not read the link - but I can answer your question without reading the link.

                  1.) Let's assume gluten is not bad for you.
                  2.) Let's assume grains contain no phytate at all and eating grains didn't block nutrient absorption by binding to minerals like zinc, calcium and magnesium, making your body unable to absorb them.
                  3.) Let's assume grains don't contain any other lectin activity (WGA in wheat - which probably worse than gluten, avenin in oats, zein in corn, etc.)
                  4.) Let's assume most of the grain we eat today is actually grain and not some GMO-monocrop.

                  Let's assume all the toxic effects of grains we hear in paleo communities don't exist. Let's assume they are completely benign.

                  They are still empty calories.

                  There is little measurable nutrition in grains. Compare any grain to steak, eggs, cheese, any fruit or vegetable, milk, fish...they're not even close. Even if they are harmless from a toxin standpoint, they provide little nutrition and little satiety. At their absolute best, they are very fattening and promote nutrient deficiencies due to the high calorie load, low levels of nutrients and low satiety. At their absolute worst, they are toxic and will cause disease overtime from a mix of toxin load and vitamin deficiencies.

                  At your absolute best, you're overweight and malnourished. At your absolute worst, you're dead from some autoimmune condition. So, why eat them?
                  Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 06-24-2013, 06:15 AM.
                  Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
                    Is it fair to draw the conclusion that grains are unhealthy because third world countries over-consume grains and they have high disease rates? No.
                    Is the situation of third world countries relevant to this discussion? No.
                    WHY is third world "irrelevant?" Are non-Americans somehow not the same humans as Americans, that third worlders are taken down by grain and their American betters are somehow immune?

                    And anyway, you don't need to go to the third world to see bad diets and grain-based obesity. Just go to the poor section of any American city where Little Debbie rules the day. Or go to any rural area where homemade (i.e. "unprocessed") pancakes and muffins, or corn grits, are seen as the staff of life. Or, go to any upscale zumba class where women eat heart healthy Special K and exercise and yet still can't seem to get rid of those extra 18 pounds. Grains, and wheat especially, are inherently bad for a variety of reasons for many people, maybe not all, but enough.

                    I reject the "in moderation" argument. William Davis, among others, see modern wheat as a mildly addictive drug. Wheat in moderation is like cigarettes are heroin in moderation -- there IS no moderation.
                    5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by oxide View Post
                      WHY is third world "irrelevant?" Are non-Americans somehow not the same humans as Americans, that third worlders are taken down by grain and their American betters are somehow immune?
                      It becomes irrelevant when you compare third world countries, who are deficient in nutrients simply due to poverty and lack of availability, to a group of people who's problem is choosing what to eat and what not to eat, with a choice. And then saying that grains are to blame for the poor health of a population is ignoring the myriad of other factors that play in.

                      And anyway, you don't need to go to the third world to see bad diets and grain-based obesity. Just go to the poor section of any American city where Little Debbie rules the day. Or go to any rural area where homemade (i.e. "unprocessed") pancakes and muffins, or corn grits, are seen as the staff of life. Or, go to any upscale zumba class where women eat heart healthy Special K and exercise and yet still can't seem to get rid of those extra 18 pounds. Grains, and wheat especially, are inherently bad for a variety of reasons for many people, maybe not all, but enough.
                      To your first point, the problem is the entire context of the diet. Overeating is a serious problem among these populations, and of course, the excess consumption of refined grains does nothing but make it worse. In your Zumba class example, I'm not convinced that grains would be the underlying problem in that situation. Just my opinion.

                      I reject the "in moderation" argument. William Davis, among others, see modern wheat as a mildly addictive drug. Wheat in moderation is like cigarettes are heroin in moderation -- there IS no moderation.
                      I think that's a bit of a hyperbole.

                      I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree. There are those who do not agree with the notion that wheat is the devil as well (Alan Aragon and Lyle McDonald come to mind). I think it's important to look at both sides of the argument. At this point, I'm not for or against the consumption of grains, I'm just trying to look at the situation from an un-biased perspective.
                      My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        The original question dealt with why people like Lyle McDonald, Rudy from Outlaw Way, and many others are NOT on the "wheat is evil" crusade...jakejoh is giving what their reasons are.

                        First of all, grains are not empty calories. Orange juice is empty calories. Candy bars....an empty calorie means that you can consume it with little to no satiety. Say what you want about eating a sub sandwich, it fills you up.

                        This is all being totally over-complicated. The reality has nothing to do with studies from 3rd world countries, or studies of much of any kind. Here is all you need to know for their reasons:
                        1) Avoiding all grains is very difficult. Try going to much any restaurant and avoiding them entirely. It takes a lot of patience and want to. Same goes for social gatherings. It can be done and I've done more than my share of "hold the bread" at a party, but it's not easy.
                        2) When you are a young male doing competitive Crossfit workouts (Outlaw Way), trying to set PR's using glycogen bumps (Lyle McDonald), or training for an Ironman, you are left with a problem...these require enormous amounts of calories. Sure, you could eat sweet potatoes (and they do), but if you can just as easily get it from a subway sandwich, have it taste better, suffer no ill effects, why wouldn't you?

                        I don't eat grains very often. Like anything else, they are a tool. They produce huge insulin responses and pack a lot of calories into a small amount, like a lot processed food does....AT TIMES, this is my goal. It's not about "What is the absolute most we can do?"....it's about "What is the minimum effective dose to hit my goals? What is ESSENTIAL to hitting my goals, and what is peripheral?" They are prob a bad idea for a newbie or someone wanting a lot of fat loss that isn't doing long fasts or super intense workouts....but calling them evil FOR EVERYONE is ridiculous.
                        Last edited by TheyCallMeLazarus; 06-24-2013, 10:00 AM.
                        "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                          First of all, grains are not empty calories. Orange juice is empty calories. Candy bars....an empty calorie means that you can consume it with little to no satiety. Say what you want about eating a sub sandwich, it fills you up.
                          I strongly disagree. Have you checked nutrition on a bag of flour? A Snicker's bar is going to knock bread or oatmeal for a loop nutritionally. If a Snickers bar is empty calories, so are grains. Besides, the context of the statement was "comparatively empty." Compare any grain to steak, salmon, eggs, cheese, milk, broccoli or pineapple. Are an of them going to hold up on a calorie-for-calorie basis? And you haven't acknowledged the high phytate content. Most of what is in a grain the body can't even use. Compare that to steak and eggs, which the body can use almost all of.
                          Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
                            I strongly disagree. Have you checked nutrition on a bag of flour? A Snicker's bar is going to knock bread or oatmeal for a loop nutritionally. If a Snickers bar is empty calories, so are grains. Besides, the context of the statement was "comparatively empty." Compare any grain to steak, salmon, eggs, cheese, milk, broccoli or pineapple. Are an of them going to hold up on a calorie-for-calorie basis? And you haven't acknowledged the high phytate content. Most of what is in a grain the body can't even use. Compare that to steak and eggs, which the body can use almost all of.
                            Comparing grains to steak and eggs is a bit ridiculous, and of course no one is arguing that someone should eat grains in lieu of protein sources.
                            My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              No, the questions that haven't been addressed are my #1 and #2.

                              I.E. This weekend was a LONG hike, which I did after fasting for 36 hours. Seeing as my basal rate is about 2900 Kcal, it is fair to say that between my fasting and hiking for 7 hours, I had created a HUGE calorie deficit. It is MY core paleo principle, and I don't care to argue it now. Fasting is human.

                              So conservatively, the fasting created a deficit of of 4300 kCal just at basal rate.
                              Then add in the hiking for 7 hours (it was actually longer, but just for the math). Using a basic calorie calculator as a guide, at 185 lbs, walking up hill half of it with 25lb pack on, that burned about 600kCal per hour. That's 4200 kCal of deficit I had created by Saturday night from hiking alone. That is 8500kCal deficit total. I am in huge glycogen deficit. Any carbs I take in are going to go to refilling it. Insulin is my friend at that moment. It is the energy gatekeeper to help me recover.

                              Now, the question is this, and it is why those people previously mentioned don't 100% outlaw grains....if I can use some grains, along with the turkey legs I made and a lot of veg (I made fajitas), to makeup that calorie deficit....AND I have no ill effects, why would I not do it?

                              Disclaimer:
                              (Saying "eat a sweet potato instead" isn't an answer. You could do that down to "eat skirt steak and green peppers for every meal". Life needs enjoyment. Taste matters.)

                              "A good teacher knows the rules. A great pupil knows the exceptions."
                              "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
                                Comparing grains to steak and eggs is a bit ridiculous, and of course no one is arguing that someone should eat grains in lieu of protein sources.
                                That's the whole point. Comparing grains to real food is ridiculous. That's the reason to eat it. They universally suck as a source of nutrition.
                                Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X