No announcement yet.

Would convincing research turn you away from paleo?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    "Research" will come out that will try to be used to prevent people from slipping out of their web of tyranny, but it's all bullshit propaganda, so, pay it no heed.
    Crohn's, doing SCD


    • #32
      Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
      You can't really argue against the idea of eating real food. Nothing will come out that convinces otherwise.
      Ah, I wish that was true mate, but look at the huge sales of saccharin in the 70's, supposedly healthier than sugar, then aspartame, now it's sucralose... in my childhood it was veg margerine that replaced real butter, sadly people WILL still buy dodgy chemical muck if they're sold on its supposed "health benefits" and especially if there's a hint it will help them lose weight.

      The fad in the more natural-food oriented communities over green tea, at the start of the millenium, then goji berries, and various superfoods that are either manufactured or were never eaten in those quanities in their place of origin is little different.

      I think each generation likes to think it's "doing" food and nutrition better than the last in recent decades, and hence falls for any old tosh. JMO.


      • #33
        No. I would rather die a little sooner than weigh 100 lbs more again. Besides, wouldn't the mortality risk of being extremely overweight even it out anyway?
        Out of context quote for the day:

        Clearly Gorbag is so awesome he should be cloned, reproducing in the normal manner would only dilute his awesomeness. - Urban Forager


        • #34
          I trust my results... "Research" has proven time and time again to be based on lies, greased palms, and political bullsh*ttery...

          Better to live well for a short time than to merely exist for a long time.
          Eat like a Beast, feel like a Beast!
          Eat from a huge bag of processed junk... Well... You know.


          • #35
            No. I know that I feel better when I eat paleo style. I know that I have less inflammation, less illness, lose weight more easily, and have more energy. If I were to find out that the trade-off is that I would die 10 years earlier, I would still do it because I'd rather have 70 years of feeling energetic and healthy than 80 years feeling like crap.
            High Weight: 225
            Weight at start of Primal: 189
            Current Weight: 174
            Goal Weight: 130

            Primal Start Date: 11/26/2012


            • #36
              Most large scale trials are funded by an industry or by the government. Industries have obvious biases. The government's biases, however are more subtle. Do you think, if I was a well known biologist or physician, the NIH would fund my study entitled "An analysis of the USDA Food Pyramid recommends as a control versus Hunter-Gatherer foods: A 20 year study showing increased rates of cancer, diabetes, heart disease in a traditional USDA diet?" Probably not.

              It's an easy study to do. It's a hard study to fund. Instead, we see a lot of studies done in mice or flies that seems not to be all that interesting to humans necessarily but are eye opening nonetheless. However, the industry, juuuuust like it did with this study, will say "Well, it's a study done in mice so we don't really know how that applies to humans." I think if you look around at the average everyday American, you already know how it applies to humans...just saying.


              • #37
                Life expectancies have only increased over the last few years because of the quality and technology involved in end of life care. More people survive heart attacks, strokes, birth, infections, etc. We have tremendous resources for keeping people alive in the final years of their life (i.e. ICU's, life support, etc). The reason, for example, that hunter gatherer life expectancies are 30 to 45 years isn't because they die off early. It's because of their high infant mortality rates. Human birth is dangerous and a lot can go wrong for both the mother and the baby. With our modern medicine, we've been able to reduce risk by A LOT. In fact, it's well known that in Hunter gatherer societies, the average life expectancy of those who reach the age of 20 is actually 60 years of age. I know, still sounds low right? If you lived in an environment with infection and trauma just a moment away and no way to get to a hospital or doctor, you'd be in trouble.

                I guess the real question is: how many hunter gatherer who've reached their 60's have to be careful about stepping on a rock because they could get a diabetic foot infection?


                • #38
                  I would find out WHY paleo gave those results and modify to suit. I will never believe that eating real food is bad for you!

                  However if it was shown very low carb was dangerous, I'd just eat more paleo carb etc.

                  The point with real food is that it's entirely possible to have very different food combinations and ratios. I can't imagine that anything would convince me that CW is healthier!


                  • #39
                    I'm not sure what research could convince me. I don't think there will be any, but I follow research which regularly 'modifies' my views on diet - starches being the main example. But the fundamental principle of nature vs processed food is not going to be altered because nature is paramount - it made us, including all of the researchers. We're never going to be as clever as nature.
                    Healthy is the new wealthy.



                    • #40
                      I don't know ... there was some research 50-60 years ago concluding that animnal sat fat was a health evil ... most believed it and today, things are shifting. The thing is that when they did that research, I don;t think they asked people if they felt crappy after they ate some sat fats. If they had asked, maybe people would have replied just like posters in this thread ...