Apparently there is a tonne of research against our diet, and a tonne of research for our diet. So why is mark right? When one doctor ("help debating with vegans" thread) says eating meat is bad, why do we not believe him? Obviously a doctor would do some sort of research before making such a bold statement. I also noticed that no one really replied to that thread with a real answer, just "ignore them" answers. One day theres a study that comes out saying something is bad, the next theres a study that says its good. How do you decide who or what study to believe? why cant the world get its shit straight and figure it out? So what makes mark right and what makes everyone else wrong? What makes primal research right and all other research wrong? AND, if all this other research is wrong, why is it wrong and why are the people doing these studies trying to destory the world? You have to assume these studies are being done for the greater good, so why would they, mark or anyone else, lie?
because mark has a Ph.D. in Cool
You're going backwards. You want to start with common sense. What do wild humans eat? What have they eaten for essentially all of their existence as a species? Animals and plants. So what should you feed your human? The same. It's true for any captive animal. The closer you replicate its natural diet, the healthier it is. Science and numbers can all be screwed with to support or disprove anything you want. Research is all biased, and just correlation at best. Always start with common sense.
You don't need to prove that flies fly.
I totally get your dilemma. As a grad student, myself, I have come to this place where I've realized that you will always find seemingly reliable research that will completely contradict other reliable, but opposite research. In the end there's very few sure conclusions or facts, there's only evidence that can be made to support whatever you want it to support. You're asking a truly complex question about the way the knowledge is made and legitimized that has been debated through history and I think will forever be debated by scientists and philosophers.
As for Mark, I don't know if the research he comes up with is "correct" or the "right" research. I know that he looks at research with a critical eye and is always shifting his views as new evidence comes to light. You don't have to listen or believe Mark, in fact, he often says not to and to make up your own mind.
At this point, I personally listen to Mark, because when I implement what he suggests (not demands) it usually works. The evidence to support his claims appears in my own life.
I would actually love to see some of the pro-paleo/primal medical research. There's got to be some out there.
I was a vegan for a long long time, and I thoroughly believed everything the vegan guru MDs stated. But I after 12 years of doing that religiously, even progressing to a low-fat raw vegan for the last year of it, I still was still overweight, and I got really ill. Me switching back to eating meat was kind of my way of throwing my hands up in the air and giving up. But I knew I couldn't go back to eating any old crappy stuff that was out there, and that's sort of how I found primal. But it was interesting, from that very first meal eating meat again, I felt WAY better. And I started losing weight again too, despite eating all the stuff that the vegan industry had brainwashed me into believing would kill me.
I think Primal-JoJo is absolutely correct when she says that there are very few real facts in the nutrition field. It's incredible to me how both sides use the same evidence to support their positions. I think how food interacts with our body is a very complicated issue, and scientists just haven't really figured it out yet.
So I think the short answer to your question is that you have to do what feels right to you, for your own particular body. If you thrive and feel great eating a certain way, then do it! If you're not thriving, then try tweaking some things until you do feel amazing. It really is as simple as that.
Why does anybody have to be wrong? I have friends that are vegans. They run triathlons and rock climb and hike and bike and are phenomenally fit and healthy. I tried to eat vegetarian for six months and my hair fell out. I then started having to jump through all kinds of hoops to get my protein intake up where my body needed it to be. They don't have that problem. I do.
I have gone very low carb, but have a hard time sticking to it. I need more variety than JUST meat. But I thrive on a low carb diet. As a matter of fact, I just figured out today that even a tad too much fruit sugar leaves me feeling washed out and tired. I also know that grains make me feel crusty. I am probably fine with dairy, but I don't miss it, so what is the point?
It makes sense to me that grain derived foods might not be that great for us. But maybe large swaths of the population tolerate them better than others. You will never convince me that the prevalence of corn and corn derivatives in the American diet is a good thing.
I also have a hard time believing that meat is bad for you. Maybe meat AND grains is bad for you. But I have seen too many good results on low carb diets, including lower cholesterol, to think that meat alone is a problem. Maybe grain fed meat is a problem. Maybe meat and a white potato is a bad idea. Or meat and rice. Whatever.
I didn't just automatically trust Mark. I read what he was saying and it seemed to make sense. I knew I could eat a plate full of cake (more than one, frankly) but I could only eat so much straight butter. You know, maybe I could eat a whole stick if I really wanted, but I've eaten an entire cake in a day before.
I had read other books before that had kind of pointed to the same things. It's not a completely new idea. I mean, why wouldn't it make sense to eat whole foods? The only thing I couldn't accept on pure logic was eliminating most grains. But I tried it and saw a huge improvement in my life, so it was logical too.
So... no, I didn't just accept what Mark said over what someone else said. It had to make sense, and then it had to work for me. And it has.
[QUOTE=Kingofturtles;880565]Apparently there is a tonne of research against our diet, and a tonne of research for our diet. So why is mark right? When one doctor ("help debating with vegans" thread) says eating meat is bad, why do we not believe him? Obviously a doctor would do some sort of research before making such a bold statement. I also noticed that no one really replied to that thread with a real answer, just "ignore them" answers. One day theres a study that comes out saying something is bad, the next theres a study that says its good. How do you decide who or what study to believe? why cant the world get its shit straight and figure it out? So what makes mark right and what makes everyone else wrong? What makes primal research right and all other research wrong? AND, if all this other research is wrong, why is it wrong and why are the people doing these studies trying to destory the world? You have to assume these studies are being done for the greater good, so why would they, mark or anyone else, lie?
This is a great question. Why 10,000BC and not 100,000BC? Simply because we supposedly started to domesticate plants and animals? Why? Why not go back more? Legumes and grains are being dug out from graves in between 3rd and the 6th cataract of Nile which is now Sudan dating to paleolithic times. Isn't that indicative that we consumed grains? For sure they are not the same species or strains what we cultivate today but the same applies to domesticated cow.
These are the reasons why I am having second thoughts about the whole paleo premise. A lot of it is a supposition and speculation what constituted a diet 10,000BC.
I have no qualms with paleo lifestyle questioning current industrialized, processed food but you don't have to follow the paleo lifestyle in order to eat unprocessed food. There are lots of other people following different diets and eating unprocessed food. You don't have to look ripped to prove that your diet works. You can find images of ripped poster boys following any kind of diet and specially when there is a commercial gain.
Can one be healthy without all the muscles pronounced?
I am yet to find peer reviewed research showing that this diet is the healthiest diet out there. I am not the one to say it is a good or bad diet or lifestyle. It seems that it works for some and it doesn't for others, just like omnivorism, flexiterianism, veganism, vegetrianism, pescaterianism etc etc. So why would you believe Mark and not others, I have no clue!
I haven't been convinced but I am not disregarding this lifestyle yet. I want to give credit to all diets and deduce for myself. Do yourself a favor and engage in forums that support other diets. I don't want to cling to one diet thinking that this is it. There is enough evidence in the ongoing debates not only in this forum but all the others that the consensus of a perfect diet does not exist.
I (not telling you that you shouldn't, it's your choice) don't want to believe someone who sells me a primal powder.
I am yet to see any independent research correlating that paleo lifestyle is the optimal lifestyle. All I have seen so far are the claims by the people who profit from propagating it. How different is this from people who are propagating and profiting from veganism or other diets for that matter?
By the way, I have no health problems, I am here out of sheer curiosity. I have never been overweight so I am not about to drastically change my diet. Perhaps those who are facing health issues latch onto anything that could possibly alleviate their problems.
A lot of anecdotal evidence here to my chagrin but I enjoy reading most of it.
[QUOTE=KathyH;880686]By the way, I have no health problems, I am here out of sheer curiosity. I have never been overweight so I am not about to drastically change my diet. Perhaps those who are facing health issues latch onto anything that could possibly alleviate their problems.[/QUOTE]
Something rubs me the wrong way about how that was said. I suspect it's not that people with health problems are gullible and will "latch on" to whatever's out there, but rather that they are more inclined to try experiments to see what makes them feel better. As you admittedly have no health problems, you may not understand the awfulness of not being well on a day-to-day basis. For myself, after years of staunchly believing what the science does officially say got me absolutely nowhere, so it was time for a change. It's still approached in a completely reasonable manner, and it's not at all that I've just latched onto the next fad. :-/