Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 80

Thread: Validity of Paleo/Primal? Wheres the evidence? page

  1. #1
    Jester123's Avatar
    Jester123 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12

    Validity of Paleo/Primal? Wheres the evidence?

    Primal Fuel
    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 at 12:23 PM.

  2. #2
    Winterbike's Avatar
    Winterbike is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    512
    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.

  3. #3
    MvEssen's Avatar
    MvEssen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utrecht, Netherlands
    Posts
    256
    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.

  4. #4
    Lewis's Avatar
    Lewis is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,316
    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

  5. #5
    primalrob's Avatar
    primalrob is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    2,142
    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.

  6. #6
    HillsideGina's Avatar
    HillsideGina is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    517
    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.

  7. #7
    Mike Gager's Avatar
    Mike Gager is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Topeka, Kansas
    Posts
    1,067
    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

  8. #8
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,463
    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 at 10:33 AM.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  9. #9
    Orchid's Avatar
    Orchid is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    347
    Paleo is not a diet; its a problem/question. You have to be satisfied with not being satisfied.

  10. #10
    Waskydiver's Avatar
    Waskydiver is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    131
    Quote 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?

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •