Anti research and contrary messages
So much of the Paleo science makes sense to me, and then I see a clip like this which gets me concerned. Shouldn't science be more black and white? I.E. Paleo is what works, or vegan is what works, or cotton candy is what works. Why are there so many conflicting studies and conclusions when humans are all basically the same?
I'm relatively new to this and appreciate any insight, thanks!
it's hard for science to be black and white. humans are basically the same, but we do have our little differences. those differences, of course, are often matters of opinion, and opinion easily guides research. even if unbiased research is done, interpretation of data can be presented in a way that supports a specific opinion.
so what works the best? that's not an easy question to answer. both paleo or vegan will generally make a person lose weight, get healthier, be happier, etc.
the better question to ask is, what works for me? and that's something you need to figure out. if the science of ancestral health makes sense to you, give it a try for a while and see what your results are.
obviously, most or all of the people here are going to support a primal lifestyle. i've done the low fat thing and had some success on the scale, but going primal was what really improved my whole life. plus, even while eating higher fat and lower carb, i still stay in the normal range on all the blood tests and things that generally favor a low-fat diet.
As the saying goes, "Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything."
Originally Posted by primalrob
I appreciate your feedback and perspective primalbob. I'm glad you saw favorable results and I'm hoping for the same. I just hope I don't hit the deck from cardiac arrest in the process, lol.
you shouldn't. remember, not only has this way of life been beneficial for millions of modern humans, but it is the same food that humans survived on for the two million years before agriculture started. the real trick is to never eat the hype. low-fat advocates talk about paleo like everyone is sitting around eating jars of saturated fat; people in ancestral health look at vegans as frail, jiggly and weak. the fact is, all the people interested in health have more in common than they realize, but people only talk about the differences. people agree on the important stuff: eat whole, unprocessed foods with lots of colors. if that means you eat more fat than some doctors would like, big deal...you're also eating less sugar, no sodium, nothing refined. your heart is going to love you for that.
Originally Posted by usarmyretired
So well said! Eating properly, whether with a primal or vegan focus, will yield benefits vs. shopping in those dreaded middle isles of the store with all the processed crap. I'm very good at avoiding processed food (except maybe sausage or bacon), and I love lots of veggies. For the most part I'm no where near the SAD.
Originally Posted by primalrob
Thanks again for your input!
My first reaction was "Works for what?" I have one way of eating that works great for digestion (no gluten), another that works great for digestion (high starch including some grains),and brain alertness (protein, fat) great for nasal allergies (no grains), great for gyn issues and makes my dentist happy (low carb), great for losing weight (lower fat), great for hiking up a mountain and managing food cravings (higher fat, protein) etc.
So since grains/gluten are my major problem, then any number of diets that avoid gluten - raw vegan/juicing, primal/paleo, low carb - would fix something for me.
Second, not a whole lotta science in that clip - humans have cute ears and noses unlike dogs/cats with acute hearing/smell therefore we are not predators? A hawk can catch a mouse, but humans just catch colds? A kitten will pounce on a bunny but a human baby will try to pet it? A silica gel packet has the words "do not eat" on it because humans are indiscriminate and will eat anything? He said it himself: he sewed someone's ribs back on after an autopsy, then went to the cafeteria for lunch where they were serving...ribs. Not with science, but with being grossed out.
I did a pubmed search for Dr. Barnard's publications with diabetes and vegetarian as keywords. All of the clinical research publications looking at vegan diets compared outcomes to ADA diet, which people here would call CW that doesn't work. Also, I couldn't tell what people what the two groups were actually eating. He did have one case study, which describes a patient with a family history of myocardial infarction . After 29 months on Atkins (we don't know what he ate as he did not keep a diary), his total cholesterol and LDL went up, and he developed erectile dysfunction and sharp chest pains. Is this n=1 sufficient science to make black and white statements about veganism and health?
Genetics plays a factor. From the obvious ones like lactose intolerance to others like caffeine processing, genes make us process foods differently. So that muddies the waters during experiments when they don't control for genes.
Also, personally I notice my body responding differently during winter versus summer. So, again, if they don't control for that it muddyies the waters again.
Also, there's often a large difference between what the scientific report says and what the journalist reports. I remember one article that said saturated fat caused type II diabetes. An MDA member posted a link to the actual journal article and in the discussion the scientist had said that you couldn't draw the conclusion that the fat had caused the diabetes as it may have been the refined carbs in the diet. Also, the fat was soy oil, which is very different from other sat fats.
That's why I like Mark's site so much because he does that detective work for us. He write with a rare clarity.
OP, I can totally relate to what you are feeling. My own journey back to health started when I learned about pink slime. There was so much contradictory information, that at times I wanted to cry from the frustration of trying to figure it out.
The PB was so logical and so right minded, and best of all, it resonated with much of the stuff I knew had worked for me in the past. Lower carb than CW, though I don't aim for ketosis. The emphasis on good animal products. The idea that one meal a day isn't just for freaks. Exercising for health rather than destroying one's body by over-conditioning. And the new stuff for me (no wheat, legumes, soy) was easier than I thought, though goddess help me, I've had dreams about brie cheese and sourdough baguettes.
In the end, by taking what had worked for me in the past (food journals/calories), and almost everything PB advises (I get about 50% of my calories from fat rather than 70%), I put together a very healthy, varied eating plan that I can live with and never feel deprived. And though I'm not retired yet, I'm within sneezing distance, so I really did need to get my shit together.
"Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine
The "reversing diabetes" video doesn't show you where his followers end up long term. Yes that program may temporarily reverse diabetes but it's not the whole story.
Going from a diabetic diet of fast food and soda, to mostly vegetables as he describes, creates a high volume/low caloric density meal plan. Since you can only eat so many raw eggplant slices (with no fat!) at a time, the followers are in constant caloric deficit and burn body fat. (likely hungry and low energy though) So far so good, they are losing weight.
Once they reach a more natural body weight, they no longer have gratuitous fat stores to draw on, and likely develop hormonal issues from a lack of cholesterol and saturated fat. They may become hungrier as they no longer have a huge energy reserve on which to draw. So they reach for high carb foods (still low fat) and remain at the mercy of insulin spikes and weight gain, or constant hunger and no energy. All the while likely eating insufficient protein to maintain significant muscle mass.
His methods (in the video) may work temporarily but IMO are akin to starvation methods.
If I was obese I would try to walk, eat paleo foods to satiety, and learn to lift heavy.
Our bodies are governed by hormones not the cuteness of rabbits nor the lack of massive incisors.
What amuses me most is his explanations of how inept humans would be at hunting; how slow, and unable to detect prey we are. I suppose our unique intelligence, our ability to simultaneously run and carry tools, communicate details, and predict future events wouldn't possibly have given any advantage to our ancestors. If all we are good for is eating plants, why are our heads so far from the ground?
Atlatl - YouTube
Tags for this Thread