Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Would convincing research turn you away from paleo? page 4

  1. #31
    Knifegill's Avatar
    Knifegill is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,741
    "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.
    This.


    Turquoisepassion:
    Knifegill is christened to be high carb now!
    notontherug:
    the buttstuff...never interested.
    He gives me Lamprey Kisses in the midnight sea
    Flubby tubby gums latching onto me
    For all that I've done wrong, I mastodon something right...

    My pony picture thread http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread82786.html

  2. #32
    Lady D's Avatar
    Lady D is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    London : UK
    Posts
    174
    Quote 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.

  3. #33
    Wildrose's Avatar
    Wildrose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Calgary Alberta
    Posts
    1,238
    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?

  4. #34
    Superbeast's Avatar
    Superbeast is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Denver Colorado
    Posts
    76
    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.

  5. #35
    EagleRiverDee's Avatar
    EagleRiverDee is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska
    Posts
    673
    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

  6. #36
    speednutsII's Avatar
    speednutsII is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    37
    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.

  7. #37
    speednutsII's Avatar
    speednutsII is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    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?

  8. #38
    Iron Fireling's Avatar
    Iron Fireling is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    446
    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!

  9. #39
    Owen's Avatar
    Owen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    783
    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.

  10. #40
    FrenchFry's Avatar
    FrenchFry is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    world
    Posts
    1,872
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    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 ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

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