Here's the real problem. You are throwing studies at a group that proved paleo (Primal Blueprint) works one person at a time. N=1 trumps all the studies.Even if you do not particularly like the wording of my post, I highly recommend taking a look at the references. I have cited dozens of relevant studies that all too often go ignored.
I could find dozens of studies on any health subject, and quickly find dozens more to dispute those claims. When thousands of people try it for themselves and it works, studies are mostly meaningless.
I, for instance, six years ago at age 42, had fatty liver disease, high bp, high cholesterol, high trigs, gout, and high a1c/FBG. 2 years of advice to eat healthy whole grains, lean chicken, and exercise more did absolutely nothing for me--except ensure my prescription of statins would never end.
After 6 months of Mark Sisson's Primal Blueprint, I was off all meds, all markers were normal, fatty liver cured, gout never returned. My LDL is still a bit high which worries my doctor, but not me!
How about this -- in 1999, I got really interested in veganism. I spent a year researching veganism and it's relevant science, and then took the plunge. During my time as a vegan, I went soy free (since I was soy sensitive), and moved towards a mostly raw diet.
In 2001, my husband discovered the Weston A Price Foundation. There is a *lot* of science there, including science about soy, which is one of the reasons I decided not to eat it except for traditionally processed stuff, which I picked up from a local asian market that was owned by an "auntie" of mine (it's amazing the people who take you under their wing when you just ask nice questions) and didn't eat often anyway. My husband went WAPF diet, but since we didn't bake the breads, it was more like a paleo version.
In 2005-6, I became increasingly unhealthy with very low cholesterol. After running down many avenues (vegan), I ultimately decided to add in animal products (eggs, dairy). I used dairy sparingly because I'm sensitive to dairy.
In 2010, my husband developed a gut issue with our move to a more damp location. His naturopath recommended that he go grain-free. That's when we discovered paleo. Before making the switch, we did *a lot* ofnutritional research -- something that we enjoy doing.
The PB also includes scientific resources to support it's assertions.
The reason that I write all of this is because there is an underlying assumption that anyone who is living different from you and/or disagrees with your argument is either A. uneducated in general, or B. unwilling to read your research and/or hasn't read that research (or similar) before.
The reality is that I -- and many people like me -- are very interested in health and well being and do a lot of reading on the subject, including reading scientific studies *themselves* not just articles that reference scientific studies. We learn how to read them, what "red flags" to look for in terms of good/viable studies, and so on.
Many of us have been vegan or vegetarian for a time, and some of us have even been raw foodists.
And yet, in the end, we end up over here, getting articles like "for your consideration!" as if we haven't considered this information and it'll blow our minds, and then "you obviously didn't read" or "please take my references seriously" -- as if we didn't or don't do these things in general.
the truth is, that's insulting.
Yeah, I had a doctorate level nutrition course with instructor who was essentially a vegetarian/vegan proponent. To his credit he always advised a piece of meat about the size of a deck of cards each week to avoid deficiencies associated with such a diet. Point being I've seen all the "science" you could possibly imagine to promote such a lifestyle. I've tried it myself. I later researched, as zoe did, WAPF, paleo, and finally ended up with Primal.... which I would define as Paleo + WAPF - Grains and Legumes = Primal All that it comes down to is at this point and time Primal, in my opinion, offers the best evidence both biochemically as laid out by laz, and ancestrally as laid out by.... well everyone. And its absolutely what I feel best on. So I think I'll keep it up, and I know I will continue feeding my kids this way.
Your comments are typical of the type of criticism I often receive – demanding references without providing any for your many claims.
First of all I do not agree with the term the “Asian Paradox”- this was Sisson’s term. This suggests that many culture outside of Asia have not traditionally thrived on carbohydrate rich diets which is certainly not the case. The findings from the China Study and dietary habits during WWII are not the only or even the primary lines of evidence for the conclusions I have made. I am under the impression that you are trying to downplay my posts by suggesting that I did not cite these other lines of evidence, such as the findings from hundreds of randomized controlled trials.
Many of your statements are oversimplifications, such as the assertion that adding modest amounts of sugar to a starchy diet causing metabolic havoc. As I pointed out in my post, the Bedouins ate a starchy diet (from full-grain wheat) with modest to high amounts of added sugar and many of the females were not active, yet virtually the entire population was very lean and free of diabetes.
The Kuna Indians from Panama who also consume a starchy diet that is relatively rich in fruit and added sugar have also been observed to by quite slim.
Hypertension, the Kuna, and the epide... [J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI
Kempner’s rice-fruit diet which was based on rice, fruit, fruit juice and sugar resulted in weight loss in most patients.
DIETARY TREATMENT OF HYPERTENSION. CLINICAL AND METABOLIC STUDIES OF PATIENTS ON THE RICE-FRUIT DIET
In the Women’s Health Initiative the control group who were advised to lower fat intake significantly increased the intake of sugar and showed trends towards lower body weight and waist circumference. If anything there was a slight trend towards a lower risk of diabetes in the control group.
Low-fat dietary pattern and lipoprotein risk factors: the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial
Of course this is not to suggest that sugar is a health food, but does cast doubt on the suggestion that a starchy diet with small to modest amounts of added sugar will necessarily result in metabolic havoc even when caloric balance is maintained.
The association between LDL cholesterol and coronary heart disease cannot simply be explained as an innocent bystander of metabolic syndrome. Our current understanding of this topic is not simply based on cohort studies as you seem to be implying. Randomized controlled trials and mendelian randomization studies have clearly demonstrated that the association is causal. See references no. 24-30 in my post for references.
As I stated:
“A meta-analysis of 108 lipid intervention trials with a mean follow-up of only three years found that for each 10 mg/dl (0.26 mmol/l) reduction in LDL cholesterol, coronary heart disease mortality and all-cause mortality decreased by 7.2% and 4.4% respectively, independent of HDL cholesterol, triglycerides and non-lipid effects of specific interventions.27 Comparatively, a meta-analysis of mendelian randomization studies with over 312,000 individuals found that inheriting any of nine studied genetic variants that modify LDL cholesterol concentrations predicted a 54.5% lower risk of coronary heart disease for each 39 mg/dl (1 mmol/l) reduction in LDL cholesterol maintained over the period of a lifetime, independent of other major risk factors.”
You have seen many studies that show high cholesterol to be good? Did these studies control for reverse causation and regression dilution bias? It wouldn’t be all difficult to cite studies suggesting certain benefits of smoking- just look up the work of Weston A. Price Foundation honorary member William Douglas, aka Doctor Tobacco who seems to think that smoking is the best thing since sliced bread.
N=1 trumps all the studies? Is this some sort of joke? It appears that some people here are trying to extrapolate simply feeling healthy at the moment to long-term health. If studies are of little importance how is one able to tell whether a certain way of living will not increase the risk of cancer which can take many decades to develop? This just seems like wishful thinking.
Last edited by Healthy Longevity; 08-19-2013 at 08:51 AM.
I'm so confused as to your motives here HL....
I had never even heard of "the diet doctor" till you made a post, so I find nothing of use in you refuting something I haven't even based any decisions on. As to Denise.... again, not where I garner my info, although I at least recognize this person.
So you are what? Whats the point of your little escapade into Primal territory? To expose the evils of eating in a way that is sustainable, consistent with ancestral health, and seems to lead to better lab markers and a general feeling of well being?
I can remember Jaminet stating in his book that the 2006 Nurse's Health Study showed that although the "heart healthy" higher carb and lower fat group smoked less and exercised more their chance of heart attack was still 42% higher than that of the lower carbohydrate group for instance.
Most round here subscribe to the quality of carbs arbument though, so maybe your fighting your own shadow?
And as to your recent studies.... what are you trying to prove?
Hypertension, the Kuna, and the epide... [J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2006] - PubMed - NCBI .... so "The Kuna in Ailigandi reported consuming a 10-fold higher amount of cocoa-containing beverages, 4 times the amount of fish, and twice the amount of fruit".... So eat A LOT more cocoa, a great deal more fish, and a bit more fruit is the conclusion? Oooooooookay
Next we have a study from 1950 that I'd rather not take the time to read as much has been done since then.
Well best of luck to you in your fruitarian experiments .
Healthy Longevity, the blog, is quite a testament to veganism. The blog on eggs was pure gold! Cracking Down on Eggs and Cholesterol | Healthy Longevity Thanks for telling me that cholesterol in eggs will clog my arteries!
The other day, I was at the drive-thru of McDonald's when a whole caravan of Bedouins came through, there wasn't an apple pie left when they were done! But, boy were they lean and fit! Oh, wait--Bedouins don't normally eat western crap food. They must have been Kunas (or maybe Inuits) hard to tell.
So far as I can tell, Healthy Longevity, the person, simply has a gripe against meat-eaters and is taking it out on Mark Sisson. Even Mark will admit that a vegan lifestyle can be very healthy and has good instructions on how to pull it off: My Escape from Vegan Island | Mark's Daily Apple If I remember right, his wife and a kid or two are vegan.
So, what's the point? A vegan diet with enough protein is probably healthy, same as following Primal Blueprint, when they have one thing in common: near complete avoidance of refined sugar, grain, and vegetable oil.
If eating primal is going to kill me, at least I'll die looking sexy, feeling great, and having tons of energy. I never knew killing myself slowly would feel so good.
Just think I could be eating a healthy vegetarian diet again while suffering from chronic pain and fatigue, being over weight, feeling absolutely horrible. Gosh, I'm so misguided. Why did I ever start eating primal?! *rolls eyes*
Starting weight: 180lbs
Current weight 130lbs