Paleo 101: How and why you should eat like a Caveman

aychamo_aycono_sl said:

Jesus fuck you're stupid. Butter isn't "good fat." I can't believe the rank idiocy in this thread.

(I can't wait for you to quote another study that you didn't bother reading, only so I can read it for you and make you look like a blithering idiot again.)

Laaksonen DE, Nyyssonen K, Niskanen L, Rissanen TH, Salonen JT. Prediction of cardiovascular mortality in middle-aged men by dietary and serum linoleic and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:193-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15668366

Observational_sl said:

METHODS:

We assessed the association of dietary linoleic and total polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) intake with cardiovascular and overall mortality in a population-based cohort of 1551 middle-aged men. Dietary fat composition wasestimatedwith a4-day food recordand serum fatty acid composition.

CONCLUSIONS:

Dietary polyunsaturated and more specifically linoleic fatty acid intakemayhave a substantial cardioprotective benefit that is also reflected in overall mortality. Dietary fat qualityseemsmore important than fat quantity in the reduction of cardiovascular mortality in men.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

We looked at some guys food records for 4 days?

Look up confounding variables and observational studies, doctor.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...cience/308269/

He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies?conclusions that doctors keep in mind when they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for heart disease or back pain?is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. His work has been widely accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field?s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences.

Click to expand...

But he noticed that doctors seemed to proceed in much the same manner even when it came to cancer, heart disease, and other common ailments. Where were the hard data that would back up their treatment decisions? There was plenty of published research,but much of it was remarkably unscientific, based largely on observations of a small number of cases.

Click to expand...

BrutulTM_sl said:

I don't doubt for a minute that any of that stuff is true, but that also doesn't mean that jumping on some feel-good fad diet is smart or rational when it's based on not much of anything aside from a romantic story about cavemen.

The idea that medical science is flawed so you should follow a diet that isn't based on science is a non sequitur.

Click to expand...

It is based on nutritional science the question is who do you believe. Do you believe for example that as Dr Aychamo says butter is "bad fat"? Do you buy the saturated fat > higher cholesterol > heart disease? If so how do you explain the lack of consistency in that theory? The French eat 4 times the butter we do in the US but have far less incidence of heart disease. Same in Spain:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7754987Heart disease has been going down but they have increased meat and dairy consumption and decreased sugar and carbs.

People who have heart attacks do not uniformly have high cholesterol, not even close. The man who formed the Lipid Hypothesis based it on the results from 7 countries that fit his model and ignored others that didnt.

Nutrition science in my opinion is full of bullshit and contradiction. You should question Paleo and everything else, but for Dr Rolex to come in as if he knows... he fucking knows you noobs, that people are dumb for challenging his bullshit observational studies is a joke. Same people that gave us this nonsense:



As for jumping on a fad diet, you imply blindly: from my OP:

OP_sl said:

Why should I try this?

In my view everything should be treated with both skepticism and an open mind. This is no different. If you have said to yourself "I need to start eating better", then this might be worth your while.

At the very least, the idea of eating whole, unrefined, unprocessed foods wherever possible has absolutely worked for me. Paleo brings that ideal and adds some other layers on top: No grains (various reasons), no sugars, no dairy, no legumes. I can't say if any or all of those are necessary to anyone, but I am compelled enough to try.

Click to expand...

Adebisi_sl said:

I ate a bowl of cheese balls Honey Boo Boo style last night, and ran 8km in 0 F weather. Lost a pound.

Fuck your caveman bullshit diet.

Click to expand...

you'realreadydead.gif

Sterling_sl said:

Talking about Europeans eating more butter and being healthier doesn't take into account overall diets and generally healthier lifestyles. If you eat more butter but less overall shitty processed food you might be better off overall but that doesn't make butter suddenly into ambrosia.

Click to expand...

Similarly if you're going to tell me butter will kill you, or like the Time cover eggs will kill me, and we find a group who eats more butter and they are doing better than we are in the area you target, why should I believe you?

This is the problem with observational studies. These people ate more saturated fats and had higher instances of heart disease, but hey look, they ate more sugar and white flour too. Confounding variables. Clinical studies will try and keep all variables the same and change just one to test.


Ambrosia.