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

Adebisi · Jan 20, 2013

supertouch_sl said:
yeah. the human body is that simple

Gotta sell books and make money amirite?

Captain Suave · Jan 20, 2013

aychamo_aycono_sl said:
I love that you ultimately call me an idiot for pointing out that you're quoting literature you don't understand. The more you reveal that you're clueless the more insulting you become. Dunning-Kruger at its finest.

I don't think you understand how debate works. If you make an assertion, you have to back that shit up withsomethingmore than an appeal to authority. Doubly so if that authority is you. "Yous is dubmz! I is doctar!" does not count. You might well be right, but by not bothering to engage the argument constructively you just paint yourself as a contrarian jackhole.

Springbok · Jan 20, 2013

I'm eating a lot cleaner since the turn of the new year - but I have noticed a MASSIVE difference in energy levels and sharpness now that I've added quinoa, brown rice, and oats back into my diet. Never called it Paleowhatever, just ate fish, chicken, and veggies/fruits. Been hitting the weights 5 days a week though and making a big push to get ripped again, and can't imagine that without some type of grain in my diet. To each his own though, certainly beats the typical American diet regardless.

shattuck_sl · Jan 20, 2013

I've been following the paleo diet for just over 2 years now. Started when I was 172 and 13.2% bodyfat (I'm 5'11). At my peak (my strictest adherence to the diet), I went down to 139 and 6.8% bodyfat. I've been less strict on average since, and am now 155 and hover around 9% bf. I've gotten my cholesterol and blood pressure checked twice since I started the diet, as well as once the summer before I started the diet, all 3 times my numbers were 'normal' in all categories according to my physician.

I'm pretty sure my age and genetics play a big factor in everything involved here (26 now, started when I was 24), but overall I'm happier on the paleo diet than I was before, if at the very least because my shits are so clean/easy and they never were before (nor are they when I stray from the diet). I save a bit of money on toilet paper which is cool, but I also look slimmer than I did before so I see no reason to stray from the diet, especially while my medical numbers are normal. Besides, I've gotten so used to the food that I don't have any desire to switch back to grains or legumes.

Aychamo BanBan · Jan 20, 2013

Tuco_sl said:
It's pretty embarrassing when a medical doctor loses a diet argument with a layman.

Captain Suave_sl said:
I don't think you understand how debate works. If you make an assertion, you have to back that shit up withsomethingmore than an appeal to authority. Doubly so if that authority is you. "Yous is dubmz! I is doctar!" does not count. You might well be right, but by not bothering to engage the argument constructively you just paint yourself as a contrarian jackhole.

I really appreciate being trolled, when I'm being quoted literature to by a fucking retard that doesn't even read what he's posting. Let's go and read exactly what he just wrote. We will be addressing the text of this study that Dashel most recently linked:http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/ea...27725.full.pdf

First, a few words on this study. This is from 2009, and the type of a study is a meta-analysis. What these studies do is define a a specific point they are interested in investigating, and then perform a literature search to find studies that address these points. Then they look at these studies and compare them to their inclusion criteria to see if the study is ok to be included in the analysis. This means that often valid studies get tossed aside, because their end points (what they are investigating) are simply not quite what the study is interested in finding. This will become important later on when I quote the actual text of the article that Dashel is too retarded to read and demonstrate why he, again, is a fucking retard.

Dashel_sl said:
Here is a link to the study pdf and here is the wholly unambiguous conclusion it comes to:

In this sentence, you state that the CONCLUSION is wholly unambiguous, and then you quote a single sentence from the DISCUSSION of the study you linked:

Dashel's study_sl said:
The conglomeration
of data from 16 studies with CHD as an endpoint and
8 studies with stroke as the endpoint showed no association of
dietary saturated fat on disease prevalence after adjustment for
other nutrients wherever possible.

However, that is NOT what the study CONCLUDED. The study actually CONCLUDED that more data is necessary with regards to the reduction of CVD risk with the replacement of saturated fats with certain nutrients such as polyunsaturated fatty acids:

The CONCLUSION of the study_sl said:
More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

Boy. That is pretty ambiguous!

So, let's look at the actual claim that I am making and what this *one* meta-analysis states about it. From the text of the very same study:

Only a limited number of studies provided data that enabled the evaluation of the effects of isocalorically replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate or polyunsaturated fat, and, as such, the statistical power was diminished for the secondary analyses restricted to these studies. Most recently, however, an analysis conducted in a pooled cohort of studies showed a lower CHD risk when saturated fat was replaced with polyunsaturated fat and increased nonfatal myocardial infarction, but not fatal CHD, risk when saturated fat was replaced with carbohydrate (24).

What this says is that within the studies that met inclusion criteria for THIS PARTICULAR meta-analysis, there were a limited number of studies that showed replacing SFAs with PUFAs results in a stepwise decline in CVD risk. This has no implications on the actual fact that multiple studies have demonstrated this safety benefit. This only has to do with the studies that met inclusion criteria for this analysis. And again, when we read the actual conclusion of the analysis, we see that they are COMPLETELY ambiguous (the word is equivocal in science, Dashel, you caveman scientist) to this, because they see that the science does actually support this, but as we'll soon see, only one such study met the inclusion criteria, therefore making statistical importance difficult.

And the next sentence is the one that explains everything:

Dashel's study_sl said:
Inverse associations of polyunsaturated fat and CVD risk have previously been reported (41, 42). Replacement of 5% of total energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat has been estimated to reduce CHD risk by 42% (43). Notably, the amount of dietary polyunsaturated fat in relation to saturated fat (ie, the P: S ratio) has been reported to be more significantly associated with CVD than saturated fat alone, with a reduced CHD risk found with P:S ratios ! 0.49 (44). Only 1 of the 21 studies that met criteria for inclusion in this meta-analysis evaluated the relation of the P:S ratio with CHD (14). No effect was seen in this study,
?
in which the average P:S ratio was ?0.4, nor was there an as- sociation of P:S ratio with CVD in the Israeli Ischemic Heart Study (U Goldbourt, personal communication, 2008). However, these studies were relatively small.

Read this carefully. Again, they explicitly state that multiple studies have shown replacing significant portions of SFAs with PUFAs results in a decline in CVD risk. Of course, this is based on how much SFA is replaced by PUFA. They explicitly tell you that this benefit is seen when the P:S ratio is > 0.49. AND THEN, they explicitly tell you that the ONLY STUDY that they happened to include in their analysis had a P:S ratio of 0.4. So they explicitly tell you that many studies have demonstrated CVD risk reduction by replacing SFAs with PUFAs in ratios > 0.49, and then tell you that (for whatever reason, I didn't pour over the inclusion criteria) the only study they included is one in which the ratio was less than what is required to gain the benefit. ONE STUDY. So of course they did not find a benefit. And if that isn't explicit enough, they even go on to tell you that the study that did not find a benefit was small, which statistically means that it is not powerful. (The power of a study is related to how many participants something has. A small study is not powerful. Please look this up and understand it.)

And the final paragraph related to SFAs and PUFAs in this analysis puts the nail in the coffin for Dashel's retardicity:

Of note, in intervention trials that have shown protective effects of reducing saturated fat, ie, the Veteran Affairs (19), Oslo Diet Heart (20), and Finnish Mental Hospital (21) studies, the calculated P:S ratios ranged from 1.4 to 2.4?values that are much higher than the threshold of 0.49 above which CHD risk has been reported to be reduced (44). Relatively high P:S ratios (1.25?1.5) were also observed in the Anti-Coronary Club Study, an early trial that showed beneficial effects of a lower fat diet (30? 32% of total energy) (45). The presumed beneficial effects of diets with reduced saturated fat on CVD risk may therefore be dependent on a significant increase in polyunsaturated fat in the diet. Existing epidemiologic studies and clinical trials support that substituting polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat is more beneficial for CHD risk than exchanging carbohydrates for saturated fat in the diet, as described further elsewhere (46).

Again, even though none of the above referenced studies were included in this analysis, the study goes out of its way to identify them as demonstrating that replacing SFAs with PUFAs decreases CVD risk. Especially read the last sentence. This is not presented as something with ambiguity. They are simply stating that the bulk of the science shows the effect that I am claiming, and that for whatever reason, those studies were not included in their analysis, which is why their conclusion of their particular analysis was completely equivocal (ambiguous.)

I hope I made that clear enough for anyone who is actually interested. I think it's a pretty succinct demonstration that even this study, that Dashel claimed was completely UNambiguous, indeed supported the very thing that he is trying to argue against, which is the very thing I am arguing for, that replacing SFAs with PUFAs in reasonable amounts results in a stepwise decline in CVD risk. I just think it's fucking hilarious that Dashel can't even read the studies he is posting.

But hey, let's go further!

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

BACKGROUND:
Substitution of dietary polyunsaturated for saturated fat has long been recommended for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but only a few prospective cohort studies have provided support for this advice.
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 was estimated with a 4-day food record and serum fatty acid composition.
RESULTS:
During the 15-year follow-up, 78 men died of CVD and 225 of any cause. Total fat intake was not related to CVD or overall mortality. Men with an energy-adjusted dietary intake of linoleic acid (relative risk [RR] 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-0.71) and PUFA (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.20-0.70) in the upper third were less likely to die of CVD than men with intake in the lower third after adjustment for age. Multivariate adjustment weakened the association somewhat. Mortality from CVD was also lower for men with proportions of serum esterified linoleic acid (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.80) and PUFA (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.50) in the upper vs lower third, with some attenuation in multivariate analyses. Serum and to a lesser extent dietary linoleic acid and PUFA were also inversely associated with overall mortality.
CONCLUSIONS:
Dietary polyunsaturated and more specifically linoleic fatty acid intake may have a substantial cardioprotective benefit that is also reflected in overall mortality. Dietary fat quality seems more important than fat quantity in the reduction of cardiovascular mortality in men.

-

Soinio M, Laakso M, Lehto S, Hakala P, Ronnemaa T. Dietary fat predicts coronary heart disease events in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2003;26:619?24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12610011

OBJECTIVE:
To investigate whether quantity or quality of dietary fat predicts coronary heart disease (CHD) events in middle-aged type 2 diabetic subjects.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:
The dietary habits of 366 type 2 diabetic men and 295 women, aged 45-64 years and free from CHD, were assessed with a 53-item food frequency questionnaire. They were followed up for 7 years.
RESULTS:
Men in the highest tertile of the polyunsaturated/saturated fat (P/S) ratio (>0.28) had a significantly lower risk for CHD death than men in the two lowest tertiles (5.0 vs. 14.2%, P = 0.009). The risk for all CHD events was 14.2 vs. 23.2%, respectively (P = 0.044). P/S ratio did not predict CHD events in women. In Cox multiple regression analyses taking into account other cardiovascular risk factors, the highest P/S ratio tertile was associated with the lowest rate of CHD death in men (P = 0.048).
CONCLUSIONS:
Low P/S ratio in men predicted future CHD events in type 2 diabetic subjects independently of conventional CHD risk factors.

-

Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, et al. Dietary fat intake and the risk of coronary heart disease in women. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1491?9.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99711203372102

Our findings suggest that replacing saturated and trans unsaturated fats with unhydrogenated monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats is more effective in preventing coronary heart disease in women than reducing overall fat intake.

-

Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Manson JE, et al. Dietary saturated fats and their food sources in relation to the risk of coronary heart disease in women. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;70:1001?8.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/6/1001.abstract

The multivariate RR for a 1% energy increase from stearic acid was 1.19 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.37). The ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fat was strongly and inversely associated with CHD risk (multivariate RR for a comparison of the highest with the lowest deciles: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.41, 0.83; P for trend < 0.0001). Conversely, higher ratios of red meat to poultry and fish consumption and of high-fat to low-fat dairy consumption were associated with significantly greater risk.

-
AND FINALLY

Jakobsen M. Major types of dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: a pooled analysis of 11 cohort studies. Am J Clin Nutr May 2009 vol. 89 no. 5 1425-1432.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1425.full

Background: Saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake increases plasma LDL-cholesterol concentrations; therefore, intake should be reduced to prevent coronary heart disease (CHD). Lower habitual intakes of SFAs, however, require substitution of other macronutrients to maintain energy balance.

Objective: We investigated associations between energy intake from monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), and carbohydrates and risk of CHD while assessing the potential effect-modifying role of sex and age. Using substitution models, our aim was to clarify whether energy from unsaturated fatty acids or carbohydrates should replace energy from SFAs to prevent CHD.

Design: This was a follow-up study in which data from 11 American and European cohort studies were pooled. The outcome measure was incident CHD.

Results: During 4?10 y of follow-up, 5249 coronary events and 2155 coronary deaths occurred among 344,696 persons.For a 5% lower energy intake from SFAs and a concomitant higher energy intake from PUFAs, there was a significant inverse association between PUFAs and risk of coronary events (hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.97); the hazard ratio for coronary deaths was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.89).For a 5% lower energy intake from SFAs and a concomitant higher energy intake from carbohydrates, there was a modest significant direct association between carbohydrates and coronary events (hazard ratio: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.14); the hazard ratio for coronary deaths was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.13). MUFA intake was not associated with CHD. No effect modification by sex or age was found.

Conclusion: The associations suggest that replacing SFAs with PUFAs rather than MUFAs or carbohydrates prevents CHD over a wide range of intakes.

Zefah · Jan 20, 2013

I'm surprised at all the hate this topic is getting here.

I've been off grains and sugar for two years now and have never felt better. It's helped me immensely health-wise.

Not only did I get down to a very healthy weight (from around 225 lbs. to around 160 lbs.) but I've been completely free of illness, migraines, runny noses, etc. I used to constantly have weird problems like that aside from the usual cold, but not anymore.

I've read a ton on the subject, and while I have no formal education in nutrition or any other scientific field, I can't say I've seen any compelling evidence in favor of low-fat/low-cholesterol. Honestly, the entire field of nutrition and how certain foods affect the human body seems very confused, for lack of a better word. It's extremely lacking in controlled human studies, but I suppose that's understandable considering the cost.

Anyway, for anyone who is unsatisfied with their health, I highly recommend cutting out grains, sugar, vegetable oils, and most processed foods. There's a lot of good information in the OP, and I think it would be foolish to dismiss it as "a fad" or "nonsense." Definitely try looking into it with as little confirmation bias as possible.

supertouch_sl · Jan 20, 2013

dude, you don't seem to understand the nature of the studies you're citing. we don't know what sources of saturated fat the subjects consumed, their macronutrient ratios, their omega-3 intake, or what kind of beverage they had alongside their big juicy steaks.

Aychamo BanBan · Jan 20, 2013

Zefah_sl said:
I'm surprised at all the hate this topic is getting here.

I've been off grains and sugar for two years now and have never felt better. It's helped me immensely health-wise.

Not only did I get down to a very healthy weight (from around 225 lbs. to around 160 lbs.) but I've been completely free of illness, migraines, runny noses, etc. I used to constantly have weird problems like that aside from the usual cold, but not anymore.

I've read a ton on the subject, and while I have no formal education in nutrition or any other scientific field, I can't say I've seen any compelling evidence in favor of low-fat/low-cholesterol. Honestly, the entire field of nutrition and how certain foods affect the human body seems very confused, for lack of a better word. It's extremely lacking in controlled human studies, but I suppose that's understandable considering the cost.

Anyway, for anyone who is unsatisfied with their health, I highly recommend cutting out grains, sugar, vegetable oils, and most processed foods. There's a lot of good information in the OP, and I think it would be foolish to dismiss it as "a fad" or "nonsense." Definitely try looking into it with as little confirmation bias as possible.

Oh, the magical "CHANGED MEH DIET< NO MORE COLDS!" crap. lol.

Dashel · Jan 20, 2013

Zefah_sl said:
I've been off grains and sugar for two years now and have never felt better. It's helped me immensely health-wise.

Good to hear. Have you ever tried adding back grains to see how you felt? I'm more than convinced on the sugar part of the equation, and all the processed foods that sugar and HFCS finds it's way into. Grains I'm sort of mixed. I definitely buy into the processed whole wheat bread being crap, bagels and most cereals etc. I'm even on board with gluten being something to be aware of. But then you get to things like rice or oatmeal and I still am thinking it might not be ideal but it's not "must avoid at all costs".

Dashel · Jan 20, 2013

aychamo_aycono_sl said:
However, that is NOT what the study CONCLUDED. The study actually CONCLUDED that more data is necessary with regards to the reduction of CVD risk with the replacement of saturated fats with certain nutrients such as polyunsaturated fatty acids

And can you piece together why more data is needed? I think it might just be because...

"The conglomeration of data from 16 studies with CHD as an endpoint and 8 studies with stroke as the endpoint showed no association of
dietary saturated fat on disease prevalence after adjustment for other nutrients wherever possible."

Always be skeptical.

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

Dashel · Jan 20, 2013

shattuck_sl said:
I'm pretty sure my age and genetics play a big factor in everything involved here (26 now, started when I was 24), but overall I'm happier on the paleo diet than I was before

That's another interesting part of all this. Up til about my mid 20's I could eat everything and anything and stay very lean. Now it takes effort. If you watch the Fathead documentary or his lecture here:http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.p...fiasco-speech/he mentions insulin resistance that build up as you age and spike your blood sugar so often.

Definitely an interesting discussion. I'll have to read more on it.

Dashel · Jan 20, 2013

More reason to be aware of what you're eating and what you're told is healthy:

http://www.preventdisease.com/news/1...-Disease.shtml

Article_sl said:
What thoughtful person would willfully expose himself repeatedly to foods or other substances that are known to cause injury to the body? Well,smokers perhaps, but at least they made that choice willfully.

The rest of us have simply followed the recommended mainstream diet that is low in fat and high in polyunsaturated fats and carbohydrates, not knowing we were causing repeated injury to our blood vessels. This repeated injury creates chronic inflammation leading to heart disease, stroke, diabetes and obesity.

Let me repeat that: The injury and inflammation in our blood vessels is caused by the low fat diet recommended for years by mainstream medicine.

What are the biggest culprits of chronic inflammation? Quite simply, they are the overload of simple, highly processed carbohydrates (sugar, flour and all the products made from them) and the excess consumption of omega-6 vegetable oils like soybean, corn and sunflower that are found in many processed foods.

Article_sl said:
Cut down on or eliminate inflammation- causing omega-6 fats like corn and soybean oil and the processed foods that are made from them.

One tablespoon of corn oil contains 7,280 mg of omega-6; soybean contains 6,940 mg. Instead, use olive oil or butter from grass-fed beef.

Animal fats contain less than 20% omega-6 and are much less likely to cause inflammation than the supposedly healthy oils labelled polyunsaturated. Forget the "science" that has been drummed into your head for decades. The science that saturated fat alone causes heart disease is non-existent. The science that saturated fat raises blood cholesterol is also very weak. Since we now know that cholesterol is not the cause of heart disease, the concern about saturated fat is even more absurd today.

Aychamo BanBan · Jan 20, 2013

Dashel_sl said:
And can you piece together why more data is needed? I think it might just be because...

"The conglomeration of data from 16 studies with CHD as an endpoint and 8 studies with stroke as the endpoint showed no association of
dietary saturated fat on disease prevalence after adjustment for other nutrients wherever possible."

Always be skeptical.

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

I'm sorry, but you're a fucking moron. This is just embarrassing for you now. You got your ass handed to you because you can't begin to comprehend what you're actually reading, and with every post you make this more and more clear. What a fucking idiot. You are completely unable to form any sort of intelligent reply that demonstrates you have any remote understanding of, well, anything that you're reading.

supertouch_sl · Jan 20, 2013

heh this guy claims to be a doctor? do half the people on this forum have fantasy internet lives?

Aychamo BanBan · Jan 20, 2013

supertouch_sl said:
heh this guy claims to be a doctor? do half the people on this forum have fantasy internet lives?

lol. I systematically destroyed Dashel's entire post, where he completely misquoted a study and used it to "definitely" draw a "conclusion" that the study in fact did not make, and in fact was not designed to draw such a conclusion. I've read your other posts in this thread, but you come across as such a moron that they generally aren't worth replying to.

supertouch_sl · Jan 20, 2013

i can create one of those. what other online fantasies are you into?

Araysar · Jan 21, 2013

hey guys, I'm a rocket scientist at NASA.

I work at the Goddard Space Flight Center.

Big Phoenix · Jan 21, 2013

You paleo guys arent consuming anything like butter, milk, olive oil are you?

Captain Suave · Jan 21, 2013

aychamo_aycono_sl said:
Informative guidance, followed by asshattery.

You were doing so well... We all learned something there when you took a break from your poo-flinging ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that you don't actually want to help anyone understand anything. You'd much rather make yourself feel superior by shitting up the thread.

Dashel · Jan 21, 2013

This is getting pathetic now aychamo. More so if you are a doctor. I dont know why it's so upsetting to you that the study I posted concluded what the study said it concluded.

Long diatribes and declarations of victory dont change the facts. I literally cut and pasted the conclusion from the study itself and you refuse to accept it. When that wasnt enough I posted the pdf with the section that spells out the conclusion. The rhetorical pretzels you're twisting yourself into to deny it is absurd. So once again, they found there is NO EVIDENCE of saturated fat being linked to heart disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox

Wiki_sl said:
The French paradox is the epidemiological observation that French people appear to have relatively low incidence of coronary heart disease, despite having a diet relatively rich in saturated fats

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7754987

Study_sl said:
We review and compare trends in coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke mortality in Spain from 1966 to 1990 and changes in food consumption at national and regional levels. Since 1976, a decrease in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in males and females has been observed, and standardized CHD mortality rates have fallen. Stroke mortality decreased during the same period. Trends in food consumption show increases in intakes of meat, dairy products, fish, and fruit, but decreases in consumption of olive oil, sugar, and all foods rich in carbohydrates. Although fat and saturated fat intakes increased, these changes were not accompanied by an increase in CHD mortality rates.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/spanish_paradox.html

Search

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

Adebisi

Clump of Cells

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

Springbok

Karen

shattuck_sl

shitlord

Aychamo BanBan

Zefah

supertouch_sl

shitlord

Aychamo BanBan

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider

Aychamo BanBan

supertouch_sl

shitlord

Aychamo BanBan

supertouch_sl

shitlord

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider