Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 199 posts

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#61

Post by dualogy »

s_baby wrote: post #54
dualogy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hunters and gatherers weren't obese. We are. By irrefutable inference, some lifestyle difference explains this Yeah and that difference is the sheer abundance of cheap calories. People can and did get fat when eating too many calories of Paleo (easily possible if you overemphasize the fatty meats and sweeter fruits), people can and did lean out on breads and junk-food by simply consuming fewer calories than they ex…

Not really. There's a pretty clear connection between insulin levels and weight gain. Spiking your insulin levels by eating carbohydrates will effect how calories are used for many if not all people.

I'm not denying that there certainly are such factors at play at some level, but not sure how decisive they are: I'd wager they won't make a dent if you consume 4500 calories of Paleo a day, and likewise won't if you consume 1200 calories of junk-food a day -- say for the average non-athlete rather-sedentary adult.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#62

Post by s_baby »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #56

One of the things that make me wonder is the idea that there are " diseases if civilisation" (accepted, look at increases in asthma etc) and that they are caused by diet Of all the things that exist in the modern world, lead in atmosphere, weird fungicides in our furniture fire retardants, etc, why is it the one thing that is under individual control that is the main contributor to our malease - it seems far too link…

I don't see the diet as being universally applicable but the theory behind the diet is compelling. There's an overlap in risk factors for diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. There's also an overlap in medications(e.g statins/aspirin lowering cancer risk. metformin lowering cancer risk). It's possible that all these diseases share biomolecular cascades.

http://robbwolf.com/2012/03/09/paleo-diet-inflammation-metfo...

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#64

Post by hmbg »

s_baby wrote: post #54
dualogy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hunters and gatherers weren't obese. We are. By irrefutable inference, some lifestyle difference explains this Yeah and that difference is the sheer abundance of cheap calories. People can and did get fat when eating too many calories of Paleo (easily possible if you overemphasize the fatty meats and sweeter fruits), people can and did lean out on breads and junk-food by simply consuming fewer calories than they ex…

Not really. There's a pretty clear connection between insulin levels and weight gain. Spiking your insulin levels by eating carbohydrates will effect how calories are used for many if not all people.

Without having done much research I also find it easy to imagine that the sedentariness of the paleo-people where, on average, a lot less than of people nowadays.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#65

Post by s_baby »

dualogy wrote: post #61
s_baby wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. There's a pretty clear connection between insulin levels and weight gain. Spiking your insulin levels by eating carbohydrates will effect how calories are used for many if not all people.

I'm not denying that there certainly are such factors at play at some level, but not sure how decisive they are: I'd wager they won't make a dent if you consume 4500 calories of Paleo a day, and likewise won't if you consume 1200 calories of junk-food a day -- say for the average non-athlete rather-sedentary adult.

There's a reason Atkin's diet is so popular. It's because it's extremely effective at shedding weight. Sure there might be a point at which you're gaining weight due to the fact that it's an astronomical amount of calories and there are going to be differences in biology but over-all people find eliminating carbs will cut the weight even if they don't cut calories.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#66

Post by kbenson »

tjogin wrote: post #53
kbenson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cavemen didn't have that luxury. Do we know that? I thought there was some research indicating the hunter-gatherer societies actually had to devote rather little (comparative) time to gathering sustenance.[1] Is there some research I should be aware of that refutes this, or at least asserts more information as to a likelihood one way or the other? [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

If they were obese it's because they had a caloric surplus (I doubt it). The laws of thermodynamics applied then, as they do now.

I thought it was rather obvious I was looking for justification as to why you thought cavemen didn't have the luxury of caloric surplus.

You already made it clear that you more than doubt they they had that luxury, you definitively said they did not. Again, the question is why?

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#67

Post by Selfcommit »

tjogin wrote: post #53
kbenson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cavemen didn't have that luxury. Do we know that? I thought there was some research indicating the hunter-gatherer societies actually had to devote rather little (comparative) time to gathering sustenance.[1] Is there some research I should be aware of that refutes this, or at least asserts more information as to a likelihood one way or the other? [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

If they were obese it's because they had a caloric surplus (I doubt it). The laws of thermodynamics applied then, as they do now.

Your assumption about the laws of thermodynamics predicates that the "Energy out" part of the equation is not somehow effected by the type of "Energy in" (Adding wet sticks to a fire will not produce as much released energy as adding dry sticks or gasoline soaked sticks)

The general argument about carbs or any food with high glycemic response is that these foods are like adding "wet sticks" to the fire. There's considerable science and anicdote to support this.

If you're interested (And not simply not throwing around pithy sound bytes about physics) check out: Why we get fat (And what to do about it) By Gary Taubes (http://garytaubes.com/)

For some very compelling anicdotal evidence (That also supports some concepts of Paleo) check out http://www.reddit.com/r/keto

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#69

Post by riffraff »

olefoo wrote: post #51
dualogy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hunters and gatherers weren't obese. We are. By irrefutable inference, some lifestyle difference explains this Yeah and that difference is the sheer abundance of cheap calories. People can and did get fat when eating too many calories of Paleo (easily possible if you overemphasize the fatty meats and sweeter fruits), people can and did lean out on breads and junk-food by simply consuming fewer calories than they ex…

It's not even the Paleolithic that had a 'better' diet; sugar production in industrial quantities didn't happen until the 19th century and High Fructose Corn Syrup [1] didn't become a staple of the human diet until the second half of the 20th century. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup

> High Fructose Corn Syrup [1] didn't become a staple of the human die until

AFAICT HFCS didn't become a staple of human diet, it just became important in the US, the rest of the world still uses _way_ more sugar than HFCS (e.g. a 60:1 rate of production in the EU).

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#70

Post by jib »

Does it matter that much if it is correct or not? Some amount of people are eating healthier because of it. That's a good thing, right? Whether that is due to a link to history or coincidence it seems like a good thing.

To me "is it doing something we know is bad" seems like something that would be useful to know. I don't care so much about "is it historically correct". I'd gladly trade that for even 100 people eating better. Pragmatically, it seems like a decent diet, so let's figure out how to get more people to eat healthier instead?

Post reply on HN