“Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions • Hacker News Board

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#151

Post by s_baby » Mon, Mar 11, 2013, 1:16 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #86

s_baby wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

My skepticism antennae are twitching Firstly it has the tang of religion - we have found the answer, it requires certain rites and adherences and we must now persuade you to believe Secondly it is highly highly unlikely an actual Stone Age person had access to the range of meat and vegetables currently in wegmans and so the question is which Stone Age diet? The one where they lived near a lake and had fish, the one w…

>My skepticism antennae are twitching Firstly it has the tang of religion - we have found the answer, it requires certain rites and adherences and we must now persuade you to believe

I'm not sure how any of this addresses the claim that carbohydrates are a major cause of disease which is the only issue my post addressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

>Finally and th biggest question to me, is why assume that so many maleases are solely or primarily diet related. Obesity is pretty obvious but asthma? Cancer even?

A transitive relationship is being inferred.

There's evidence that cholesterol plaque build-up is driven by inflammation. There's evidence that many cancers are driven by inflammation. There's evidence that insulin spikes are involved in bio-molecular cascades for driving inflammation which are also involved in diabetes. Therefore carbohydrates are involved in inflammation which predisposes a person to cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Proving anything beyond doubt in biology is difficult but it's a compelling hypothesis that needs further investigation.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#152

Post by mekoka » Mon, Mar 11, 2013, 1:17 PM UTC

Sumaso wrote: post #142

mekoka wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You're getting all this the wrong way round. When people make claims that stuff we've been eating for thousands of years (bread, cereals, grains etc.) are actually really bad for us, the burden of proof is on them. I'm not sure if this should also apply with stuff that we put inside our body. In any case, not all of us are willing to wait that long, while we obviously see problems with the status quo. I choose to…

But what he is trying to say is you don't need any fancy rules except for: >> Yes, eating lots of carbs is bad for you. So is eating lots of fatty food. Or lots of anything. Just eat lots of green stuff, and make sure you get adequate amounts of protein & carbs. To lose weight, make sure calories in By agreeing with him, you have to come to the conclusion that following the above advice is what makes any diet good. T…

I can agree with him on that specific point, but beyond that there's the issue of people he calls pseudo-scientists (who are actual scientists that do actual academic research on the topic), that are linking degenerative diseases and grain consumption. http://thepaleodiet.com/published-research-about-the-paleo-d.... That and the accompanying evidence on actual people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#153

Post by s_baby » Mon, Mar 11, 2013, 1:19 PM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #128

anthonyb wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the parent saying anything about meal timing? It's about the effect on your body of a particular meal. Carbs and sugars spike insulin much more than fats or protein.

That is an issue of meal timing. Individual meals doesn't matter. Transient insulin spikes are irrelevant, what matters is your overall expenditure vs intake.

Don't feed the trolls.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#154

Post by Selfcommit » Mon, Mar 11, 2013, 1:26 PM UTC

dalke wrote: post #105

Selfcommit wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 consi…

Your metaphor of adding wet sticks to a fire is flawed, from a thermodynamics argument. Assuming that the fire is large enough, it will dry out the wet sticks through evaporation/boiling, and the wood's total contribution to the heat ("energy out") will be unchanged. Now, of course for the people sitting around the fire, some of the heat that would be warming them up or used for cooking is instead used to force a pha…

Thanks for the links on the Hacker diet, the rubber bag concept sounds interesting, I'll check it out.

As for my metaphor - actually I think it holds very true to what you're saying. You pre-qualified that the fire be hot enough to overcome the dampness of the sticks. That's my exact point. Think of the water as insulin and the stick itself as the fat you want to burn. If you're consistently slamming yourself into insulin shock then you'll never burn fat, and you'll end up looking like most of America(Myself included). It takes very little insulin response to put our fire out.

No one is refuting thermodynamics here - simply stating that making the assumption that the body is a perfect machine (Or set at some guaranteed rate of efficiency) is a flawed outlook.

Taubes makes a great case for this in his examination of Native American Women and their children.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#155

Post by potatolicious » Mon, Mar 11, 2013, 1:28 PM UTC

jgj wrote: post #148

nqureshi wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "I for one would love proof that the diet is wrong about cereals and legumes." >> "I read reports and testimonies of people getting better on it and athletes performing on it." I think this is the wrong way round. When people make claims that stuff we've been eating for thousands of years (bread, cereals, grains etc.) are actually really bad for us, the burden of proof is on them . If anyone could actually prove t…

Paleo is not a "low carb" diet. The point of Paleo is not to reduce the number of carbohydrates you ingest; nor is it to enter ketosis; nor is the primary goal of Paleo to lose weight. You have been reading the wrong things, and I can't even imagine what lead you to believe that you could run at any serious level without ingesting carbs. The pop-fad elements of the diet that have been parroted by journalists are gene…

> "The point of Paleo is not to reduce the number of carbohydrates you ingest; nor is it to enter ketosis"

Having been curious enough to browse paleo forums (including /r/paleo most recently), this is how most adherents seem to define it.

They may be wrong, but in that case it seems the majority of the paleo community is wrong.

> "But please discontinue spreading misinformation about Paleo"

It would be nice, then, if the paleo community can first come to an agreement about what it is, because even disregarding literature "from the outside", reduction in carbs and entering ketosis is a huge focus of conversations I've seen on these communities.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#156

Post by Selfcommit » Mon, Mar 11, 2013, 1:31 PM UTC

tjogin wrote: post #72

Selfcommit wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 consi…

Taubes has been refuted so many times it's astonishing that anyone still cites him. Compelling anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron, especially when the scientific evidence to the contrary is so strong.

I've seen some work contradicting him, but would be interested in seeing something refuting him.

Your phrase "Compelling anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron" seems strange. If 5 people told me they saw my wallet outside, I'd be compelled to check, by anecdote, if I'd dropped it on my way in.

Please show me your science.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#157

Post by hawleyal » Mon, Mar 11, 2013, 1:34 PM UTC

ellyagg wrote: post #23

brd wrote: post #9

The biggest problem I have with Zuk is that the entire premise of this book is based on a straw man argument. The "Paleo" in paleo diet comes from the fact that there was a clear dip in human health once we entered the neolithic era (i.e. started farming). We are not emulating a caveman's diet per se, we are simply trying to find and remove what caused that original dip in health. To anyone uninformed about the paleo…

Indeed, it's a review by someone with an axe to grind about a book by someone with an axe to grind. I'm not a "Paleo" person, but the hinting in this article that folks trying to infer better living patterns from the past are loons is faintly preposterous. We have just mounds of evidence (which doubters are free to research themselves) that many pre-Agricultural societies had (and have, actually) far lower rates of t…

Obesity is not being heavily pressured by natural selection, only by sexual selection.

Obesity may be targeted by certain disease, but usually only after the age of reproduction.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#158

Post by Goladus » Mon, Mar 11, 2013, 1:34 PM UTC

jgj wrote: post #148

nqureshi wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "I for one would love proof that the diet is wrong about cereals and legumes." >> "I read reports and testimonies of people getting better on it and athletes performing on it." I think this is the wrong way round. When people make claims that stuff we've been eating for thousands of years (bread, cereals, grains etc.) are actually really bad for us, the burden of proof is on them . If anyone could actually prove t…

Paleo is not a "low carb" diet. The point of Paleo is not to reduce the number of carbohydrates you ingest; nor is it to enter ketosis; nor is the primary goal of Paleo to lose weight. You have been reading the wrong things, and I can't even imagine what lead you to believe that you could run at any serious level without ingesting carbs. The pop-fad elements of the diet that have been parroted by journalists are gene…

Paleo is a low-carb diet. By consequence rather than design, and it's certainly not an Atkins/ketosis diet, but the emphasis is on fish, meat and eggs. If you need to consume a standard ratio of carbs:protein:fat on the paleo diet you're going to have an oddball variation of what most people do on paleo and be eating lots and lots of squash, yams, and sweet potatoes.

Some folks can handle dairy just fine and do so. Some can eat white rice or white potatos and suffer no ill effects. Those are not outright banned by the diet.

Of course they aren't "outright banned" but potatoes and rice are exceptions to the guidelines.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#159

Post by jgj » Mon, Mar 11, 2013, 1:38 PM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #155

jgj wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paleo is not a "low carb" diet. The point of Paleo is not to reduce the number of carbohydrates you ingest; nor is it to enter ketosis; nor is the primary goal of Paleo to lose weight. You have been reading the wrong things, and I can't even imagine what lead you to believe that you could run at any serious level without ingesting carbs. The pop-fad elements of the diet that have been parroted by journalists are gene…

> "The point of Paleo is not to reduce the number of carbohydrates you ingest; nor is it to enter ketosis" Having been curious enough to browse paleo forums (including /r/paleo most recently), this is how most adherents seem to define it. They may be wrong, but in that case it seems the majority of the paleo community is wrong. > "But please discontinue spreading misinformation about Paleo" It would be nice, then, if…

I agree with you that the community at large is full of individuals looking for quick-weight-loss diet magic and that ketosis can be a fringe benefit of Paleo if you intentionally limit your carbs. But the community is not the diet, and the _majority_ of the community are, as with most diets, people following a fad insomuch as it doesn't actually interfere with their current habits. /r/paleo was a good source for a hot month or two a few years ago, but nowadays it should be called /r/bacon and its content taken with a grain of salt.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#160

Post by jbattle » Mon, Mar 11, 2013, 1:38 PM UTC

derleth wrote: post #123

cromulent wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does Miller really believe that people who eat paleo do so because the diet is from the paleolithic? People who are on the paleo diet tell me exactly that. Anyway, they seem healthier than before they started, so taking an interest in healthier food consumption seems to work for them. As you say, the outcome is the important thing. The Paleo diet may well have made the hunter-gatherers very healthy. However, as I h…

> I have already passed their life-expectancy The reason life expectancies were 35 back then was due to horrible infant and early childhood mortalities. People lived on the close order of 100 years (70-80 or so) back long before we had anything like medicine. For example: > A saeculum is a length of time roughly equal to the potential lifetime of a person or the equivalent of the complete renewal of a human populatio…

First, the age of the Roman republic was a long way from the stone age. Second, by then grain was a HUGE part of the diet, so drawing conclusions about life expectancy from Roman traditions is probably not a great example. Third, Romans didn't live that long - here are a list of emperors I could find who died of natural causes...

Augustus - 75

Tiberius - 77

Vespasian - 69

Titus - 41

Nerva - 67

Trajan - 63

Hadrian - 62

Antoninus - 74

Marcus Aurelius - 58

I'll stop there - the next century is a drag.