You are viewing the community [info]paleo_health

Paleolithic (Hunter/Gatherer) Health & Fitness
On Contrary 
29th-Aug-2007 12:15 am
Gaga
Firstly, I am a nutrition student. And I am glad that I was given this opportunity to do research review my textbooks, and to learn more for my upcoming semester, so thank you. I am not a vegetarian. 

Secondly, our life and lifestyle is extremely different then our “hunter/gatherer ancestors”. So different, that eating like them would not miraculously deliver a slim body (low BMI), nor great health. So this diet is based on our ancestors from the Palaeolithic era: extending from 2.5 million years ago to 10,000 BCE. Nobody really knows if they were actually healthy, or if they had a low body weight. As well as, they died significantly younger then the average age of today, and when they died they died because of “old age”, rather than heart disease or diabetes or cancer.

The diet suggests to primarily eat animal products, concertrating on meat (as the conjured up pyramid symbolises). The fat in our meets are mostly saturated, and cholosterol. Saturated fats are mostly directed to heart disease, and a plant based diet has been showen to have a decreased risk of heart disease1. A meat based diet may lack vitamin A and C, folate, fiber and calcium. Fiber is only found in plants because it is from the cellulose from plants. Vitamin A is often forified in pasterized milk. Folate is critical in women before and during her pregnancy years. On the contrary a vegetarian diet may lack iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin B12, and vitamin D. It is important to note that vegetables and fruits contain less calories per portion size, due to the compact energy in meat1.

Part of the paleolithic diet suggests that we should eat very little vegetables to limit our consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), I expect that they also disagree with the consumption of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), but now where in this diet description it talks about that. So, the PUFAs and the MUFAs are “essential” to our diets, meaning the nutrients must be consumed. The the article The Skinny on Fats it mentions that these fatty acids are linked to health problems because they “become oxidized or rancid when subjected to heat, oxygen and moisture as in the cooking process”. This is true, if you over heat the oils beyond their smoking temperature, even butter has a limit, where it becomes oxidized and toxic, it is also true when one does not take the proper measures to keep the oils in a cool, dark place. Unfortunately, once the oil starts its oxidizing process, there is no way to stop, slow it down, nor reverse it, and the best way to protect yourself is to throw the product out. So if one takes the preventive measures then it is safe. People who eat plants based diets are showen to have a decreased risk of heart disease1. As well vegetables, contain less calories per gram.

Cholesterol is made naturally in the liver, thus it is not essential for the diet. When a person consumes a meal high in cholestrol, the liver stops producing its choloestrol to keep the body at homeostasis. Apparently, cholosterol has to have a large portion of a malnourished person because it will protect the individual from a tendency of heart disease and cancer2. This is untrue because heart disease is not prevealent in vegetarians, and they eat very minimal cholosterol since it is only found in foods that are from animal products. Another point that should be adressed is if an individual is malnourished, then the appropriet measures will not include pumping cholosterol into the blood stream.

Here are some statements that, according to my knowledge and my textbooks are wrong.

An excerpt from Skinny on Fats:
"If, as we have been told, heart disease results from the consumption of saturated fats, one would expect to find a corresponding increase in animal fat in the American diet. Actually, the reverse is true. During the sixty- year period from 1910 to 1970, the proportion of traditional animal fat in the American diet declined from 83% to 62%, and butter consumption plummeted from eighteen pounds per person per year to four." 

(I couldn’t find direct stats on the usage of butter, but I talked to a few older people, and they said this:) The butter consumption decreased as most people switched from butter to margarine, which is a plant based oil, that has been hydrogenated to become solid at room temperature. Hydrogenation changes the chemical structure of the fatty-acid molecules. The hydrogenated plant oil molecules are then called a “trans fatty acid”. Trans fatty acids, along with saturated fatty acids, are “correlated with increased risk of heart disease because they increase blood cholesterol levels by altering the way cholesterol is removed from the blood”1. Another thing is that fat intake, according to my source, says that it has decreased from 45% of total energy intake in 1965 to 35% of energy intake in 1995. But this doesn’t say that we are eating less fat (in both sources), because we are eating 15% more calories overall. This proves that the amount of fat in the diet in grams, hasn’t decreased, but actually increased1! Some statistics from www.statcan.ca 

Table 4. Foods and drinks accounting for most calories from “other foods,” household population aged 4 or older, Canada excluding territories, 2004
Food/Drink % of “other food” calories
Soft drinks ....................................................11.3
Salad dressing .............................................9.4
Sugars, syrups, preserves .........................8.7
Beer................................................................. 8.2
Fruit drinks......................................................6.1
Vegetable oil, animal fats, shortening ...5.8
Margarine .....................................................5.3
Chocolate bars ............................................4.8
Potato chips .................................................4.7
Butter .............................................................3.9
Note: Excludes women who were pregnant or breastfeeding.
Data source: 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey: Nutrition.


Another excerpt from The skinny on fats:
"In a multi-year British study involving several thousand men, half were asked to reduce saturated fat and cholesterol in their diets, to stop smoking and to increase the amounts of unsaturated oils such as margarine and vegetable oils. After one year, those on the "good" diet had 100% more deaths than those on the "bad" diet, in spite of the fact that those men on the "bad" diet continued to smoke!"

So, after one year 100% of people on the diet died, thus everybody died? IF they all did die the main cause would be from the increased consumption of trans fats.


Some thoughts and extras:
~Obesity is the highest reason for heart problems, so a meat eater or a vegetarian who is obese, have an equal risk of having heart problems.
~If cholesterol and saturated fats are bad for you then why is there huge movement towards trying to eat minimal? So with the statements from in the Palaeolithic diet, it is contrary to what most of the dieticians and government personnel think.
~I was reading the ‘article’ “Skinny on Fats”, but I had to stop so I wouldn’t be confused with fallacies and vague statements. I would NOT suggest anyone to read it. I would suggest you to go to “google => scholar” and research journal articles that are peer-reviewed and scientifically proven.
~Worst of all, is that no where in Skinny on Fats does it mention a specific cancer. This would be important information because some cancers have been shown to develop by certain foods, and prevented/protected by others.
~I could go into how the PUFA and MUFA oils are good for you, from Omega -3 and Omega -6 fatty acids. Into which foods are natural remedies to prevent against heart problems and cancers, and which cause them. Into HDL and LDL cholesterol, and how to get HDL, and maintain it.
~If you have any questions, I will try to help you. 
~I wouldn't say this diet is impossible, but it is dangerous, especially if you only are going to excersise for 1/2 hour each day. You would need to excercise more (lol, our ancestors did!) too keep your HDL cholesterol high. 

Sources:
1 - Understanding Nutrition, 10th addition, by Ellie Whitney and Sharon Rady Rolfes
2 - The Skinny on Fats: http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html
Comments 
29th-Aug-2007 05:34 am (UTC)
I tried to read most of this but don't know if I got all of it. Most people I know who have had cholestorol problems who have went on a low carb diet, have improved their cholestrol number. I am overweight but even at my highest I did not have any cholestrol issues.

And while i understand the argument regarding the paleo diet, "We don't know if our ancestor's were healthy, or if the diet was condusive to longevity", But what is the alternative? Highly processed food, in particular highly processed grains, fats, sugar substitutes(high fructose corn syrup etc). We know for a fact that the alternative is dangerous and is a major factor in the rise in obesity.

I don't think eating a paleo diet is dangerous. I just don't understand how one could come to that conclusion.
29th-Aug-2007 12:17 pm (UTC) - the reason
The reason that people on low carb diets don't have cholesterol probems is that their bodies production of cholesterol drops and ther ratio of hdl to ldl improves. For those of you whith a physiology text book look up carbohydrates, blood sugar and cholestrol production. Dietary carbohydrates increases the bodies production of cholesterol. The amount the body can produce far out does the amount that anyone would normally consume.
30th-Aug-2007 01:29 am (UTC) - Thank you and welcome!
Thank you for all of the study resources, and welcome to the community. Intrigued by your ID, I took a gander at your profile and have learned that you're a massage therapist and fitness trainer. Would you share a bit more about your experiences with diet and fitness, both your own and that of the people you help? I am particularly interested in interval training and what (if any) your experience has been with it.

Again, thank you for the resources and welcome!

-Laurie
31st-Aug-2007 11:12 am (UTC) - Re: Thank you and welcome!
I use interval training as a common part of most of my fitness programs. Usually I do it to increase a cleint's comfort level with a higher level of exertion. Sprint until you can't then switch to a light jog until you can talk again then sprint etc. The intervals are not set, I go my exertion. After training that way for just a short time my client's find their cardio performance increases when not doing the interval training. Mentally they become accustomed to the increased exertion and bingo they work harder all the time. It is kinda rough at the begining, but hey it gets you there quicker.
31st-Aug-2007 03:47 pm (UTC) - Interval training...
Do you have an opinion about the data emerging that it seems to be a more efficient way to exercise? It appears to apply somewhat universally to different types of exercise, from resistance training to walking. Have you ever seen the benefits that proponents claim aside from pushing someone to a higher fitness level? Those claims are that metabolism is raised higher and for longer, over non-interval training routines- and that fat loss is increased as much as three-fold as well.

There is evidence that working out past the point where glycogen stores are depleted, and forcing the body to dip into fat stores (as we've been told for decades we should do) actually has the effect of conditioning our bodies to store more calories (rather than less) as fat due to the expectation that fat will be needed frequently for energy. What is your take on this idea?
31st-Aug-2007 04:04 pm (UTC) - Re: Interval training...
Actually if you want the most efficient way to exercise, so high weight low rep weight lifting in the morning as soon as you get out of be.

Human growth hormone increases muscle hypertrophy substantially. After age 18-22 we only produce human growth hormone during rem sleep and it soon fades out of our system, especially if you have anything to eat. So if you work out right away in the morning you tend to build more muscle mass quicker. The more muscle mass the more calories are burned through out the day (increased metabolism).

Funny enough the old texts on yoga and chinese martial arts say that you should work out in the morning before sunrise, and before eating, because your energy (chi/prana) is the highest...
Smart peoples...

The increased intensity of interval training also tends to help develop muscle quicker..

There is a lot of conflicting information about the relative value of different types of exercise on fat metabolism...basicly we don't know for sure yet exactly what is best. Anytime I see conflicting information in well designed studies I consider the possibility that there are different genetic responses. So the studies may be conflicting because people have different responses.

I will do some more digging on the topic thanks for firing up my brain...

29th-Aug-2007 12:14 pm (UTC) - hmmm
I forsee an interesting conversation..

I will post a longer response later...but in the mean time you might want to read this review article

here is the abstract

Cardiovasc Hematol Disord Drug Targets. 2007 Jun;7(2):87-97.Links
Overview of dietary influences on atherosclerotic vascular disease: epidemiology and prevention.

Thomas GN, Cheung BM, Ho SY, Macfarlane DJ, Deng HB, McGhee SM, Woo J, Lam TH, Tomlinson B.
Department of Community Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. gneilthomas@yahoo.co.uk
Most dietary recommendations are based on studies of limited power and do not adequately reflect the current knowledge base, particularly with regard to effects of diet on clinical outcomes, the most important endpoint from the patients' perspective. In this review we discusses the current state of dietary research, and present a summary of the evidence upon which to base dietary recommendations and guidelines for atherosclerotic vascular disease prevention. We also highlight the complexity and limitations of interpreting current diet-based epidemiological studies in isolation.
PMID: 17584043 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
29th-Aug-2007 01:57 pm (UTC) - another quick thing to think about
here is another peer reviewed study, published in the journal of diabetes care, showing that a low carb diet actually reduced the risk factors invovled in CVD for people with type 2 diabtes

Diabetes Care. 2002 Mar;25(3):425-30.
Links
Effect of a high-protein, high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2 diabetes.
Parker B, Noakes M, Luscombe N, Clifton P.
CSIRO Health Sciences and Nutrition, Adelaide, Australia.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a high-protein (HP) weight loss diet compared with a lower-protein (LP) diet on fat and lean tissue and fasting and postprandial glucose and insulin concentrations. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Replacing dietary protein for carbohydrate (CHO) during energy restriction and weight loss has been effective in sparing lean mass and improving insulin sensitivity in obese subjects but has not been tested in subjects with type 2 diabetes. We compared an HP diet (28% protein, 42% CHO, 28% fat [8% saturated fatty acids, 12% monounsaturated fatty acids, 5% polyunsaturated fatty acids]) with an LP diet (16% protein, 55% CHO, 26% fat [8% saturated fatty acids, 11% monounsaturated fatty acids, 5% polyunsaturated fatty acids]) in 54 obese men and women with type 2 diabetes during 8 weeks of energy restriction (1,600 kcal) and 4 weeks of energy balance. Body composition was determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at weeks 0 and 12. RESULTS: Overall, weight loss of 5.2 +/- 1.8 kg was achieved independently of diet composition. However, women on the HP diet lost significantly more total (5.3 vs. 2.8 kg, P=0.009) and abdominal (1.3 vs. 0.7 kg, P=0.006) fat compared with the women on the LP diet, whereas, in men, there was no difference in fat loss between diets (3.9 vs. 5.1 kg). Total lean mass decreased in all subjects independently of diet composition. LDL cholesterol reduction was significantly greater on the HP diet (5.7%) than on the LP diet (2.7%) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Both dietary patterns resulted in improvements in the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk profile as a consequence of weight loss. However, the greater reductions in total and abdominal fat mass in women and greater LDL cholesterol reduction observed in both sexes on the HP diet suggest that it is a valid diet choice for reducing CVD risk in type 2 diabetes.
PMID: 11874925 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
29th-Aug-2007 02:12 pm (UTC) - one more quick abstract for the road
one more

won't reprint the whole thing..don't want to be annoying

nt J Food Sci Nutr. 2007 Jun;58(4):321-9. Links
Moderate-carbohydrate low-fat versus low-carbohydrate high-fat meal replacements for weight loss.

in the conclusions section it stated
"the Low Carbohydrate group showed the greatest improvements in serum cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, and very-low-density lipoprotein"

hmmm wonder why the low carb dieters had lower serum cholesterol than the low fat dieters...

institutions move like icebergs..as more and more studies are done the textbooks will change.
the mayo clinic and harvard medical schools diets have already been altered to reduce carbohydrates...

things just move slowly

I've worked with clients doing all sorts of diets over the last ten years, atkins, zone, protien power, weight watchers, mayo clinic you name it

4 times my clients Mds have flipped out because of the rapid weight loss and low cholesterol levels found while on a low carb moderate to high fat diet...

when a doc sees weight loss and low cholesterol they think cancer...but nope it was just the diet..the md's were confused because their training tought them that if you eat bacon, red meat etc the cholesterol will always go up...not down...

After cancer was ruled out in one client her doc actually said "you cholesterol is too low try eating more fats" She responded "but I eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, and steak or brats for dinner most weeks" We just increased her carbs and bingo at the next check up her serum cholesterol was up...

gotta love pubmed for finding the latest research..

29th-Aug-2007 02:46 pm (UTC) - reply part 2

So with the statements from in the Palaeolithic diet, it is contrary to what most of the dieticians and government personnel think.
[...]
I wouldn't say this diet is impossible, but it is dangerous,


Dieticians and government personnel aren't biologists and doctors. The fact is that the two things we DO know about how the body deals with fat are:

1) The conversion of energy to body fat, or the conversion of body fat to energy, is controlled by blood sugar level, which is most directly influenced by carbohydrate consumption.

2) Dietary Fat does not become Body Fat.

Both of these are utterly uncontested by any biologist or doctor who analyzes low carb diets, whether they support those diets or not. They are well tested, well researched, and well understood mechanisms of our biology.

Everything else about how the body might suddenly become fat, have difficulty losing fat, etc. ... all of that is _speculation_. We have studies that suggest correlations, show tendencies, but none that gives a specific cause and effect mechanism.

So, we don't know which dietary practices are actually causing problems or free of problems. We have correlations, but because we don't know all of the complex mechanics that go into the diet and weight loss, we not only don't know which variables are controlling the process, we don't even know what all of the variables _are_. Therefore, the correlations might be looking at the wrong variables and mechanics. That's why correlations are suspect and not considered to be concrete and reliable "cause and effect".


Which gets to: you dieticians and government personnel not only aren't the people who are experts in the subject at hand (biologists and doctors are), even the experts can't tell you the ultimate effect of a paleo diet (or a low carb diet in general) over a conventional diet.


So, in conclusion:

1) your math and statistics skills are severely lacking. You can't do the simple arithmetic that goes behind your claims about 1965 caloric intake vs 1995 caloric intake, and you don't know what "100% more" means in even the most simple interpretation of statistics. People who don't know basic math shouldn't be trying to prove their points with numbers and statistics.

2) you're making authoritative claims about human biology, and trying to back them up not with science, but with the correlations and misinterpreted statistics. Doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence in the "authoritative information" that you seem to think comes from "dieticians and government personnel".


I'll stick to what doctors and biologists tell me about the human body and its mechanisms, over what dieticians and government personnel say, thanks.

29th-Aug-2007 02:48 pm (UTC) - reply part 1
Another thing is that fat intake, according to my source, says that it has decreased from 45% of total energy intake in 1965 to 35% of energy intake in 1995. But this doesn’t say that we are eating less fat (in both sources), because we are eating 15% more calories overall. This proves that the amount of fat in the diet in grams, hasn’t decreased, but actually increased1!

It proves no such thing.

Lets assume starting with a 2000 calorie diet.
45% fat of 2000 calories = 900 calories from fat.

You say we're eating 15% more calories these days. That's 2300 calories total, times 35% of our diet being fat these days: 805 calories.

No matter what number value you start with, 2000 calories, or anything else, the mathematics doesn't support your claim. You have .45x in the starting condition, and .35 (1.15x) in the finish condition. .35 (1.15 x) = (.35 * 1.15)x = .4025x ... No matter what number you pick as the caloric intake of 1965, .4025 times that number will always be less than .45 times that number.


"In a multi-year British study involving several thousand men, half were asked to reduce saturated fat and cholesterol in their diets, to stop smoking and to increase the amounts of unsaturated oils such as margarine and vegetable oils. After one year, those on the "good" diet had 100% more deaths than those on the "bad" diet, in spite of the fact that those men on the "bad" diet continued to smoke!"

So, after one year 100% of people on the diet died, thus everybody died? IF they all did die the main cause would be from the increased consumption of trans fats.


The study says the good diet had 100% _more_ deaths, not 100% deaths. That means twice as many people on that diet diet as the number of people on the other diet. Not all of them, just twice as many.

Further, you have NO basis, from the information given, to form your conclusion that their deaths were from trans fats! Nothing. Your finishing claim in that statement literally comes out of thin air!


Secondly, our life and lifestyle is extremely different then our “hunter/gatherer ancestors”.

Which is completely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make. What's relevant is: have our _bodies_ changed.

Quick: tell me how much human biology has evolved since the time that we were hunter gatherers.

And: how much of that evolution is specifically related to the necessary diet of the human body?

Don't generalize. Don't waive your hands. Give me concrete biological answers.

The fact is that our bodies haven't changed that much, and if the body hasn't changed, then your claim about lifestyle does more to support the paleo diet than refute it.

The claim you should be making is that hunter/gatherers had shorter life expectancies than modern humans. But you can't pin that difference on diet. Sure, there's a correlation between the rise in life expectancy and quality of nutrition ... but during that same time frame we also have a dramatic change in medical technologies and the career focus. Maybe we live longer and grow taller is because less of our body's energy during our developmental years is spent fighting disease, and going off to work in careers that are incredibly taxing on the body.

I'm not suggesting changes in nutrition play _no_ part, but what I am saying is: no one has a cause and effect, concrete, explanation for why we live longer than hunter/gatherers. Therefore, no one has a concrete, cause and effect, explanation for how the paleo diet will or wont impact the human body. They just have correlational data.

Government personnel and dieticians might find that good enough, but actual scientists know better.

(end part 1)
29th-Aug-2007 02:50 pm (UTC) - Re: reply part 1

Sorry, part 1 followed part 2 because of an editing mistake that made it hard to see which things I quoted (things in bold) vs which things I wrote (not in bold).

Sorry for the confusion.
29th-Aug-2007 03:43 pm (UTC) - Re: On contrary (1)
Wow! You weren’t kidding when you said you’d have a lot to share! *chuckle* I’ll do my best to address as many of your points as I can. The comments don’t offer as much room as the primary posts allow, so this will need to be broken up as even your post alone is twice the size as what’s allowed in comments. In order to maintain the continuity of the thread, I’ll ask that you wait until I’m done with the entire comment before responding. Though having it ready to go never hurts!

Before continuing, I'd also like to stress that this community isn't a weight-loss or diet community. Diet is only one of the topics we discuss here.

"Nobody really knows if they were actually healthy, or if they had a low body weight."
We know quite a bit actually. From studying an individual’s bones we can estimate how much they weighed with a great deal of accuracy, we can see bone lesions, arthritis and tooth decay. Paleo-man’s bones show no sign of disease or decay.

”--they died significantly younger then the average age of today, and when they died they died because of “old age”, rather than heart disease or diabetes or cancer.”
It is believed that they died primarily from accidents and from predator attacks. Very few wild animals ever get to reach “old age”. They also lived approximately 1/3 longer than their farmer descendents. There are many more factors involved in longevity than simple diet.

”The diet suggests to primarily eat animal products, concertrating on meat (as the conjured up pyramid symbolises).”
No, it doesn’t. I’m still trying to find a more representative food pyramid, but if you read through the description of the types of foods eaten, you’ll see that a paleo-diet (at least the one we’re discussing in this community) isn’t “primarily” meat at all. The idea is to eat foods the way nature provides them- organic meats from pasture-fed cows, free range poultry and fish from uncontaminated waters (with their full fat content in tact) are part of that diet but not the bulk of it.
”--a plant based diet has been showen to have a decreased risk of heart disease1”
While I can appreciate that you are citing a nutrition textbook (one that has an 11th edition out now as well), textbooks tend to be “repeaters”, meaning they repeat the same information that has been repeated from the MDs that has been repeated from the researchers that has been repeated from the drug companies and food industries that are funding the studies. I’m not saying that your source is unreliable, but I’d prefer to see the studies the claim is based on because I cannot find any myself that support it.

I will offer this though, in studies published in the early and mid-1990s it was found that the French have one of the highest per capita consumption of meat, yet have low rates of heart disease. In Greece, meat consumption is higher than average but rates of heart disease are low there as well. Finally, in Spain, an increase in meat eating (in conjunction with a reduction in sugar and high carbohydrate intake) led to a decrease in heart disease.” (from S Renauld and M DeLorgeril. Wine, alcohol, platelets, and the French paradox for heart disease. Lancet, 1992, 339:1523-6.; (b) TLV Ulbright and DAT Southgate. Coronary heart disease: seven dietary factors. Lancet, 1991, 338:985-992; (c) L Serra-Majem and others. How could changes in diet explain changes in coronary heart disease? The Spanish Paradox. Amer J Clin Nutr, 1995, 61:1351S-9S.)

I just don’t do foot notes, lol. I could also go into modern-day hunter-gatherers like the Maasai, who until recently ate only animal products in the form of blood and milk, and whose health is now suffering since introducing grain into their diets, but they are referenced ad nauseum.
1st-Sep-2007 01:57 am (UTC) - Re: On contrary (1)
isn’t “primarily” meat at all. The idea is to eat foods the way nature provides them- organic meats from pasture-fed cows, free range poultry and fish from uncontaminated waters (with their full fat content in tact) are part of that diet but not the bulk of it.
O.M.G!!!!!
that CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You should REALLY change it then!!!
1st-Sep-2007 02:11 am (UTC) - Re: On contrary (1)
--k well it doesnt change EVERYTHING. and on the info page it says to eat less polyunsaturated fats. and when there is a 1 OR 2 beside a word. its a citation. and the number matches the source of where it came from. skinny on fats has many errors according to what i have learned. Pretty much what you are argueing .. is that i have learned is biased?.. and i should take it as a grain of sault? .. i didnt take stats, thus not understanding them completely.. so i probably shouldnt have used it as an arguement. so i take that 100% death thing out.
1st-Sep-2007 02:40 am (UTC) - Regarding citations, paraphrasing and bias...
SF,

I've been reading research articles and studies for years, I know exactly what a citation is. *grin* I understand that you are paraphrasing from The Skinny on Fats- but I don't know what it is that you're paraphrasing there. You seem insulted that I didn't understand, but I promise I'm not poking fun in any way. It is a genuine request for clarification.
"---on the info page it says to eat less polyunsaturated fats---"
It did, yes.. but it also said that it includes a diet high in vegetables. Still, I edited the info page yesterday so it more clearly states that this is in reference to liquid vegetable oils. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
"---skinny on fats has many errors according to what i have learned---"
We understand that that is your position, but you have yet to offer any evidence of these "errors". We are all her to teach and to learn. Please share the study-source of your contention so that we may learn from it.
"Pretty much what you are argueing .. is that i have learned is biased?.. and i should take it as a grain of sault?"
You may wanna shoot me for asking- but what do you mean by this? Are you asking if it is our position that what you are learning is biased? Before I go into that I'd like a clarification. Nothing like investing a bunch of energy into the answer to a question that wasn't really being asked, lol.
3rd-Sep-2007 03:31 am (UTC) - Re: On contrary (1)
The best learning occurs when the student engages in self study and questions her instructors. There is emerging research in the field of nutrition, that can be found by reading the peer reviewed academic journals (pubmed).

There are several review papers (where a professor reviews the current research studies and papers on a topic), which question the utility of population based studies. Relying on double blind animal studies is probably a better way to determine the effects of different nutrients.

People can argue all day about epidemiolgy studies and reach no satisfactory conclusion. When there are double blind human studies which show that a low carb/high fat diet causes weight loss and improves the hdl to ldl ratio the "common wisdom" should be questioned...

You might wwant to begin to use pub med to find papers, then get your professors opions of the papers. You will learn alot more about the subject and also learn which professors encourage discussion and independant thought and which ones just want to get through the day..

1st-Sep-2007 02:16 am (UTC) - Re: On contrary (1)
In a post here about two weeks ago you posed a question to us about the composition of a "paleo" diet. I answered in part-
"I've been searching for a food pyramid that better represents a paleo-diet ideal. Currently we don't make any recommendations about serving size or number of servings because the focus is on the composition more than the quantity. A paleo diet utilizes few or no grains, lots of nutrient-dense vegetables, fruits, nuts and berries and is rich in naturally raised animal foods including red meat, organ meats, fats and minerals drawn from the bones in the form of broths, etc."
You already knew (In fact you knew before your post in this thread) that the image was not representative of the diet ideals we discuss here. You also knew that the diet isn't primarily meat. Why are you responding as though it is news to you?
8th-Sep-2007 04:14 pm (UTC) - Food pyramid graphic...
SF,

Even though I made a general announcement on the main thread, I'm sending you a quick note here (as this will go to email as a response to your comment) to let you know that the food pyramid graphic on the community info page has been edited. I hope this assuages some of your concerns.

I hope too that you continue participating in the discussion here, even though we have different views, we're all trying to be healthier and we respect your position and value your input.

-Laurie
29th-Aug-2007 04:10 pm (UTC) - Re: On contrary (2)
“A meat based diet may lack vitamin A and C, folate, fiber and calcium. Fiber is only found in plants because it is from the cellulose from plants. Vitamin A is often forified in pasterized milk. Folate is critical in women before and during her pregnancy years. On the contrary a vegetarian diet may lack iron, zinc, calcium, vitamin B12, and vitamin D.”
Again, a paleo-diet isn’t a “meat-based” diet. Fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds are also very valuable components. A Paleo-diet couldn’t possibly be fiber or vegetable nutrient deficient.

”---paleolithic diet suggests that we should eat very little vegetables to limit our consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids.”
Hell no! Please explain how you drew that conclusion so that I may adjust the wording, etc on the info page. The way to limit consumption of polyunsaturated fat is to stop adding liquid vegetable oils to our diets. Vegetable oils are a fractured food, not a whole food. Paleo-man would not have had access to enough grain to squeeze out the oils.

The issue with fat consumption is in the ratio of Omega 3s to Omega 6s. When one eats a whole food diet, including the pulyunsaturates naturally occurring in vegetables and in many meat items, the ratio is much closer to the recommended 1:1 or 1:2 (depending on who you ask), not the anywhere from 1:15 to 1:50 that is currently in the American Diet. Americans are not getting these oils from animal foods. (Did you know that the fat in poultry skin is primarily polyunsaturated?)
” [“---fatty acids are linked to health problems because they “become oxidized or rancid when subjected to heat, oxygen and moisture as in the cooking process”. This is true, if you over heat the oils beyond their smoking temperature, even butter has a limit, where it becomes oxidized and toxic, it is also true when one does not take the proper measures to keep the oils in a cool, dark place. Unfortunately, once the oil starts its oxidizing process, there is no way to stop, slow it down, nor reverse it, and the best way to protect yourself is to throw the product out. So if one takes the preventive measures then it is safe.”
If one avoids the oils altogether they are even safer. The idea here is that the paleo-diet should be a no-brainer. The fats contained in meat already exist there- they are whole. The liquid fats pressed from grain are not. Flaxseed oil is so highly perishable that it must be refrigerated in a light-proof bottle- walnut and olive oil aren’t far behind. That says something. Most people I know buy their oils in a gallon jug and they sit on a shelf in their cabinets. When deep-frying they use them over and over, and it isn’t the smoke point that begins the oxidation, it is accelerated from the moment it is heated. Canola is the new “wonder oil” but many don’t even realize that it is naturally partially hydrogenated. Edible Oil doesn’t have to show that on the label because they didn’t do the hydrogenating.

A slab of beef tallow will keep for many months without an airtight container or refrigeration.

” Apparently, cholosterol has to have a large portion of a malnourished person because it will protect the individual from a tendency of heart disease and cancer2”
I’m not sure what you’re saying here, is there a typo or maybe a missing word? If not, would you rephrase it please? I think you are quoting from an article but without quotation marks I can’t tell what you’re saying and what the article is saying.
1st-Sep-2007 02:01 am (UTC) - Re: On contrary (2)
Anonymous
--” Apparently, cholosterol has to have a large portion of a malnourished person because it will protect the individual from a tendency of heart disease and cancer2”
I’m not sure what you’re saying here, is there a typo or maybe a missing word? If not, would you rephrase it please? I think you are quoting from an article but without quotation marks I can’t tell what you’re saying and what the article is saying.--

its called paraphrasing. and its from the stupid article Skinny on fats
1st-Sep-2007 02:22 am (UTC) - Re: On contrary (2)
Hrrmm... It's not necessary to be snarky or sarcastic. I understand that you are paraphrasing but I can't find the specific part of the article you are referring to and I'm asking you to clarify it by either rewording it, or by sharing more. Perhaps you could copy and paste the paragraph into a reply here so that we may see what you were paraphrasing.

I'm glad to see you posting here again- I was afraid we may have scared you off. Thank you... -Laurie
1st-Sep-2007 02:44 am (UTC) - Re: On contrary (2)
<
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<high [...] area.>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<<High serum cholesterol levels often indicate that the body needs cholesterol to protect itself from high levels of altered, free-radical-containing fats. Just as a large police force is needed in a locality where crime occurs frequently, so cholesterol is needed in a poorly nourished body to protect the individual from a tendency to heart disease and cancer. Blaming coronary heart disease on cholesterol is like blaming the police for murder and theft in a high crime area.>>

1st-Sep-2007 02:53 am (UTC) - Ahhh, OK...
I absolutely LOVE that analogy and have used it many times when sharing information on cholesterol.

The authors are saying that the body produces more cholesterol when it is in a constant state of inflammation brought on by trans-fats and high levels of Omega-6. Though one could say that another way to say "poorly nourished" is "malnourished", they have a slightly different connotation and I suspect she'd have used malnourished if she meant the swollen-bellied third-world kind of malnourished. We know that cholesterol has anti-inflammatory and protective properties. When the body needs more, it makes more, and so her analogy is exceptionally eloquent. Do you have source-studies that refute this?

I would invite you step away from your textbook for a little bit and into the world of current scientific study. Take a peek around, you'll find that it isn't nearly as cut and dried as you may think.
29th-Aug-2007 05:19 pm (UTC) - Re: On contrary (3)
” Another thing is that fat intake, according to my source, says that it has decreased from 45% of total energy intake in 1965 to 35% of energy intake in 1995.”
The fact that total fat has increased while saturated fat has decreased really only further proves the point that saturated fats are not the culprits. In order for that to happen, the amount of vegetable oils in our diets had to have skyrocketed. The statistic you quote in the table below arrives at it’s number with a combination of fats rather than breaking it down into animal and vegetable. You have mentioned your source a few times, would you share it with us? Mary Enig, the co-author of The Skinny on Fats has a PhD in lipid-biochemistry. It sounds like you are saying that you know better about how the body metabolizes fat than she does. Is your source also a lipid biochemist?
” So, after one year 100% of people on the diet died, thus everybody died? IF they all did die the main cause would be from the increased consumption of trans fats.”
*laughing* I can see how this would be confusing, as I used to wonder how statistics like these could possible make any sense. But this is what it means. If one group had 10 deaths, than the other group had 20- it had ten more than the other group, or %100 percent more. Or another way to put it would simply be to say they had 200 percent as many deaths as the first group. See how that works?
”~Obesity is the highest reason for heart problems, so a meat eater or a vegetarian who is obese, have an equal risk of having heart problems.”
According to the American Heart Association the risk factors look like this:
Increasing age
Gender (men are at higher risk)
Heredity
Smoking
High Serum Cholesterol (though we know it’s about a high LDL/low HDL)
Hypertension
Inactivity
Type II Diabetes
Stress
Alcohol Use
They don’t even mention obesity as a separate risk factor. Of course, we know that many people with heart disease are also obese, but keep in mind that a risk-factor is not necessarily causal. The fact that many people with CHD are also obese doesn’t mean that obesity causes CHD. It more likely means that whatever diet and lifestyle choices a person is making that are causing the CHD, they are also probably causing obesity.
29th-Aug-2007 05:21 pm (UTC) - Re: On contrary (4)
”---it is contrary to what most of the dieticians and government personnel think”
At one time doctors prescribed cigarettes to their patients- and who gained? Tobacco. At one time government agencies disseminated information to doctors to advise new mothers to bottle feed over breastfeeding. (Formula) At one time we were told to replace saturated fats in our diets with trans-fats. (Edible Oil) At one time we were told that it wasn’t the sugar in our diets, but the fat (Big Sugar & Packaged Food) and we now have an epidemic of insulin resistance and type II diabetes. We’re also currently being told that it’s so important to lower serum cholesterol that we should take statin drugs to get it down (Pharma), even though all studies show that even when they get it down and sometimes decrease the incidence of CHD, overall they increase total mortality. Many are also still being told to drink milk for strong bones (Dairy) and you probably know as well as I that increasing pasteurized dairy does just the opposite. We don’t know something until we know it. That it takes awhile for the larger population to catch on is hardly an argument against it.
” I was reading the ‘article’ “Skinny on Fats”, but I had to stop so I wouldn’t be confused with fallacies and vague statements. I would NOT suggest anyone to read it.”
There are complete citations at the bottom of the article, including those that studied the cancers they mention. I’ve read those studies myself. Have you?


”---especially if you only are going to excersise for 1/2 hour each day.”
This community doesn’t promote limiting exercise to 1/2 per day. (Though thank you for reminding me to reword that on the info page- you’re not the first person to misunderstand it) It promotes (discusses really) limiting each workout to 1/2 hour at a time. Anyone who wishes to do this 3 times a day- more power to them. But for the individual that is looking to maximize the time they have allotted to physical activity, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that when you go past the half hour mark in a single work out, you actually condition your body to save calories as fat.

I want to thank you for putting so much thought and energy into replying here. I hope we've offered some food for thought for you as well.

30th-Aug-2007 01:07 am (UTC) - I made an error...
"---according to my source, says that it has decreased from 45% of total energy intake in 1965 to 35% of energy intake in 1995. But this doesn’t say that we are eating less fat (in both sources), because we are eating 15% more calories overall. This proves that the amount of fat in the diet in grams, hasn’t decreased, but actually increased!"
I originally read those numbers inversely, and since I make it a practice not to read other comments once I begin commenting myself, I didn’t notice until I read [info]johnkzin’s comments. He does make a very valid point.

As he wrote, if we assume that the average Canadian person (the stats are from Canada) consumed 2000 calories in 1965 then it can be calculated from there. His figures could also be displayed this way-
(1965)- 45 percent of 2000 calories= 900 calories from fat (0.45 x 2000=900)
Fifteen percent of 2000 calories is 300 calories and so we will assume that the average person ate 2300 calories in 1995. Given that we have this calculation-
(1995)- 35 percent of 2300 calories= 805 calories from fat (0.35 x 2300=805)
So in Canada in 1995, even though people ate 300 more calories per day, ninety-five fewer calories came from fat. The statistics in The Skinny on Fats article quote values from the American diet. I cannot say how it might vary from a Canadian diet. But we know that in the American diet, people are eating far less saturated fat than they did at the turn of the century- and yet CHD is still on the rise. Therefore, there is no direct correlation between saturated fat consumption and CHD.
30th-Aug-2007 01:57 pm (UTC) - epidemiological studies and finding good peer reviewed studies
Epidemiological studies (those based on populations), are unreliable. There is no assurance that there is a causitive link in the trends observed. Personally I stick to the peer reviewed double blind studies.

From the frist paper I cited in this discussion
"In this review we discusses the current state of dietary research, and present a summary of the evidence upon which to base dietary recommendations and guidelines for atherosclerotic vascular disease prevention. We also highlight the complexity and limitations of interpreting current diet-based epidemiological studies in isolation."

Sillyflowers (and everyone else) If you are looking for good scientific research.
Don't "~I was reading the ‘article’ “Skinny on Fats”, but I had to stop so I wouldn’t be confused with fallacies and vague statements. I would NOT suggest anyone to read it. I would suggest you to go to “google => scholar” and research journal articles that are peer-reviewed and scientifically proven. "

Go to the NIH search engine at
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
to learn how to use pubmed download the pubmed tutorial at
www.mclibrary.duke.edu/training/pubmed/full/resources.html

Sillyflowers the sooner you get used to pubmed the easier school will be. You will find that it takes a while to get used to reading primary source papers. Also, the whole idea of "peer review" is that other professionals can comment an challange any statements or studies. This means it's always a good idea to click on "related articles" when reading academic abstracts on pub med. Sometimes the related articles will point out huge flaws in the article in question. Just because it's been publihsed in a reputable journal doesn't mean it's with out error.

hmmm rant off
This page was loaded Jun 1st 2012, 9:55 pm GMT.