kaplods - the interesting thing about this study is it seems to include legumes in the 'grain' group. That itself is a bit baffling.
Again, I'm not sure why this would be "baffling" to you. What's the different between a dried lentil and a barley pearl? One is a legume and one is a grain, but, in effect, they're extremely similar. BellaDiva posted a great link on it way back at the beginning of the thread.
The crux of it, from what I've gathered, is that grains (including legumes and corn) contribute to cellular inflammation. This decreases cellular efficiency and leaves cells susceptible to diseases (infection, auto-immune, cancer, etc). I've read some hard-core paleo's suggest that obesity is actually a bodily response to protect us from that inflammation. We get fat so our body can protect us from all the bad stuff we're throwing in it (by way of the fat cells absorbing all those extra toxins). I don't know if I'd go that far, as I've never read any real science to support it, but it is an interesting theory.
For myself, I'm becoming closer to a raw foodist. If my body cannot tolerate the food in its raw state (as is the case with grains, some legumes and potatoes) I won't eat it. If I have to go through some machination and processing to make it a food, it isn't naturally a food. That's just my take on it, though.
I think that "grains" is being used in a specific definition by the researchers. In common usage, "grain" is thought of as smaller dry seeds like wheat, rice, quinoa, and so on. Most of these "grains" are in the grass family. Legumes are in a different family, namely the... legume family! Beans, peas, etc.
However, for dietary purposes, both grains and legumes are seeds with a starchy endosperm (the tissue that contains most of the nutrients for the plant embryo).
I, personally, would not look at this study and think it was impressive enough to warrant a change in my diet's composition, because of the reasons already mentioned...small sample size, many variables, and the test group being a group with a condition that I don't have. I'd hope that this research leads to other research that solves those problems, in which case, I'd take another look at the idea.
I'd be really interested to know how this would play out if the other variables were contained to test only the paleo vs. mediterranean component, without the other influencers like total calorie level.
I do think the omega-3 vs. omega-6 balance will probably end up being important, as the biggest shift in obesity rates occurred historically not with an increase in grain consumption as grains, but with an increase in factory farming, which led to the fats in our animal proteins being more highly omega-6 (which is the fat found in grain and corn) due to animals being fed a high-grain diet. I've read some research implying that the issue is not so much that omega-6's are bad, but that we are eating way too many of them in comparison to omega-3's, which are found in high amounts in grass-finished/naturally-fed proteins, but not in feedlot proteins. It may turn out that the effect with the Paleo approach is not due to reducing grain consumption, but to eating less omega-6 fatty acids (cutting out grains would lower the quantity of omega-6 ingestion and improve the ratio of omega-3s to omega-6s, which might have a positive effect, but again, wouldn't be about the grains so much as it would be about the fatty acid ratios, and the same effect could be found by getting your omega-6's from grains and using grass-finished animal proteins to get more omega-3's). Michael Pollan's books discuss this in detail, if you're interested in more.
The crux of it, from what I've gathered, is that grains (including legumes and corn) contribute to cellular inflammation. This decreases cellular efficiency and leaves cells susceptible to diseases (infection, auto-immune, cancer, etc). I've read some hard-core paleo's suggest that obesity is actually a bodily response to protect us from that inflammation. We get fat so our body can protect us from all the bad stuff we're throwing in it (by way of the fat cells absorbing all those extra toxins). I don't know if I'd go that far, as I've never read any real science to support it, but it is an interesting theory.
For myself, I'm becoming closer to a raw foodist. If my body cannot tolerate the food in its raw state (as is the case with grains, some legumes and potatoes) I won't eat it. If I have to go through some machination and processing to make it a food, it isn't naturally a food. That's just my take on it, though.
I think a lot of people can suggest a lot of things without evidence, that doesn't mean there is the slightest evidence.
As far as grains, legumes, there is definitely a way to make those foods digestible in their raw state and that is by soaking which is how many raw foodists eat legumes and grains.
Food properties also change once a food is cooked and not to say that it is better but just different. Sometimes nutrients become more bioavailable, sometimes foods become more digestible, sometimes nutrients are lost.
From what I've read of the modern Paleo diet, it is based on pseudo science and really isn't close to what our hunter/gatherer ancestors were eating. I've also read that it was grains and other harvested foods that had a role in our development as a people, specifically brain function.
Overall, I think we are adaptable people though and can successfully follow various diets (ways of eating) based on not only our environment but our choices. My own personal concerns lately have really been frankenfoods, genetically modified foods, vast amount of pesticides and vast amount of hormones that are entering our food system.
As far as grains, legumes, there is definitely a way to make those foods digestible in their raw state and that is by soaking which is how many raw foodists eat legumes and grains.
But that kind of defies the point. Yes, the food is still "raw" [eg, not cooked]. I'm of the opinion that if I can't pluck it off the tree (or stalk/bush/etc.) and eat it, it isn't food. Anything that requires preparation was something that only became part of the human diet relatively recently.
For example, raw meat (although I don't support the idea of eating raw meat) is digestible by humans. Raw wheat...not so much. I don't understand the paleo-hatred for all legumes as many legumes (snow peas, sugar-snap peas) are digestible in their raw state. Even corn can be eaten raw (not suggested in large quantities, speaking from experience). There are some varieties of grain (foxtail and velvetleaf, in particular) that can be eaten as raw seeds.
Quote:
Food properties also change once a food is cooked and not to say that it is better but just different. Sometimes nutrients become more bioavailable, sometimes foods become more digestible, sometimes nutrients are lost.
I'm not saying cooking is bad. IMO, if a food strictly has to be altered in some way-such as soaking, cooking, drying or baking-it's not something our body is adequately prepared to handle. Potatoes, in particular, are highly toxic in their raw form. To me, or more specifically for me and mine, I'd prefer to avoid something that is a poison if incorrectly processed.
Quote:
From what I've read of the modern Paleo diet, it is based on pseudo science and really isn't close to what our hunter/gatherer ancestors were eating. I've also read that it was grains and other harvested foods that had a role in our development as a people, specifically brain function.
As far as the last part, I've never read anything like that. Grains were introduced largely after we'd evolved to the current version of ourselves (roughly 10,000 years ago). From an article by Professor Jared Diamond, UCLA
Quote:
Now archaeology is demolishing another sacred belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered.
Anyway, not supporting a "paleo" diet. The science backs up the idea that agriculture has been our magic bullet for health and fitness.
On the other part, I completely agree. It's beneficial to consider what got us to this point, as long as it's done in a scientific fashion. To make blanket statements about what people "used to eat" based on freakish hypotheses is...well...freakish.
I assume, then, that oils and teas and dark chocolate and wine are also eschewed? I also can't imagine bananas and tropical fruits were around either.
Not necessarily.
As to tropical fruits, they were around - in the tropics. To assume they couldn't be Paleo-friendly (as most of the Paleo diets define them), you'd have to assume human beings aren't native or could not adapt to tropical environments.
Given many of the evolutionary and migratory theories of early human development, bananas may have been available before apples (which originated in Asia, I believe).
Teas are only leaves steeped in hot water (since these leaves could and probably were chewed by early peoples, they would be Paleo-friendly by most paleo definitions).
Oils - Some oils such as olive oil is very easy and low-tech to obtain (I think crushing and draining is all that is required).
Chocolate - would depend upon how processed, and in what way. Roasting is needed to bring out the flavor, but the cocoa bean is edible in its raw form I believe, and most paleo diets aren't opposed to cooking as long as the food is edible and available in its raw form. Again, cocoa beans aren't native to all parts of the world, but there's no reason to assume that humans couldn't adapt to eating non-local plant-life. The issue is whether the food is edible in it's natural state.
As to tropical fruits, they were around - in the tropics. To assume they couldn't be Paleo-friendly (as most of the Paleo diets define them), you'd have to assume human beings aren't native or could not adapt to tropical environments.
Oh, I'm sure they existed. I just can't imagine they were a part of the evolution of most peoples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaplods
Teas are only leaves steeped in hot water (since these leaves could and probably were chewed by early peoples, they would be Paleo-friendly by most paleo definitions).
Sure, but she already objected to simply soaking something to make it edible. It "defies the point."
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaplods
Oils - Some oils such as olive oil is very easy and low-tech to obtain (I think crushing and draining is all that is required).
Sure, but she already objected to simply soaking something to make it edible. It "defies the point."
Well I think Paleo diets aren't scientific in terms of 'this is what prehistoric people ate and we should too!'. I'm sure prehistoric peoples weren't eating chicken breasts and the leanest meat possible. I'm also sure they weren't eating grain fed livestock or even animals that were domesticated and didn't have to worry about prey. They also weren't eating mercury tainted fish. It is just a different world today
What does it mean for us today with choices we have? It means that we have a lot of options available for us and no matter what studies show, they always seem to show that increasing the amount of whole foods in our diet can lead us to be healthier and even lose weight in the process.
I also haven't kept up with Paleo diets so I'm not sure if they are really trying to define themselves as what prehistoric people ate or if someone gave them that name and others just went along with it to describe a generic diet. If someone follows those style of diet and it works for them, then I say go for it but I know it wouldn't be the diet for me personally.
Of course it is. I'm just trying to figure out if we're just talking opinions and choices, which are perfectly valid, but it's being called science.
No. I never stated that my choice for me and mine (as I was very specific to point out) had anything to do with the study. That was a complete tangent.
You also, unfortunately, missed the point in kaplods's posts. Tea leaves, in their raw form, are edible. Cocoa beans, in their raw form, are edible. Olives, in their raw form, are edible. "Lather, rinse, repeat."
What is being called science is a controlled study of two groups who followed two different-yet-healthy ways of eating. The one without grains (and dairy) lost more fat/waist per pound, had greater improvements in health metrics and naturally ate fewer calories (while eating a comparable volume of food). The other group saw benefits as well, but they were not as great.
So, the point is not that you "shouldn't" eat grains or that I'm "telling" you not to eat grains or that you can "only" lose weight without eating them - it's that there is scientific evidence to support such a diet should you be so inclined do to so. It's pertinent because we have been fed the line that the only way to be healthy is to eat ridiculously low amounts of fats (except for whatever new fat is discovered this week) and copious quantities of "whole grains" (which becomes a meaningless term when Lucky Charms can boast it).
