Reason to avoid grains?
 

I've become a clinical trial junky. :P They're almost like soap operas with really hard to follow scripts. Moving on...

This one, A Palaeolithic diet improves glucose tolerance more than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischaemic heart disease, is highly interesting for many reasons. Rather than using a single control group who is told to eat their "usual" diet, two groups were each assigned to healthy diets (Mediterranean-type and Paleolithic-type). Both groups were told they were on a healthy diet and were not told what the other group was on, presumably controlling for the "placebo effect" and the fact that control groups typically adjust their diets to be the "healthy diet" of the time when enrolled in such trials.

Surprise surprise. Both groups lost weight (even though calories weren't restricted) and belly fat, increased their glucose tolerance and improved their vital stats overall. Both groups naturally decreased their caloric intake over the 12-week period. (Dietary guidelines for each group are at the end of the post.)

The portion I found most interesting was this
The Paleo-type group, which ate no cereals (including rice in this study), lost, on average, 2.7cm (1in) more from their waist over a 12-week period than the Mediterranean-type group. They also lost an average of 1.2kg (2.6lb) more. The researchers concluded, after examining the data, that the differences in weight loss could be correlated to the total calorie consumptions of the two groups (Paleo-like 1,344 on average, Mediterranean-like 1,795 on average).

Obvious problems: The "Paleo" diet proposed differs greatly from other "Paleo" diets that exist. The "Mediterranean" diet given to patients was closer to a generic "healthy diet" than a true "Mediterranean" diet program. The sample size was also far too small to develop scientifically meaningful results.

What the study did do, though, was create an environment that successfully tested the idea that grains impede the burning of fat. Some researchers have suggested that Omega-6 fats-found in high concentrations in grains-contribute to the creation of belly fats while Omega-3 fats-found in high concentrations in green leaves and fruits-contribute to effective metabolism.

The diets...

Mediterranean-type
-------------------
based on whole-grain cereals, low-fat dairy products, potatoes, legumes, vegetables, fruits, fatty fish and refined fats rich in monounsaturated fatty acids and alpha-linolenic acid

Paleo-type
----------
increase their intake of lean meat, fish, fruits and vegetables and to avoid all kinds of dairy products, cereals (including rice), beans, sugar, bakery products, soft drinks and beer. The following items were accepted in limited
amounts for the Palaeolithic group: eggs (one or fewer per day), nuts (preferentially walnuts), potatoes (two or fewer medium-sized per day), rapeseed or olive oil (one or fewer tablespoons per day). The intake of other foods was not restricted and no advice was given with regard to proportions of food categories (e.g. animal vs plant foods).

They are saying that the Paleo types ate less than the Mediterranean types so how does that test the idea that grains impede fat burning?

Plus there seem to be a couple different items that differed that being dairy, legumes, 'whole-grain cereals' were all in the Mediterranean-type diet but not in the Paleo-type.

If you want a really good introduction to the Paleo diet and grains read this. It is long but very informative. http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html

I know we had a thread here not long ago talking about how a study looked at the effect of whole grains on a diet vs refined grains. The results were that belly fat was decreased. Again that was whole grains vs refined but here is an abstract of that study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175740

This is also from 2008 but this talks about cereal grains:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...m&ordinalpos=1
Cereal grains, legumes, and weight management: a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence.

Williams PG, Grafenauer SJ, O'Shea JE.

Smart Foods Centre, School of Health Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. [email protected]

There is strong evidence that a diet high in whole grains is associated with lower body mass index, smaller waist circumference, and reduced risk of being overweight; that a diet high in whole grains and legumes can help reduce weight gain; and that significant weight loss is achievable with energy-controlled diets that are high in cereals and legumes. There is weak evidence that high intakes of refined grains may cause small increases in waist circumference in women. There is no evidence that low-carbohydrate diets that restrict cereal intakes offer long-term advantages for sustained weight loss. There is insufficient evidence to make clear conclusions about the protective effect of legumes on weight.

I don't know that this is true. If the two plans were calorie controlled, sure...but there was a difference of 450 cals a day between the two plans. So they did show that eating less results in a greater waist loss, but not anything that had to do with dietary content.

Dairy can't be implicated in impeding fat burning, as it has been shown in many studies to increase metabolism. Legumes can, effectively, be considered grains. Corn, legumes, wheat, rye, rice, barley, etc. All of these things are "grains" (or "cereals" as the researchers called them). So to make a distinction between "grains" and "legumes" would be a bit disingenuous on the researchers' part.

The crux of the study is that, while the decreased calorie intake can account for the significant difference in weight loss it cannot account for the significant difference in waist loss. The Paleo-types lost an average of 1.12cm per kg, while the Mediterranean-types lost .76cm per kg, about 50% more belly fat.

It would have been helpful to see an examination of overall measurements. It's possible that the Mediterranean-types lost more in other areas (thighs, hips, arms, etc.) while the Paleo-types lost belly fat. However, this could be countered by the body fat percentages. The Paleo-types lost .52% body fat per kg lost, while the Mediterranean-types lost .42% per kg. Those on the "no-grain" diets, overall, just lost more fat than those who included whole-grains.

The other interesting aspect if, of course, that the Paleo-types willingly limited their calorie consumption. The typical argument is that, on a grain-free diet, people will overeat other foods. However, the Paleo-types ate significantly fewer calories than the Mediterranean types, with no researcher suggestion to do so.

Despite the lower-yet-unrestricted calorie consumption, the Paleo-types consumed almost twice the weight of fruit as the Mediterranean-types and more than half again as many vegetables. Interestingly, although their caloric consumption was 30% less than the Mediterranean-types, the Paleo-types only consumed 5% less food by volume (1311 grams vs 1382 grams).

Altari - The studies that showed that dairy increased metabolism were funded by the dairy industry and have since been refuted so dairy is still part of the equation. The study also says that those on the paleo diet restricted eggs, nuts, potatoes, olive oil. The paleo control group also ate more fruit. Overall, the paleo group also had a higher drop out rate. I would think that there were enough differences between the two diets that you can't signal one factor.

As for willingly lowering calorie intake, that occurs a lot in highly restrictive diets, especially for those that don't know what to eat that is high calorie. If you are eating mostly lean meat & fish, fruits and vegetables and limiting your fat consumption, it isn't unusual to eat a lower calorie diet than someone who isn't limiting their fats and some other higher calorie items.

I just did a quick read-through on that one, because I never trust an abstract.

The point of the study I posted was not that weight-loss is impossible when using whole grains. It was that there is evidence to suggest that it is more efficient when grains are replaced by fruits and vegetables. That evidence warrants consideration, IMO.

Also, it's important to note that the Paleo-types did not take part in a low-carb diet-more than 40% of their energy came from carbs.

Obviously weight loss isn't possible with the inclusion of whole grains, I just think there are too many variables to jump to a conclusion that this study shows that whole grains impede fat loss.

And the Food Pyramid was funded by the Grain Industry. Even the study you previously linked to, which simply examined prior studies without regard to who funded them, admitted that there is no causal evidence for whole grains adding benefit to the human diet, for weight loss or overall health.

They ate more eggs (29 grams vs 19 grams) and nuts (11 grams vs 2 grams), despite it being verbally restricted. They did eat fewer potatoes (51 grams vs 77 grams). Again, olive oil can't be implicated, unless the Olive Growers funded the studies showing the benefits of olive oil.

The most marked difference was in grains (18 grams vs 268 grams), with dairy being a close second (45 grams vs 287 grams). Maybe it was the dairy? Or maybe it was both? However, the simple fact, when looking at the diet, is that those restricting dairy and grains (whether it's one or both) lost significantly more fat than those who did not.

Don't get me wrong. These are definitely important things to consider and I'm quite happy that you're bringing them up. :carrot:

Or maybe it was the increased fruit that led to more fat loss?

I also meant in the restriction of olive oil, it could be that they were eating less fat which could account for less calories.

And I wasn't saying the dairy studies were wrong because they were funded by the dairy industry. They were wrong because they were later shown that the data was skewed and was little more than a marketing campaign.

Or maybe it was replacing food that are currently believes to impede fat loss (those containing Omega-6s, such as grains) with foods that are currently believes to promote it (those containing Omega-3s, such as fruits/veggies, eggs and nuts)?

Probably, but as previously mentioned, if it were simply "calories in/calories out" wouldn't the percentages of fat/waist loss per kg be similar? Instead, the Paleo's lost 25% more fat (in % terms) and 50% more waist (in terms of cms) per kg of gross weight lost. When controlling for calories, the Paleos actually lost less gross weight than they should have (their comparative calorie deficit should have given them a 4.7 kg advantage over the Mediterraneans, while they only had a 1.2kg advantage).

While the Paleos lost less gross weight, calorie for calorie, they seemed to get a better biological bang for their buck.

If nothing else, I think it's abundantly clear there were many, many difference between the two groups, making any black-and-white conclusions unwise.

But I do find all the concepts, both in support of and against your paleo premise, interesting! I'll have to actually read the thing later when I get a chance.

Overall, I think the study shows a variety of things but it is a fairly small study with those of pre-existing conditions and a variety of variables. The types of fat certainly could play in it but out body does need a proper balance of omega 3s and omega 6s. Perhaps they were in closer balance? I wonder what it would've shown if grain fed meat was eliminated? Or if the calories were the same? or if 'grains' weren't so broadly defined.

Perhaps the largest problem with most weight-loss studies is that the participants are given a diet to follow and sent home - and it's assumed that they are following the diet given - and even if everybody is, there's great variability in how closely each will follow the diet - and in what foods they will choose.

There's also a great deal of motivation for participants to falsely report. More so than in many other trials, because of the social bias against dieting. People "forget" to write down that candy bar they know wasn't on their diet...

Because of the difficulties in obesity research, and for personal reasons (I have autoimmune disease), I've been more interested in the studies linking grain consumption (even whole grains) to autoimmune issues and more generically inflammation.

It's still a controversial subject, but I think not so much because the studies' methods and results are disputed, but more because people (even some researchers) want to oversimplify the results - so "a grain-heavy diet is associated with autoimmune disease/inflammation, becomes "grains are bad, and should be avoided or even eliminated from the diet - perhaps (probably) for everyone."

My own experience with grains (which does not speak for anyone but me - and even for myself is subject to significant error in interpretation, because I'm not collecting data in the same way a research study would, and I can never be as biased towards my own experience as a scientist has to be) --

but at any rate my own experience with grains is that I have to restrict and limit them fairly strictly (even in whole-grain form) to lose weight best, control my autoimmune symptoms, and generally feel my best.

I still down't yet know if it's all grains, gluten grains, or wheat specifically, but there is definitely a connection between my weight loss, my autoimmune symptoms, my pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms and just generically feeling my best.

For example, I've finally proven to my own satisfaction, that I have a severe problem with wheat. It was hard to tell for sure, because wheat is hard to avoid (it's a hidden ingredient in many foods). Ironically, the longer I've been without wheat, the worse (and more unmistakeable) the reaction to wheat.

For a while I was limiting myself to one or two servings of wheat per week, and it seemed that worked pretty well in eliminating severe flares of the autoimmune symptoms - especially the skin rashes and respiratory symptoms. Then when I went wheat-free, I started noticing that the longer I went without wheat, the worse and more quickly the reaction to wheat. To the point that now a biteful of a wheaty food, results in a swollen and inflamed rash around my nose (I looked like Rudolph).

It could be an allergy or sensitivity or intolerance to wheat, gluten, or grains in general (a lot has been written about each in regards to autoimmune disease, and even the experts can't agree).

I've been experimenting alot. I do find that I don't lose weight very well, and am hungrier when I include a lot of grains in my diet - even whole grains. Even grains that don't seem to aggravate the autoimmune issues. And I haven't lost any weight since I've begun experimenting with grain foods, but I think the experimenting has helped me understand some of what's going on, and has helped me understand which grains I can include (or seem at this point to be able to include) in my diet.

For example, rice (brown or white) doesn't seem to aggravate my autoimmune symptoms, but I tend to overeat white rice, and to a lesser degree brown rice.

Quinoa doesn't seem to aggravate the autoimmune disease, and doesn't seem to trigger hunger or impede weight loss. Perhaps not coincidentally, quinoa is often considered "the grain that isn't a grain," because while it's eaten like a grain, it is not scientifically classified as a grain.

Sweet corn (very young) doesn't seem to be a problem, but I react to corn used as a grain such as in corn chips (baked as well as fried), though not as dramatically as to wheat.

YadaYadaYada... none of this may be of importance to anyone but me - but my point is just that grains maybe be a problem - perhaps only for some individuals. It's why trial and error is so important, because it doesn't really matter that "most people" may be able to eat grain foods healthfully, if you're one of the people who can't.

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).

Jay

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.

Here is a health-blog's take on the whole thing:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co...ials-part.html

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.

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.

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.

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
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.

In that vein, I just ordered my half-cow today. :carrot:

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.

That details a follow-up to the one I originally posted. This is his take on the original study.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co...al-trials.html

That blog has tons of great info. :)

Oh, I'm sure they existed. I just can't imagine they were a part of the evolution of most peoples.


Sure, but she already objected to simply soaking something to make it edible. It "defies the point."

Sure, but she already objected to simply soaking something to make it edible. It "defies the point."

Rinse, repeat.

Well, I say if Altari doesn't want to soak her food then that's her choice. :)

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.

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.

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).

A lot of "Paleo" eating is a kind of sick cult of history worship. I've known many Paleos who take it to the extreme. But, those give the system a bad name. The idea is, at the core, to eat the types of foods we would have eaten before the rise of agriculture. Wherever you are in the world, the fruit is basically the same (aside from a difference in vitamin content), so a human being that can digest a pomegranate can digest an apple - or so the theory goes. I freely admit I haven't looked up the science, if any exists, behind the idea.

Yes. Yes. Yes. There is debate over the idea that 10,000 years isn't enough time to adapt our bodies to digest grain (or dairy). Some people seem to have the necessary enzymes and some don't. Whether you eat the two comes down to personal preference, but, no matter what, you're far better off eating stone-ground hard wheat than processed white wheat (or honey/fruit juice over refined white sugar, as a sweetener).

This is where it gets into cultism. Some off-shoots of Paleo entail eating what your ancestors ate. So...do I follow the diet of a primitive Celts? Which diet? When they migrated to the British Isles, from Europe, from Scandinavia? Or do I follow the diet of my Cherokee ancestors?

In the more general sense, the main idea is to identify things that are (or would be) naturally available to you. If there were no grocery stores, I'd subsist largely on a diet of lean game (rabbits, deer and squirrel), foul (geese, duck), local fish (carp, catfish), nuts (mainly black walnuts), fresh greens (dandelion), roots (onions, carrots) and berries/fruit (raspberries, strawberries, apples and pears). It's limited, but it really doesn't sound like a terrible diet. :P

It just seems the most simplistic metric is to ask if it can be eaten raw. If I can't eat it raw, then I just won't eat it. It removes any question of whether or not my body is adequately prepared to handle it.

Altari - I was thinking about some of my recent ancestors who actually ate very basic but I wouldn't follow them. They ate corn but a large part of their diet was berries, ground acorns (this kind of fascinates me), some fish and small game (squirrel, rabbit). Of course they had eaten like that for hundreds, potentially thousands of years. I personally wouldn't want to follow them but it is interesting.

And I think we obviously get a lot of messages about diet and what to eat but I actually didn't think we were being fed 'eat low fat or else' in the past 10-15 years. I think that was a big part of the 80s but it seemed to have dropped out of 'fashion' so to speak. For me personally, it took me a bit to rediscover a low fat diet and I do like a low fat whole foods diet and it makes sense for me. It is hard to differentiate from the 80s low fat junk food diet to a truly healthy low fat diet which can occur. Not to say that anyone has to eat that way as really calories are calories.

I don't care what diet you do, eliminating any food group is not going to make maintenance easier. I do not see anything wrong with including dairy and grains in a reasonable amount. I do avoid processed foods and junk food and desserts. There is also an increased risk of kidney disease from eating too much protein.

I don't think that is true. They have to be cured, don't they?

Anyway, I was just trying to learn more about paleo, as I had read some about it lately and found it interesting, as I had indicated. But questions are not going over well. I was rather interested in how it's decided which foods are appropriate and which are not, but that's seems to be very touchy if you don't already perfectly understand. But then what's the point of asking or discussing?

Hey JulieJ08! I was going to ask the same question about olives... I don't think anyone would like eating them in their raw form.

Here's what I think. I think that for tens of thousands of years, maybe hundreds of thousands of years, humans were eating anything they could get their hands on. That included insects, worms, and grubs, btw, but I don't see anyone clamoring to eat this wonderful source of protein. :lol:

Once we had fire, we learned that many more things could be made edible/palatable that way, as well as being preserved. Once we had agriculture, we learned more tricks for keeping ourselves alive. I'm not sure I agree that this was the "wrong" way to go.

Much as I admire Jared Diamond, his article seems pretty speculative to me and not too relevant. Plus he's known to be a grumpy guy... ;)

My ancestors were all northern European, and so I presumably would do a lot better eating coldwater fish and wild deer. Rice--not so much! But everyone is different in this regard. If you like an idea, try it, that's what I think.

Jay

The curing process makes them taste "better." Otherwise, they're still edible but don't taste "good" to our palate (bitter, mainly).

As far as deciding which foods are appropriate, it all depends on who you ask. Some say that you need to identify what would have been available to "paleolithic" man and when, and eat on that cycle. Of course, that brings up the ethnicity issue. How can we actually "know" what they ate? Travel back in time and ask them? :dizzy:

Some will say eat only meat (therefore ignoring the purpose of molars). Others will say eat only produce (therefore ignoring the purpose of incisors). Others will say eat only what's available in your local area (therefore ignoring migration). The most balanced approached (read: the one that most people could stick to) that I've read is to cut out processed foods entirely.

I'm all for progress, you know? Perhaps science one day will show that electricity is bad for us and it is healthier to live without it but I wouldn't personally go that route. Science has suggested a link between the amount of ambient light at night and near-sightedness, but I'll take a well lit street at midnight over a dark alley any day. Bugs and grubs and carrion may have been primo choices in years gone by, but I'll take a nice single small piece of bruscetta with fresh roma tomatoes, mozzerella buffala, basil and olive oil with a nice glass of red wine every time.
Sometimes I think dieting and eating is over-thought -- moderation, cutting out clearly negative foods 90 percent of the time (i.e. Chef Boyardee, store-bought cupcakes with frosting, and so on), and lots of exercise will do the trick. Optimizing health through any rigid eating plan is dodgy at best since every study out there that says "don't eat from this food group" can be proved or disproved by another. I just wanna live my life, enjoy a few things on the odd occasion, and spread my risk so to speak by eating a wide variety of foods. Not to disrespect others choices and beliefs, so don't read that into my post! Just that all studies saying "eat dairy" are countered with "avoid dairy" and so on. Placing faith in studies like these are just not my bag, baby.
Interesting thread, though.

I know cutting out grains is often thought of as cutting out a food group, I would argue that it is not.

The "food groups" to a degree are arbitrary, even "fictional" constructs (fictional in terms of being invented by humans to classify the unclassifiable).

For example, the "dairy" group - All other mammals do perfectly fine drinking only their own mother's milk only until weaned in early childhood. So why do humans "need" dairy. The fact is they do not, as long as they get sufficient calcium in other foods. Dairy is another food that we managed to do without until modern agriculture was invented. So for 95% or more of our species existence, we did ok without dairy. Many cultures do without adult-dairy, and seem to do fine, even today. So, why do Americans need it now (if indeed we do - it's because we're avoiding "food groups" we once included regularly - such as bone and insect foods).

If it's true (and there's some pretty compelling evidence) that homo-sapiens have only been eating a significant amount of grains (and dairy) for about 10,000 years (with the transition to agriculture), while our species has been around 195,000 years or more. So if we've gone virtually grainless for 95% of our known history, I think calling grain foods a "required food group," doesn't seem to hold much water.

There are also food sources, though that modern humans avoid, that primitive peoples (and even modern civilizations in other parts of the world) take advantage of - such as insects.

Insects contain so many nutrients, that to some peoples, it is entirely appropriate to classify insects and insect eggs as a food group (argueably separate from other proteins, because of the many unique micronutrients they contains). And unlike grains, humans have been eating insects, for as long as humans have existed.

Yet no one (well, virtually no one) in the USA is being criticised for eliminating the "entire food group" of insects.

There are other "food groups" that we ignore in the US, because we find them unpalatable (but that our ancestors ate regularly, and many modern peoples still do) - animal and fish bones, skin, organ meats, egg shells, insects...

We don't "group" these foods, only because we don't eat them.

Nature does not divide foods into food groups, humans do that - and since we've been doing it (only about 100 years in the USA), we've done and do it many different ways (so who and when is "right"). Depending on the time and place, there can be four groups, five groups, six groups, seven groups, sixteen food groups, thirty-two food groups (I didn't make this up, these have all been used, and many are still in use today).

While food groups are a convenient way to look at nutrition - it's more psuedo--science than science, as the divisions are rather arbitrary. While it's true that foods are lumped together based on similar micro- and macro-nutrient profiles, many foods overlap groups or fit into multiple groups, or don't fit well into any group.

Interesting post, Kaplods! I'd never thought about the issue of food groups that way before!!!

Searched this site for paleo opinions
 

Hi,

I'm bumping this thread because it was the best discussion of paleo dieting I could find here. Nice job to all who participated. I've just spent several days studying a wide variety of diets and looking at some pretty heady peer reviewed research in an effort to make this next run at weight loss my last run at weight loss. Lord willing, of course.

While I agree the romanticizing of cavemen feels cultic in the many blogs, I am fairly convinced that this very low carb, grain free diet is the right one for me. This thread is titled "Reason to avoid grains" and I am convinced that I have very good reason to do exactly that.

Paleo dieting is far from unique. There's probably over a hundred low carb diet plans out there if you really look but a few things appeal to me about the paleo community. The scientific debunking (by a long list of doctors) of several (fat related ) myths really struck home with me. I believe I can craft a lifestyle, not a diet, on the principles I've been reading. They sure have.

Anyway, I wanted to bump this to see if it kick started the conversation. If not, I will start a new paleo thread (the others are pretty stale), and report my results and experiences. I'm pretty excited to give this a lifestyle a chance. I'm pre diabetic in need of a 150 pounds of weight loss. Cutting carbs has always been something key for me because of the family predisposition to diabetes, but doing so in addition to cutting fat has just been a complete failure for me. Some highly educated and sincere doctors are unpacking the research that suggests cutting the fat is simply not necessary. We'll see how this goes, but I have a feeling I have found my way.