Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No to Paleo. Everyone loses weight on it at first, but a few years later you will be sorry after all the PUFAs accumulate from things like nuts, salmon, fish oil, egg yolks (the first thing you should throw in the trash imo), etc.
And probably dairy also. In any case, I minimize grains, and have eaten very few for over a year. My body fat is improved from doing this, but only a few % at most.
You're worried about people eating nuts and salmon?
And then you post a link to a blog about Atlantis?
Quote:
What results from this is that we have a movement of cultivated crops out of Africa ( specifically out of the Saharan region) on a timescale comparable to the "Cattle Out of Africa, Too" scenario, which has cattle developing in Northern Africa since before 20,000 years ago. This movement went primarily through Southern Asia, but part of it also deflected Westward into Atlantis along with the Solutrean Crossing. And food-production in Atlantis was going on at least concurrently with the Egyptian Sebilian, probably using many of the same food plants.Atlantis in the stages when it was developing agriculture might well be envisioned as using primarily crops borrowed from Northern Africa as of the Solutrean age, and that the agricultural element stayed behind as a home base while the more venturesome population continued on to America.
The following is a Wikipedia map of the Neolithic spread, amended to include the Atlantis area.
Mooseketer...listen to your renowned physician uncle. He has devoted his life to helping people live a healthy lifestyle. How much more health-based can you get than that? He is an immunologist and allergist. Our immune system and our allergies, if any, are affected and activated by what we eat (in addition to the usual pollen, peanuts, etc). It sounds like your uncle stays current on all the latest medical/scientific research. You say you've been to many doctors with no conclusive results until you put yourself into your renowned uncle's hands. You've answered some of your own questions. How fortunate for you that you are a patient in your uncle's medical practice. If you - or anyone - will private message me, I can give you some resources that may help you feel more comfortable with Paleo.
BTW, I've noticed that more and more of Colorado's local docs are recommending Paleo eating. Why? Because it lowers all the bad things and raises the good ones. And, it is a good stomach "flattener". If you have a tummy that you just cannot seem to get rid of, Paleo and low carb, followed every day, will flatten that stomach. Guaranteed. I personally know of 2 docs in my area who treat their patients with the Paleo diet. Diabetic patients and regular patients, too.
There are many good books written about Paleo. After years of study and research and personal experience, I believe that some form of Paleo/Atkins is the way to go. I was skeptical...after all, doctors tell us one thing, but there are also doctors who do their own research, and find that Paleo contributes more to good health than do the SAD (Standard American Diet) and prescription medications. Especially for folks who are aging and want to stay healthy.
I gave up bread without thinking too much about it 20 years ago. Wheat, noodles, pasta, etc....and once I acclimated myself, I haven't missed those foods. It was a process of elimination for me. I had bodily symptoms that pointed to eating wheat. If I left wheat out, no symptoms again until I ate wheat. To get back to feeling good, I would eat only salads, fresh veggies, fresh fruits until my system got clear again, which took only a matter of days. This I did out of instinct. It worked.
If you get a couple good Paleo/Low Carb cookbooks and try out new recipes, there are many delicious meals that can be made without a speck of wheat/gluten, grains, dairy, sugar, processed foods. Yes, once in a while, out of frustration and people-pleasing, I may eat a sandwich with bread when someone serves sandwiches. But on a regular basis, I do not eat bread or anything with grains when I cook my own meals. Paleo does include some grains, but for me, because I'm allergic, I know it's best for me to leave them out. Manufacturers (food processors) added vitamins and minerals to bread to make it appear nutritious, but we can healthily live w/o bread or pasta.
The majority of vitamins and minerals come from FRESH food in their natural state. And plenty of meat/fish, which are also full of vitamins and minerals. GOOD fat. Our country is in a major health crisis because of big agriculture and the PROCESSED food industry. Processed oils are also another "bad" food...and processed oils are in crackers, cookies, chips...even so-called "healthy whole grain" ones. The best Paleo fats are avocado (the fruit), coconut oil, extra virgin olive oil, butter (yes, butter , and many animal fats. Cholesterol, you say? There is scientific evidence from all sorts of reputable resources that prove cholesterol is not the "baddie" we've been told. Paleo shows evidence that all these fats are healthy.
It's frustrating to me that in the past century our way of eating has changed so much to include an unfathomable quantity of processed foods. Paleo is about simple, whole foods. The way they grow before they are made into something...whether it's a colorful salad filled with fresh vegetables, prepared lovingly by a mother for her family, or a pot of fresh green beans simmering on the stove. There is a lot more to Paleo that this, but this is a start.
Mooseketer....good luck to you in your search for a way of eating that works for you.
Also, with all the HDL comments being posted, just wanted folks to be aware that there is a new book on the subject Cholesterol Clarity: What the HDL is Wrong With My Numbers? by Jimmy Moore and Eric C. Westman M.D. It just came out in the past couple days and is on Amazon.com for sure. I'm looking forward to reading it because Jimmy has been on low carb for years and his blood test results are surprising for those who doubt the effects of a Paleo diet.
No to Paleo. Everyone loses weight on it at first, but a few years later you will be sorry after all the PUFAs accumulate from things like nuts, salmon, fish oil, egg yolks (the first thing you should throw in the trash imo), etc.
And probably dairy also. In any case, I minimize grains, and have eaten very few for over a year. My body fat is improved from doing this, but only a few % at most.
did you seriously villianize fish oil and egg yolks? These are 2 of the healthiest sources of fats out there.
did you seriously villianize fish oil and egg yolks? These are 2 of the healthiest sources of fats out there.
Fish oil is known to have high levels of contamination from PCBs and other persistent organic pollutants (POPs) which bioaccumulate and are linked to many chronic health effects. IMO, you're better off avoiding fish oil if you can because of this.
Fish oil is known to have high levels of contamination from PCBs and other persistent organic pollutants (POPs) which bioaccumulate and are linked to many chronic health effects. IMO, you're better off avoiding fish oil if you can because of this.
According to this most don't, and some contain very small amounts.
Quote:
A new test of 15 top-selling fish oil supplements by Consumer Reports shows five fell a bit short on quality.
The good news is all 15 of the fish oil supplements evaluated by an independent lab contained their labeled amount of EPA and DHA, omega-3 fatty acids that have been shown to reduce the risk of heart attacks and stroke.
But four of the fish oil supplements tested contained trace levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Question: Is fish oil safe? Is it contaminated with mercury and PCBs?
Answer:
ConsumerLab.com's tests of fish oil supplements have found none to contain mercury and most, although not all, to have only trace levels of PCBs (which can't be fully avoided since PCBs are found in water everywhere). A serving of fish meat is likely to contain far more contamination than a fish oil supplement
Your beliefs as to which foods are healthy doesn't really have anything to do with a discussion of bias and conflicts of interest in the scientific literature.
Yep, it doesn't, but that isn't why I pointed this out. Instead that you appear to be searching for "research" that supports what you want to say, that isn't difficult to do due to the heavy industry funding in nutritional science. I'm sure you can find a study that promotes just about every food as "healthy" in some regard. Hence, quoting miscellaneous studies in nutritional science isn't meaningful...instead you need to look at where the consensus is...what has been demonstrated in numerous studies,etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
Well guess what, coconut oil is the primary component of whole coconut. 93% of the calories in coconut milk are fat calories. Over 80% of the calories in coconut milk are saturated fat.
You're conflating calories with substances, the two obviously aren't the same. The primary component of shredded coconut is water, not oil, and vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, insoluble fiber, etc have no calories. Hence talking about the caloric ratio of fat in coconut totally misses the mark, when you eat whole coconut instead of coconut oil you're also consuming vitamins, minerals, fiber and numerous phytochemicals and combined these are a major "component" of whole coconut.
Eating coconut oil is a lot different than eating whole coconut, and the other components in whole coconut may offset some of the negative attributes associated with its fat.
So what you're suggesting is mistaken on two levels, you're focusing on calorie content instead of biochemical content and you're ignoring the fact that other substances in whole coconut may positively impact health and this could offset the negative impacts of the saturated fat in coconut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
You are missing the point. If you replace saturated fats with omega-6 fats, there is no reduction in omega-3 fats, because saturated fats don't contain omega-3 fats. That is, unless they're replacing something like salmon, which has a moderate amount of saturated fats, along with omega-3 fats, with pure safflower oil.
I am? Funny considering you're still not address what I'm pointing out. Firstly, your claim here isn't accurate. People are not consuming isolated and pure saturated fat, they are eating saturated fat in whole foods, oils, etc and these foods contain a combination of fats. So by reducing saturated fat consumption, people would be reducing omega-3 consumption as well and the degree of reduction would depend on their diet. But the intervention group is being given a oil with no omega-3, therefore the control group would indeed had higher consumption of omega-3. Wait....the authors didn't track omega-3 consumption? But, its worse, its well known that its not just omega-3 consumption that matters but theratio of omega-3 and omega-6 and the intervention group would have had a extremely poor ratio due to the reduction in omega-3 and big increase in omega-6. Wait...the authors didn't track this ratio?
This study is obvious junk, why? Because its already known that low levels of omega-3 consumption and a poor ratio of omega-3 and omega-6 fats is unhealthful. Its obvious that this study, rather intentionally, created an intervention group that would have a unhealthful mix of fats. If they were truly interested in the effects of omega-6 vs saturated fat they would have controlled for omega-3 consumption and the omega-3 and omega-6 ratio. This study was designed to make saturated fat look good, and as I said, it worked....here you are quoting it.
I'm not discounting this study because it conflicts with what I wish to believe, instead I'm telling you very clearly why the study is flawed. On the other hand, you appear to be citing it because you wish to believe something......
Mercury is not soluble in fish oil, so it's pointless for labels on fish oil supplement bottles indicate that it is free of mercury. I never said fish oil was unhealthy by itself, it's just not worth the additional dose to persistant organic pollutants.
With a background in environmental medicine, I can assure you that many fish oil supplements contain PCBs. Is it as high as actual fish fat? No, but there have been significant levels when tested. I used to work in a lab that tested for persistent organic pollutants, and many of the labels that said "no PCBs" actually had significant levels of PCBs. Several toxicology studies have also shown that PCBs can increase the risk of type II diabetes onset by disrupting pancreatic cell metabolism, so fish oil supplements may not good for an overweight/obese person at risk for type II diabetes.
Consumerlab isn't always the best information for accuracy. Also dietary supplements are not reviewed and approved by the FDA for safety and effectiveness, so they can usually get away with all the false advertising and studies they want.
Last edited by ThinkingElsewhere; 04-28-2013 at 07:08 PM..
Yep, it doesn't, but that isn't why I pointed this out. Instead that you appear to be searching for "research" that supports what you want to say, that isn't difficult to do due to the heavy industry funding in nutritional science. I'm sure you can find a study that promotes just about every food as "healthy" in some regard. Hence, quoting miscellaneous studies in nutritional science isn't meaningful...instead you need to look at where the consensus is...what has been demonstrated in numerous studies,etc.
That is precisely what I do not do. I read tons of research and opinions from a wide variety of people, and then use that to form conclusions- conclusions which are constantly under review.
You simply think that because you are unwilling to question any of your preconceived notions. You simply dismiss out of hand anything that doesn't conform to your worldview, as you've done repeatedly in this thread and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
You're conflating calories with substances, the two obviously aren't the same. The primary component of shredded coconut is water, not oil, and vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, insoluble fiber, etc have no calories.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up water. Water is not a macronutrient. Not a micronutrient. Not a vitamin, not a mineral, not a phytonutrient, not an anti-oxidant, not a polyphenol. What the hell does water have to do with anything? If you need some water you can get it from the tap. Thanks for enlightening everyone about fruits and vegetables being mostly water but generally we don't talk about water content because it doesn't really have anything to do with anything.
And once again you completely missed the point. The only reason I was talking about fat calories was to illustrate how much of a whole coconut is coconut oil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Hence talking about the caloric ratio of fat in coconut totally misses the mark, when you eat whole coconut instead of coconut oil you're also consuming vitamins, minerals, fiber and numerous phytochemicals and combined these are a major "component" of whole coconut.
Eating coconut oil is a lot different than eating whole coconut, and the other components in whole coconut may offset some of the negative attributes associated with its fat.
First, saturated fat is inherently bad and causes heart disease. Then it's fine as long you're consuming it with vitamins and minerals (which you said it's low in) and miniscule amounts of sugar, fiber, and protein found in whole coconut. Now it's still bad for you, but tiny bits of sugar, fiber, and protein ameliorate some of the harmful effects (still waiting for some studies suggesting that coconut consumption is harmful). It's hard to keep up with your shifting opinions.
Now, since those components of a whole coconut offset its negative attributes, wouldn't it be ok to consume coconut oil with other foods? Since it's generally consumed along with foods which contain minerals and vitamins.
You know, because people don't typically go around eating coconut oil with a spoon. They generally use it for cooking. For example, to fry spice pastes in when making curry or to sautee meat and/or vegetables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
I am? Funny considering you're still not address what I'm pointing out. Firstly, your claim here isn't accurate. People are not consuming isolated and pure saturated fat, they are eating saturated fat in whole foods, oils, etc and these foods contain a combination of fats. So by reducing saturated fat consumption, people would be reducing omega-3 consumption as well and the degree of reduction would depend on their diet. But the intervention group is being given a oil with no omega-3, therefore the control group would indeed had higher consumption of omega-3.
Now you're arguing that saturated fats are good sources of omega 3s?
Most of the reduction in saturated fats came from replacing butter with safflower oil. People weren't replacing salmon and sardines with bowls of safflower oil at dinner time. Grain-fed butter contains 0.32 grams omega 3 per 100 grams. So it's possible that there was some difference in omega-6/3 ratio between the groups, though likely small.
But yes, that's a limitation of the study. All studies have limitations, particularly nutrition studies which are exceedingly difficult to conduct. That's authors usually have a section called "Limitations."
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
This study is obvious junk, why? Because its already known that low levels of omega-3 consumption and a poor ratio of omega-3 and omega-6 fats is unhealthful. Its obvious that this study, rather intentionally, created an intervention group that would have a unhealthful mix of fats. If they were truly interested in the effects of omega-6 vs saturated fat they would have controlled for omega-3 consumption and the omega-3 and omega-6 ratio. This study was designed to make saturated fat look good, and as I said, it worked....here you are quoting it.
This study was an examination of recently made available data from earlier clinical trials conducted by other researchers. You would know that had you actually made any attempt at reading either the study or the news article.
So your conspiracy theory about the authors "obviously" and intentionally manipulating that variable to get a certain result is "obviously" false and impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
I'm not discounting this study because it conflicts with what I wish to believe, instead I'm telling you very clearly why the study is flawed.
Sure, that's why you instantly dismissed it using a false assumption (about saturated fat consumption between the two groups), before having any idea how the study was conducted. And then made a demonstrably false claim about the authors' intentions.
Last edited by EugeneOnegin; 04-28-2013 at 07:22 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, and many animal fats. Cholesterol, you say? There is scientific evidence from all sorts of reputable resources that prove cholesterol is not the "baddie" we've been told. Paleo shows evidence that all these fats are healthy. 
