PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Luke
you need to take an anger management course

and then learn some manners

Thank you cindy and welcome. Perhaps we should call this site, "itulip plus pointless harassment, invective and name calliing from Lukester?"

Ah, I see he has flamed you already. Get used to it.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

You may have traveled, but your Paleo Nutrition thesis has not. Your thesis, and planned book, are a response to an American epidemic, and skate blithely over the incongruity of advocating a diet rich in protein to a world where for two thirds of the globe's population that is not quite as discretionary as your recommendations assume. This is at the core what irks me about the plethora of diet books being written in America today. All these people really have to do, is eat and live as though they were the rural poor, and most of their health issues would disappear - but that crude and rudimentary notion hardly constitutes enough to fill out a book. Meanwhile we will get another learned doctor parsing America's dietary woes as though they were the woes of the entire world.

Maybe you could consent to put a chapter at the end listing the many delicious foreign dishes which perfectly satisfy your Paleo guidelines, and have been around three or four hundred years?

As western diets including refined sugars and flours have replaced indigenous diets over the past centuries, the same diseases of civilization have spread to the developing world. Taubes and other authors cover this thoroughly.

For the umpteenth time, reducing your sugars and grains and substituting fats need not change your protein fraction. If you choose to eat less protein no one is stopping you. My audience is not you or the WHO, it is individual persons wishing to optimize their health.

If you go down the list, you will find specific mention of what to avoid. There is no discussion of meal preparation, garnishments, flavorings, local preferences in terms of flavor, restaurant seating arrangements, what wine goes best with fish, etc. That is because it is emphatically not about cuisine, but rather about macronutrient ratios and their sources. Like anatomy and biochemistry, these are pretty invariant, with minor differences, throughout the world.

The optimal diet for an individual has zero to do with whatever scheme you imagine to feed the world optimally or whether that is even possible. What the macronutrient composition is can be satisfied by an almost infinite variety of possible combinations. My speculations on optimal hormonal balance for the individual are absolutely unconcerned with regional cuisine, or specific dishes or recipes. Read "O" or "Fine Cooking" for that.

Start a separate thread on cooking if you prefer.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Even this question is myopic. Just reduce the quantity of what you eat and get physically active, and you become instantly healthier. Even regular portions of grains, if they are in very modest quantity, are not detrimental to human health - I know farmers in Tuscany who go out and work ten hour days in the field and are strong and healthy as an ox, simply because they balance all the ingredients in a more culturally anchored and proved way than Americans approach their food traditions.

Less food overall, and lots of vegetables in the mix for bulk, create an automatic diet plan, and you need no further guidance on good food health. It is so utterly simple, while Americans wish to get it all dressed up and trot it around as nutritional science - that's really what grabs their attention, the gleaming scientifically analysed attributes. Meanwhile they are doing a crappier job of achieving it than many other countries in the world that greet the notion of nutritional science with a blank stare because their cooking traditions are 1000 years old already.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Cindykimlisa -

For decorum and manners, buy ladies home journal or reader's digest. For regularly challenged theses in a free public forum, read iTulip. Surely you don't find mine the only stiffly challenging comments contributed in this community over the past year? Roger is writing what IMO is a "boutique" book. 95% of what I've posted has been to suggest, that there is large conceit in the assumption that a fundamentally healthy diet does not exist unless and until we (is that Americans, or is that the entire world?) adopt the Paleo Nutrition approach.

My impression is that Roger is impatient with suggestions that there may be lots of people in the world who already know culturally, how to achieve the revolutionary diet he proposes for Americans.

People can eat less, and judiciously, both within the US and in the many other countries, and enjoy a quite remarkably good health from those diets. In short, my suggestion to people like you Cindykimlisa who see only some personal affront here - is Roger's book would not have a market in many parts of the world. It would have a market in some, but in many others, entirely not. This is the definition of "boutique" - it is addressed to the beleaguered overweight starch-and sugar stuffed American, and waves a patronizing hand towards other societies also, lumping them in with this malady with a wave of the hand.

If you had happened to have lived half your life (in my case, 25 years, all over Italy) in one of the countries which Roger waves a casual hand at, you'd instantly find his offered comments on the balance within that society's diet were culturally stereotypical and suspiciously referent only to his own Paleo-diet's arguments. Despite all the starch which Roger attributes to the Italians, they have far lower incidence of obesity than Americans, who meanwhile are obsessed with diet books. Not only relative to Americans. They are some of the least obese people in Europe too, and some of the longest lived in the world. What is Roger not picking up on, from their 2000 year old culinary traditions?

Evidently the Italians know something about a sensible diet, which Roger has not fully acknowledged in his comments here. That herds people like you, who seem unreservedly appreciative, towards his cherished conclusions.

Also, Roger's recommendations glide over the question of appropriateness of such diet in the very young and anyone past the age of 50 who contemplates following such a diet into their 60's and 70's. If you are willing to recommend a diet of 60% fats to your father who is 80 years old, I personally would not regard you as prudent towards maintaining his good health. And if you would not recommend such a diet to him, it calls into question the universality of it's wisdom for all people to pursue.

Do you not wish anyone to point this out? I did not notice anyone else pointing any of this out. The range of comments looked to me more like an overawed readiness to accept all the precepts to kick start yet one more diet wellness book in America. No thought of how quintessentially typical this new thesis on diet and health is, of the history of many such theses sprouting a veritable cottage "wellness industry" which is singularly peculiar of the United States of America. Of course, many of those other authors were brilliant too - but do you notice just how many of them we've had, in this country in the past 30 years?

It seems my remarks are more likely to strike a responsive chord among (a few of) those readers here who are not North American, and hence don't have this peculiar American myopia and anxiety about sensible diet. We Americans are in a state of permanent perplexity, due to this generalized cultural deficit where as a 250 year old country we don't seem to have any depth to our culinary history. We are confused and adrift, unsure how to simply let the subject rest and fall back to using sensible, instinctive food balance guidelines.

I have Roger telling me I need to read up on his thesis to understand how to feed myself healthily, but I already do feed myself healthily, and it was not from reading any book on nutrition - it was from growing up in a country with a very deep gastronomic tradition. When I encounter people (doctors) waving peremptory arms at such tradition and claiming to have a higher degree of nutritional wisdom, I baulk at such assertions as being parochial to this country.

More tellingly than that, Americans are confused and don't grasp the notion that they need only have the cultural humility when our dietary system creates health havoc, to simply adopt the long standing dietary wisdom to be found in the cuisine of many OTHER countries around the world who have the sensible cultural underpinnings for food which we seem to lack. That means discovering their real cuisine, not invoking the stereotypical travelogue version.

So far, I have not seen Roger invoking much of any other nation's cuisine. He departs from the dysfunctional American diet and then purports to fashion health guidelines for every other country as well. That to me contains a certain cultural hubris which I find irksome, having lived half my life abroad, including several years as a small boy in West Africa.

The radical departures of Roger's Paleo-Diet in my view look a bit parochial when compared to the many extremely healthy cuisines to be found in the world. Am I allowed to state this, or is such an observation impermissible?In such an umoored cultual deficit as we have in America on the topic of sensible food and sensible eating, any and every "breakthrough" book on diet is assured of resounding (temporary - until the next diet book) success.

As to anger, it's not spontaneous Cindykimlisa. I am merely allergic to patronizing responses, which is primarily what I have encountered from Roger in increasing increments throughout the discussion. The rhetorical arguments creep in too - such as reiterating how starchy Italian diet is after I point out that Italians despite this paradox to Roger's carbs thesis, remain some of the more slender people in the EU. I agree, this is a weakness on my part. I should learn to suffer the heavy patronizing more amicably.

Luke - you need to take an anger management course and then learn some manners

[cindykimlisa]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Luke
you need to take an anger management course

and then learn some manners

[Andreuccio]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Roger,

Thanks for posting this. I'm at least curious about the diet, and started reading some of the links to authors you mentioned. Interesting stuff.

One question occurs to me. The doomer in me just can't help thinking: we've been setting aside food for emergency supplies. You know the drill, just something to hold us over in case of earthquake, economic collapse, nuclear war, etc. () A large portion of the food we've set aside is rice, beans, and cereals, big no-nos, apparently, on your diet. We do, of course, have some canned meats and fish. Do you have emergency food, and, if yes, what's the make-up? If not, what would you include?

[vinoveri]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

rogermexico, found your views on diet quite intriguing

Was wondering if you could clarify your views on the differences between grains and starches, i.e., although they are both packed with carbs, the former may have the vitamins and fiber that have been hyped for the last generation - I myself am a fan of wheat fiber (insoluble) in that it appears to regulate bowel activity (e.g., prevent contstipation) - do you see any issues with wheat fiber?

Also, how does the basal metabolic rate figure into your views on diet. I've long been convinced that the calories in/calories out is not a sufficient metric to gauge weight gain/loss. I believe there is a genetic component involved; we all know thin people who appear sedentary and load on the food as well as those who seem perpetually chubby and don't appear to over-indulge.

Any views of vitamin C?, Coffee?, EtOH?

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I lived in Naples myself for three years, and have been to at least eight different countries if you count Lichtenstein.

You may have traveled, but your Paleo Nutrition thesis has not. Your thesis, and planned book, are a response to an American epidemic, and skate blithely over the incongruity of advocating a diet rich in protein to a world where for two thirds of the globe's population that is not quite as discretionary as your recommendations assume. This is at the core what irks me about the plethora of diet books being written in America today. All these people really have to do, is eat and live as though they were the rural poor, and most of their health issues would disappear - but that crude and rudimentary notion hardly constitutes enough to fill out a book. Meanwhile we will get another learned doctor parsing America's dietary woes as though they were the woes of the entire world.

Maybe you could consent to put a chapter at the end listing the many delicious foreign dishes which perfectly satisfy your Paleo guidelines, and have been around three or four hundred years?

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Roger - No "name calling". Mostly just suggestions as to why your paleo-diet might benefit from packing it's suitcase and traveling the world for a few years, to broaden it's perspective on the many other wholesome cuisines out there already in existence.

If one discovered many near Paleo-Nutritious cuisines from other cultures have been around a couple of hundred years already, then the Paleo Diet book might consider evolving into a gastronomic travel almanac maybe? Something like "Paleo Nutrition Recipes from Around the World"? (they already exist).

Calling me a "pompous fart" is definitely name calling and not your first.

I lived in Naples myself for three years, and have been to at least eight different countries if you count Lichtenstein.

Thanks for the edit, though.

Please stick to civil argument.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Roger - No "name calling". Mostly just suggestions as to why your paleo-diet might benefit from packing it's suitcase and traveling the world for a few years, to broaden it's perspective on the many other wholesome cuisines out there already in existence.

If one discovered many near Paleo-Nutritious cuisines from other cultures have been around a couple of hundred years already, then the Paleo Diet book might consider evolving into a gastronomic travel almanac maybe? Something like "Paleo Nutrition Recipes from Around the World"? (they already exist).

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Yeah. Self regulation of caloric intake works beautifully all over the world. Just move to a poor country and try launching a book extolling the health benefits of caloric intake restriction there. :rolleyes:

If you read the post, you will see I am not advocating caloric restriction for anyone. The point about self-regulation is related to satiety. You are not hungry on low carb because fat is more satiating and in an environment of abundant food, you will desire to eat less, and thereby self-regulate your intake without having to measure it.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

L-

I am happy your diet conforms so closely to what I advocate.

Please stop with the name calling.

Thank you in advance.

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

Did cavemen drink red wine? :p

No, but I do and I just bought a case of good 05 Bordeaux through WSj wine for only ten bucks a bottle

To eliminate grains and sugars, avoid anything ending in -ose. The maltose in beer is converted straight to glucose and gives a pretty big insulin response - the word "beer gut" is in the lexicon for a reason.

Whiskey and Rye are grain derived but less troublesome than beer.

Red wine is good but the resveratrol thing is hype, just like the fascination with acai berry and "antioxidants" in pill form.

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

I generally agree with Colpo. I personally believe there is a metabolic advantage but that self -regulation of caloric intake may be the primary way low carb in general "works".

Yeah. Self regulation of caloric intake works beautifully all over the world. Just move to a poor country and try launching a book extolling the health benefits of caloric intake restriction there. :rolleyes:

[rogermexico]

Re: PaNu - The paleolithic nutrition argument clinic

The nutritional doctrine you espouse has just recently hit my radar. I'm just finishing The Great Cholesterol Con in which the author states the exact same case repeatedly; agriculture introduced grains into our diets much too recently for us to have adapted to them. We evolved as hunter-gatherers and that is how we should be eating now.

I wish I had realized earlier in life that everything the government tells you is bullshit. Whether it is nutritional advice from the USDA or Surgeon General, economic evaluation from the Fed or Treasury, everything they represent is disingenuous, influenced by money and self interest.

Other books that parallel your argument include Neanderthin and The Paleo Diet.

I generally agree with Colpo. His hang up about the metabolic advantage is unfortunate and a point of contention between him and Michael Eades. I personally believe there is a metabolic advantage but that self -regulation of caloric intake may be the primary way low carb in general "works". To understand metabolic advantage, all you have to know is that Type I diabetics who do no get enough insulin lose weight, no matter how many calories they put in their mouths. No, insulin, no fat storage, period. Taubes and my view are pretty similar.

Of course, following either Eades or Colpo will put you on the same path. They are just arguing about angels on the head of a pin, for most people.

Neanderthin is good as I recall it.

Paleodiet is defective. Although Cordain has published great academic research about the evolutionary non-role of grains, he is phobic about saturated fat and dietary cholesterol. Neither SatFat nor dietary cholesterol is linked to heart disease, cancer, or anything else. Taubes, an award winning science journalist, spent 7 years researching this exhaustively. Good data for Keyes' diet/heart hypothesis, (that posits sat fat and dietary cholesterol cause heart disease), is nonexistent.

The reason this is significant is it is basically impossible to avoid high carb intake and grains (including seed derived oils) and not eat saturated fat. So Cordain is paleo in the sense of eating more specific evolutionary foods, but not in getting as close as you can to paleolithic metabolism.

PS There is another good book with the same title as Colpos', by Malcolm Kendrick. This is a good deconstruction of the diet/heart hypothesis, but his alternative explanation of atheroscelerosis solely due to stress is weak. Worth a read, though.