Paleo...

Al Ciampa

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Certified Instructor
This really just suggests that the more information available, the less we know. Or, human comprehension is quite low. The two coupled makes me want to join the preppers.

1. Starches are part of the “paleo diet”; modernized grains are not.
2. This dude throws grains in with starches, and then only discusses starches in relation to salivary inheritance, which I agree with is suggestive.
3. However, it suggests that low carb is inappropriate for humans, not paleo.
4. Owning the evolutionary ability to digest starches doesn’t preclude potentially having to forego carbohydrates for health improvement if a lifetime modern foodstuffs have disabled your physiological function.
 

North Coast Miller

More than 2500 posts
I think it is just another debunking of certain dietary assumptions in the absence or in spite of the evidence. Much of this information has been around for quite some time.

Keto underwent a similar process of discovery a few years back. The difference between what works and speculation about "how things are meant to be" and what reality says. We are definitely made to be nutritionally flexible. As hunter gatherers, dietary staples would probably change quite a bit with the seasons, at every latitude.
 

LukeV

More than 300 posts
As I interpret it the strongest evidence for evolutionary influence on macronutrients is that dietary carbohydrate is not essential for the human, unlike dietary protein and fat. You can live healthily (but maybe not happily lol) without carbohydrate. Of course the next question is but why would you? Particularly given carbohydrate containing foods are nutritious, plentiful, cheap and tasty. The answer is that you would restrict carbohydrate if you wanted to lose weight or otherwise be ketogenic but otherwise you wouldn't bother.
 

Marc

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
The claim of the paleo community is that one should avoid all those sources of carbs that paleolithic people did not have access to.
But this is ignorant in more than one regard:

1. Who are these paleolithic people? Diets of people living in the tropic will differ dramatically from those living in the subartic tundra. So, which is your "reference" population?

2. Even most the foods promoted by the paleo diet weren't aviable to paleolithic populations in the form we know them today. These are mostly entirely the product of selective breeding over the past 10000 years or so. You won't recognize the ancient forms of banana, maize or wheat (just to name a few).

3. Paleo folks ignore the speed of evolution: Human did (and still do) adept to environmental chances like diet. It is just that a human lifespan is seldomly enough to observe it.
The video references it when talking about amylase. Having more copies of the amylase gene is a clear sign of adaptation to a high carb diet. Another paper (not discussed in the video) found significant differences in the number of copies for the amylase gene between different populations. This correlated with the diets, i.e. populations with a diet high in carbs had more copies of the amylase gene and in fact a higher salivary amylase content. Another nice example is lactose persistence which evolved independently twice. About 7000 years ago in central/northern Europe and again about 5000 years ago in the Masai People of Kenia/Tansania who hold kettle (as opposed to neighbouring tribes who do not and therefore did not evolve the adaptation of lactose persistence). This is clear evidence for a relatively fast evolution which is ignored by paleo fans.

4. Historical evidence clearly indicates that humans started a lot earlier to ingest grains then previously assumed which leaves even more time for adaptation to have occured.

5. Appeal to nature fallacie: This is a classic. Just because something is natural does not mean it is good for you. Nature does not care about you, let alone your performance/physique goals.
 

Snowman

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
4. Owning the evolutionary ability to digest starches doesn’t preclude potentially having to forego carbohydrates for health improvement if a lifetime modern foodstuffs have disabled your physiological function.
I think this is a key point worth making. Of course, one could make the reverse point, that while we have ability to exist and be healthy without any dietary carbohydrate, that does not mean that we should. In either case, we have to accept that what works for one person's physiology (and psychology) may not work for someone else. Using any person or group of people as an inflexible standard will always leave some people wanting, regardless of whether our example is our grandparents, an accomplished athlete, or a group of people who lived 150,000 years ago. As @Marc pointed out, there is a certain degree of population dependent development that we see, which means that someone’s ancestry makes a difference in how well the do with different dietary approaches. As @Al Ciampa indicated, these genetic predispositions can then be heavily, even permanently, modified by one’s environment, starting at day 1 of conception.

I feel a general sense of exasperation when faced with someone suggesting that everyone should go to one kind of diet, regardless of what that diet is. With all the different variables that can come into play, the only things that really matters are 1) Is it safe? and 2) Am I getting the results I want? My experiences may be valuable for getting someone else off on the right foot, but their own experience is the only standard that really matters. Again, assuming it’s safe. I can confidently state that the Pop Tart and Adderall diet is a bad idea ;)
 

deviant

Double-Digit Post Count
Before the advent of agriculture the population of humans on the planet was pretty stable. After - it literally exploded. How does it tie with the idea that grains are somehow bad for a human body?

Unless there is some sort of intolerance there is absolutely nothing wrong with grains.
 
Last edited:

North Coast Miller

More than 2500 posts
Of course, one could make the reverse point, that while we have ability to exist and be healthy without any dietary carbohydrate, that does not mean that we should.
Is worth noting in passing that the absolute reason we can exist without ingesting carbs is because we can manufacture them from amino acids and even lipids if necessary. Lacking this ability we'd have to make due without our liver at the least...

But yes I agree 100%, we cannot even generalize by ancestral group. And the elephant in the room:

 

Marc

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
To be fair: of course, I'd consider eating according to the guidlines provided by the paleo diet as healthy im general. And without a doubt by magnitudes better then most people's eating habits especially the so called western diet which is shown over and over again to be extremely unhealthy.
But paleo gets the facts wrong and is dogmatic.
 

LukeV

More than 300 posts
Recent studies on deleterious effects of so-called ultra-processed foods (weight gain, cancer, mortality) are very interesting and raise the question as to whether our fixation on macronutrients and demonising natural foodstuffs like wheat has obscured the real culprit of food preparation methods and additives.

I really liked this high cost study using the rigour of a metabolic ward. The diets were matched for macronutrients and fibre but the results were starkly different:

It's Not Just Salt, Sugar, Fat: Study Finds Ultra-Processed Foods Drive Weight Gain
 

Marc

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Of course it is not very surprising that ultra processed foods are not good for you.
Rather it is all about the whole context.
Example: You are having a stew that consists of some lean meat, broth, beans and/or lentils, vegetables. Now you are having white bread as a side. Is the white bread really bad in that context? Probably not because you are having it within a meal that consists of protein, veggies, micronutrients, fibre. The white bread is just an additional carb source and I see absolutely no reason why this should be counterproductive in any way.
 

deviant

Double-Digit Post Count
Recent studies on deleterious effects of so-called ultra-processed foods (weight gain, cancer, mortality) are very interesting and raise the question as to whether our fixation on macronutrients and demonising natural foodstuffs like wheat has obscured the real culprit of food preparation methods and additives.

I really liked this high cost study using the rigour of a metabolic ward. The diets were matched for macronutrients and fibre but the results were starkly different:

It's Not Just Salt, Sugar, Fat: Study Finds Ultra-Processed Foods Drive Weight Gain
I always cringe when someone posts the re-hash of a study by some journalist. If you go to the original text (linked in the article) the conclusions fall to Mr.Obvious category.

One:
While we attempted to match several nutritional parameters between the diets, the ultra-processed versus unprocessed meals differed substantially in the proportion of added to total sugar (∼54% versus 1%, respectively), insoluble to total fiber (∼16% versus 77%, respectively), saturated to total fat (∼34% versus 19%), and the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids (∼11:1 versus 5:1).
It's no secret that insoluble fiber helps control appetite, while sugar stimulates it.

Another - "non-beverage energy density of processed diet" was almost double that of control, 1,957 and 1,057, respectively.

And so the study has demonstrated something that has been known for a long time: more calorie dense food delays satiety.

Calorie density is the single most important difference between processed and unprocessed food. If energy intake is controlled the impact of other factors get cancelled or at least greatly diminished.

Food additives commercially packaged foods may play a role in health, and it's possible that their impact is significant. However, nobody who mentions them ever names any compounds or references relevant research.
 
Top Bottom