all posts post new thread

Time to leave the Paleo diet?

I would do some research on Westin Price, taking nutrition advice from a dentist who cherry picked data isn’t a great foundation for nutritional ethos. Here’s a modern study showing how unhealthy hunter gather teeth are.

We have more diet related disease because we live longer in part due to our diets and lack of malnutrition. We are suffering from our success.

I would say you’re over complicating it, state that it’s healthier to eat Whole Foods for the plethora of reasons it is healthier to eat Whole Foods. Don’t act like it’s returning to an ancestral way of eating, that’s complicating things.
There are way too many other factors that went into humans not living as long as we do now. The scarcity of food is one of them, the fact that we had no shelters, no modern medicine to handle infections…. All of those are factors. But what’s the biggest issue we face now in our modern society? Diet related disease.

If you google Westin price, you’re going to get some negative feedback on him people are going to doubt his work, but when you actually look at what he’s preaching there is science backing it. He talks a lot about the importance of vitamin K2 and how vitamin K2 was what he called activator X because it wasn’t discovered yet. The role of vitamin K2 is now been proven to be vital in delivering calcium where it needs to go… the bones and the teeth, and it keeps calcium from building up in the arteries. Where did humans all over the world get their K2? Fish, fish liver, ruminant animal liver, meat, eggs, raw dairy (if they had it) it. All Westin price really preaches based off of his research is that we should be eating diets that include a lot of fat, soluble vitamins it doesn’t matter how you get those vitamins.

Personally, I think society is going backwards. We allow things in our foods like yellow 5, or red 6, or maltodextrin, citric acid, phthalates, glyphosate, and many other bullshit preservatives. All of these things have been scientifically proven to cause cancer, but we allow them in our foods… that makes us even worse than a caveman, because we know that cause disease and we still allow them to be fed to humans

We think we’re smarter now because we have a lot of technology and we think we’re better off but I’m not convinced. Otherwise we wouldn’t be feeding our children s*** that we know causes cancer it wouldn’t even be allowed in food.

And the notion that all people did not live long lives isn’t necessarily true. Whenever they average out human lifespan, they factor in infant mortality. Babies died an alarming rate back in the day in all societies before modern medicine.

I fully understand that caveman and hunter gatherers had hard lives. I’m not gonna argue that, but I think they were smarter than us when it comes to diet by being not as “advanced”. Even the idea that science is always right it’s nonsense. Especially when you have scientists that are easily manipulated by corporations to skewed data to make their products seem healthy. It’s amazing how many people who try keto, carnivore, or Paleo type diets and experience, amazing results and get off medication’s that they’ve been on their entire life.
 
Last edited:
That’s a good one, my brain didn’t go down this route. There’s also Vitamin D fortified milk (1930s) and iodized salt (1924).
I don’t agree that pasteurized dairy is healthy. Pasteurized dairy is the main reason for lactose intolerance. And you wouldn’t need to fortify dairy if you eat raw because the pasteurization process ruins, the nutrition that’s why they add vitamin D back in.
 
So all the genetic evolution that occurred with caucasians making them better able to digest lactose doesn’t have any factor in lactose intolerance?

I think you’re missing my overall point, which is fine. I think your belief systems have brought you to a healthier diet decision than a lot of Americans, so no harm no foul.
 
So all the genetic evolution that occurred with caucasians making them better able to digest lactose doesn’t have any factor in lactose intolerance?

I think you’re missing my overall point, which is fine. I think your belief systems have brought you to a healthier diet decision than a lot of Americans, so no harm no foul.
I didn’t just stumbled upon this way of thinking when you live your entire life on medication and then you find out is because of all of the modern food that you’ve been eating. It really opened your eyes. I don’t really have an auto immune disease what I have is a body that doesn’t agree with the modern day foods that we’re being fed. And I’m not alone in this. It’s staggering how many humans are on pharmaceuticals that they likely wouldn’t need if they ate real foods.

I can tell you right now I will be the last person to get in line to try out the new fake meats that are gonna be coming out that I’m sure the scientist are going to tell us are better for us than real meat.
 
And you wouldn’t need to fortify dairy if you eat raw because the pasteurization process ruins, the nutrition that’s why they add vitamin D back in.

Sorry, that's just not factually correct:


Vitamin D was added to fight malnutrition / rickets, especially in northern climates and increasing industrialization meant kids spent less time outdoors.
 
Hmmm....

If that's the case why did adult lactase / lactose tolerance amongst Northern Europeans and Massai in Africa even need to evolve 5,000 years ago?

P.S.

Lactose tolerant people can still die from milk with salmonella, listeria, etc.
Many lactose intolerant people cannot drink pasteurized milk but have no issues with raw dairy. Not everyone… yes there is a risk drinking raw milk or consuming raw dairy. But there’s also risks of getting all those bacteria from lettuce. There is always a risk of bacteria in any food you eat.
 
Many lactose intolerant people cannot drink pasteurized milk but have no issues with raw dairy. Not everyone… yes there is a risk drinking raw milk or consuming raw dairy. But there’s also risks of getting all those bacteria from lettuce. There is always a risk of bacteria in any food you eat.

So then we agree:

Pasteurization reduces risk relative to raw milk.

AKA it's healthier

We don't have nearly as many people dying per capita from food borne illnesses in dairy compared to 100 years ago.
 
Pasturizing milk doesnt destroy but it does reduce many of the healthy nutrients of raw milk. And it does destroy a lot of the healthy bacteria.
 
Pasturizing milk doesnt destroy but it does reduce many of the healthy nutrients of raw milk. And it does destroy a lot of the healthy bacteria.

It definitely doesn't destroy Vitamin D, which is what you claimed above.

Because raw milk has hardly any Vitamin D to begin with.

In addition, vitamin D fortification has been mandatory since 1975 for pasteurized milk sold in Canada, making it an excellent source of this vitamin, unlike raw milk, which contains only a very small amount.


Vitamin D added to pasteurized milks makes it higher than raw milk ever was.
 
Even the idea that science is always right it’s nonsense. Especially when you have scientists that are easily manipulated by corporations to skewed data to make their products seem healthy.
Science doesn’t make claims to be “right,” it examines the best available data to try and draw informed conclusions. When new evidence and information becomes available, those conclusions get revised. As for the second sentence, “scientists being manipulated by corporations” is an exception to the rule, it is not THE rule. While it may have occurred, the fact that it occurred does not make all scientific studies around diet suddenly corrupt.

I’m going to keep the subject matter to diet and science here, so I’ll put it this way: there are people out there who cast doubt on scientific studies and practices because it serves their viewpoint to do so. In doing so, they harm the trust we need to have in our scientists.

I wrote it earlier but I’ll reiterate it: good science talks about probability, does not imply causation unless the mechanism of causation can be rigorously defined, uses highly specific language , and frequently looks for new evidence.

Again, why turn to trained professionals for their expertise in one field and distrust the experts in another field? You wouldn’t hire a carpenter to install your plumbing right?
 
Regardless all of the food mentioned above are not completely new foods. They were foods that had been around and were tinkered with to try and improve them. It’s debatable whether rice or any grains are even good for human consumption at all. Especially gmo grains. I’d argue they aren’t. Why is it so far fetched to think that our early ancestors had a better diet than what we have now, minus the times they had no food. I understand scarcity was an issue. Another possible issue could just be the whole GMO grains could be the problem. Many people with gluten intolerance and other GI issues claim to be able to vacation in Italy and eat all the pasta and bread they want without issue. Why? Becuase they use what’s called ancient grains that are not gmo and don’t have glyphosate in them. This has never been proven by science but sometimes anecdotal evidence has value. If you think our food system is good now the way it is, you clearly aren’t seeing all the disease, obesity, and metabolic issues I see. Just because we have a pill to fix things doesn’t mean we shouldn’t find the root cause. I never said our ancestors had perfect lives but I know they never ate a Twinkie or a zombie taki.

Why do you think we need strength training to be healthy as well? Becuase we evolved as creatures that physically hunt, run, and use our muscles. We are no different now that’s why training is important. We sit at our desks and think we’re smarter and more evolved when really we need to run outside in the sun and lift heavy things.
 
Heading way into left field here, but generally I do trust most of the scientific process. OTOH, not too many years ago the editors in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet supported the assertion that as much as 1/2 of all published research papers were un-repeatable, or presented conclusions that to some extent were misrepresented to the point of fraudulence.

There's not enough publicly funded, no strings attached research.
 
Italy doesn’t use “ancient grains”, they use the exact same wheat species. That’s like claiming German shepherds are “ancient dogs” compared to chihuahuas.

Ancient grains is also a defined term, which doesn’t include wheat.


I also have some real bad news if you’re worried about how recent the cultivars on red wheat are, because you’re basically not going to be able eat any vegetables, beef, pork or fruit.
 
Last edited:
If you think our food system is good now the way it is, you clearly aren’t seeing all the disease, obesity, and metabolic issues I see. Just because we have a pill to fix things doesn’t mean we shouldn’t find the root cause.
I can’t speak for others in the thread, but I never claimed that. I think our food system does have a lot of problems. All I’m arguing is to look at evidence for what it is, and not extrapolate meanings that might not be there.
There's not enough publicly funded, no strings attached research.
I’m not sure there’s as much “strings attached” research as we might be led to believe. Does a study “having strings attached” mean the outcome has to be fudged? I’m not convinced that happens as often as naysayers would have us believe. Someone has to pay the people to do it. I’ve seen vegan/vegetarian doctors get funding from Kelloggs and Quaker Oats, and I’ve seen research on meat funded by cattle farmers. I don’t mean to sound rude, but it seems quite obvious what entities will fund what research. I think the funding is a moot point.

This is part of why I wrote “most people don’t know what a confidence interval or P-value are.” If a study contains data, which all do (and a great deal of it becomes numerical) all the numbers and percents and whatnot that you read in a study mean something that tells the authors how reliable something is or isn’t, or how much of an effect variables have on each other, etc. It doesn’t matter who funded the study if you understand how to interpret all that. You’re just going to have to trust someone at some point. This is also why I have been trying to say that we need to able to trust our professionals. Do we really think they’re spending decades trying to understand something, doing research, testing ideas, and that all of it is just made up to get rich from [donor x]?
 
Why is it so far fetched to think that our early ancestors had a better diet than what we have now, minus the times they had no food. I understand scarcity was an issue.


If you think our food system is good now the way it is, you clearly aren’t seeing all the disease, obesity, and metabolic issues I see.

There is a *vast* history of food and what people ate between our early ancestors in the paleolithic and now.

I agree that there are a lot of issues with our food system now.

Did my ancestors 200 years ago eat more whole foods than most people now?

Yes.

Were they paleo?

Not at all.

They were post-agricultural revolution / post-domestication-of-animals farmers.

They planted crops and ate vegetables that had been selectively cultivated over millennia by humans.

They ate animals domesticated and selectively bred by humans.

Their diet was possibly healthier than modern ones, and definitely less processed, but it wasn't paleo.
 
Back
Top Bottom