Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

8

Grains want to kill us with lectins, phytates, glutens, etc
Vegetables and fruits want to kill us with oxalates, fructose, salicyclates, etc.
Tubers with saponins
Legumes contain a nice arsenal of anti-nutrients
Fish with mercury
Meat with potentially excess iron for men and pre-menopausal females
Dairy via increased IGF-1, which may promote certain cancers, acne, etc.
Certain paleo foods are actually the MOST widely allergenic (Nuts, fish, shellfish)

Paleo talks about anti-nutrients in neolithic foods a lot. And that's a conversation worth having of course. But what about all the anti-nutrients and allergnic issues in regard to paleo foods? Why do they get a free-pass?

References:

http://www.foodallergy.org/section/allergens/

http://www.westonaprice.org/food-features/plants-bite-back

flag	asked Aug 15 at 12:50 Mystery Man X 1,065●2●9

1

They don't get a free pass. Everything is up for discussion here. Some things are better than others, so it's good to focus on that. And it's probably better to eat many different veggies so that overexposure to a particular antinutrient is less. Although I don't follow that advice with respect to coffee... – Dave S. Aug 15 at 15:07

3

Death by coffee--I'm okay with that. – Nemesis Aug 15 at 15:15

And don't forget death by chocolate! – CaveMan_Mike Apr 27 at 12:18

Rob · Answer 1 · 2012-08-15 14:55:27Z UTC

8

You forgot to scare people off eggs.

answered Aug 15 at 14:55

Rob
2,727●3●7

Elunah · Answer 2 · 2012-08-15 13:30:31Z UTC

7

Choose your poison. I pick the ones we were evolved to handle.

answered Aug 15 at 13:30

Elunah
2,547●14

1

Then why do you think paleo approved foods like shellfish/fish/nuts are among the top 8 MOST allergenic foods if we evolved to eat them? Why do so many have issues with the oxalates and salicylates in veggies/fruits if we evolved to handle them? – Mystery Man X Aug 15 at 13:41

5

^ I dont think allergies are at all natural, mystery man. I doubt paleo man while out hunting broke out in hives because he whiffed some wild cat dander, or pollen. Check out "the old freinds theory"- it explains why modern mans immune system is hyperactive and overreactive. Basically its hygeine, but more specifically a lack of certain beneficial bacteria etc, that we evolved along side. One case in point is that allergies are much less frequent in areas exposed to animal dung, dirt, etc (ie farms and rural areas). – Jamie Aug 15 at 13:46

I think the most common allergy is pollen (or perhaps animal fur). Theres no doubt whatsoever, that pollen and animal fur are not bodily toxins. Its the immune system at fault, not the pollen or fur. That said there are some objectionables in some foods, and some people react to them more than others. I think though your conversation generally might be better making specific comparisons. Say between casien or gluten, and phytates in nuts. Unless we are talking about something tangible and analysable, its kinda just speculative.. – Jamie Aug 15 at 13:53

1

Right on Elunah – Alvaro Aug 15 at 14:26

1

MysteryManX - Are you stupid enough to eat foods you are allergic too? If so than I say evolution in action, knock yourself out. Just because they are goods which people can develop allergies to doesn't mean that those who aren't allergic shouldn't eat them. – Satchmo Aug 16 at 2:15

show 2 more comments

fromthericefields · Answer 3 · 2012-08-15 13:18:13Z UTC

2

Yep although fish has heavy metals I eat en all the time for breakfast (tuna) with eggs, and sardines in my big ass salad

answered Aug 15 at 13:18

fromthericefields
760●1●8

me too. seafood daily. – foreveryoung Aug 15 at 14:30

3

ass salad... not too tasty, but that salad sounds good – Slim Grim Aug 15 at 15:06

2

Lol sardines with avocado, olive oil tomato cucumber, and lettuce always tastes good! Lots of fat and moderate protein for me, sometimes I go for extra and add large green olives for an extra fatty salad! – fromthericefields Aug 15 at 15:47

Rand · Answer 4 · 2012-08-15 14:52:46Z UTC

You should differentiate between intolerances, which are things you simply cannot digest, and allergies, which have no proven genetic origins.

As it turns out, allergies are very environmental, and can appear or disappear depending on lots of factors. Intolerances on the other hand are pretty much for life (of course there's a difference between what your body can digest as a kid and as an adult, lactose being one example).

Paleo will deal with intolerances. Its up to you I guess to figure out your allergies and take these foods out as well.

Mystery Man X · Answer 5 · 2012-08-16 01:25:43Z UTC

2

Some good answers here...however some of you say that being sensitive to paleo foods must be due to things in our modern environment which make SOME folks abnormally hyper-sensitive to certain paleo foods. For instance, screwed up gut bacteria perhaps is what makes SOME have bad reactions to fish, shellfish, etc.

Well I think that's a great theory, and very possibly true.

But...why are you failing to apply this same logic to neolithic foods? That's the whole point I'm trying to make here. We go into excuse making mode for why PALEO foods like cabbage, fish, nuts, spinach, etc can be an issue for some, but when neolithic foods cause SOME folks issues, then it must because...well because those are evil neolithic foods of course.

So why can't it be that SOME folks respond badly to certain neolithic foods because of bad gut bacteria as well? Just as you're saying is the case when SOME respond poorly to paleo foods.

Wazz up with the double standard and logical inconsistencies here?

answered Aug 16 at 1:25

Mystery Man X
1,065●2●9

1

Guesses: 1. Neolithic foods cause issues for a larger amount of people (Wheat, sugar, GMO's affect everyone AND the environment...paleo foods- less people and cause a natural check for the environment, not a created one). 2. The number of people with disease is likely positively correlated with the severity of individual disease in moderate cases. You're talking about individuals. Not populations. – Heather Aug 16 at 4:14

Did you not see where several PALEO foods are in the top-8 list of MOST allergenic foods? Eight foods account for 90 percent of all food-allergic reactions. They are milk, egg, peanut, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, soy, and wheat. That appears to be an even 50/50 split between neolithic and paleo foods contribution to allergic reactions. (If you consider eggs and tree nuts paleo, which I do) – Mystery Man X Aug 16 at 11:08

Ok, I see. I'm differentiating though between allergic reaction vs. general poor health. If I eat shellfish and have an anaphylactic reaction then I won't continue to eat it. If I don't react poorly then I doubt I will feel other negative health consequences. The problems with wheat are the availability/convenience for overeating and decreased nutrient content (I saw your point regarding processing). – Heather Aug 16 at 16:05

It seems like it's the more insidious reactions that are the problem... diabetes (carbs), depression (maybe lack of nutrients, sugar issues?), obesity. Eggs, treenuts, fish and shellfish are the lower carb foods on the list. So I don't think paleo foods get a free pass, it just seems like they are more nutrient dense, so if I can eat them I should. – Heather Aug 16 at 16:08

David · Answer 6 · 2012-08-16 01:59:03Z UTC

Have you considered that the modern way of consuming those foods might be a big part of the problem? Grains, nuts, legumes and even most vegetables were at one time, soaked, sprouted, fermented or otherwise perpared to minimize toxins and antinutrients. Now, people leave food preparation to large corporations who don't use these methods because they are focused on profits.

The old ways of processing foods are almost forgotten (or we wouldn't be having this discussion) ;)

BoneBrothFast · Answer 7 · 2012-08-15 14:38:30Z UTC

1

Fish with mercury

Humans did that. Humans fucked up fish. But no matter, you don't absorb the mercury if your gut is in good shape.

Meat with potentially excess iron for men and pre-menopausal females

Only an issue for those with Hemochromatosis or if you're not getting a mineral-rich diet. Many minerals compete for absorption and so a mineral-rich diet will keep iron in check.

answered Aug 15 at 14:38

BoneBrothFast
4,564●2●17

2

Link to support that a healthy gut does not absorb mercury? – Matt Aug 15 at 16:12

@Matt Source 1: Common sense. Learn about how the body absorbs heavy metals and other "metallic" minerals. Source 2: "Role of gut bacteria in human toxicology and pharmacology" by Bradley Hillman. Source 3: Pubmed also has a few studies and experiments relating to the matter, but I don't feel like sifting through my bookmarks right now. I'd start there. – BoneBrothFast Aug 15 at 19:15

1

Then at least summarize the reason, telling one to essentially google it does one no good. I know of no reason why an amino-acid-complexed mercury wouldn't be absorbed. – Matt Aug 15 at 21:25

I agree that mercury is human's fault. Bad example on my part. – Mystery Man X Aug 16 at 1:37

For the same reason that 100% of everything you eat isn't absorbed. – BoneBrothFast Aug 16 at 2:42

show 1 more comment

veritasnyc · Answer 8 · 2012-08-15 15:15:31Z UTC

They "are out to kill us"? Hmm.. ok.

I think that you're conflating a whole slew of things via simplification; it also ignores several others that affect causality (like the role humans have played in changing foods, the environment, and themselves).

For starters, I don't think that fish developed the ability to hold excess mercury in their bodies to dissuade predators from eating them. Say, as opposed to some plants' chemical weapons.

Yes, some plants may have developed chemical weapons to ensure the survivability of their offspring (i.e. seeds). Others may have added both protections and incentives (like fructose) to get an edge.

However, how have we affected the foods themselves?

How much access to these foods (and chemicals) would we have had in the past? what of seasonality?

How much more do we eat?

How have our eating habits and practices affected our ability to process / handle food (including auto-immune / allergic reactions) or even our nutrition profile (e.g. effect of avoiding organs)? individually, collectively, over time?

How have we affected the environment and this in turn affected the profiles of food (everything from soil mineral depletion to pollution)?

etc. etc. etc.

Best is to tackle each one of those items individually, instead of lumping them all together and generalizing a question.

primallykosher · Answer 9 · 2012-08-16 02:09:45Z UTC

1

You should always armored with a fork, knife spoon and napkin to defend yourself from killer food. It can attack you at any moment.

answered Aug 16 at 2:09

primallykosher
4,360●1●9●23

Heck, even oxygen eventually helps kill us via oxidation/free-radicals. Mother Nature sure can be a bitch. – Mystery Man X Aug 16 at 2:18

James · Answer 10 · 2012-08-16 03:06:41Z UTC

1

I was going to convert to breatharianism but even that isn't safe with the toxins and pollutants in the air these days.

answered Aug 16 at 3:06

James
599●2●7

aseafish · Answer 11 · 2012-08-15 14:21:00Z UTC

0

No foods get a free pass as far as I can tell. The issues you refer to with what would be called Paleo foods are modern in their inception. The safest and most logical food choices appear to be real foods with the least degree of toxins.

Clearly, one should avoid those foods to which they have know allergic reactions.

answered Aug 15 at 14:21

aseafish
3,809●3●11

1

Yep like me and my pepper, got to stay away from the stuff, I love them spices but they don't like me..... – fromthericefields Aug 15 at 15:48

1

Can't forget the raw egg whites, can't do those either – fromthericefields Aug 15 at 15:49

Diane · Answer 12 · 2012-08-15 16:13:46Z UTC

0

They say you are better off eating things that are defenseless when dead. That's animals. Mercury isn't a defense, it a poison we put there with our stupid industrial culture. The other things in plants are basically okay in small doses for the hormetic effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis

answered Aug 15 at 16:13

Diane
4,249●1●9

	Consider also that what we call "anti-nutrients" may also serve positive functions in regards to human health. For instance phytic acid acts an antioxidant. – Mystery Man X Aug 16 at 2:27
	Antitumor activity of phytic acid (inositol hexaphosphate) in murine transplanted and metastatic fibrosarcoma, a pilot study. Cancer Letters. 1992 July 31;65(1):9-13 – Mystery Man X Aug 16 at 2:28
	Protective effect of phytic acid on oxidative DNA damage with reference to cancer chemoprevention. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 2001 November 2;288(3):552-7 – Mystery Man X Aug 16 at 2:28

lostgoonie · Answer 13 · 2012-08-15 16:39:10Z UTC

0

Yes .

answered Aug 15 at 16:39

lostgoonie
963●1●3●8

Amy B. · Answer 14 · 2012-08-15 20:56:05Z UTC

0

Shameless self promotion:

I addressed a couple of the "Paleo food antinutrients" a while back in a guest post on RW's blog:

Antinutrients

Long story short: STOP STRESSING OUT about goitrogens, oxalates, etc. You're likely doing your health more harm by constantly worrying and nitpicking than by any damage eating real foods like cabbage, chard, and blueberries would do.

answered Aug 15 at 20:56

Amy B.
8,766●4●21

	I do think that there is a real problem with oxalates, goitrogens etc. but it comes from the fact that "health conscious" people are eating massive amounts of oxalate rich foods, raw goitrogenic food like cabbage etc. this has not been going on for long, it's a recent phenomenon and there seems to be a price to pay for this for many. So, I think it's a legitimate worry. – mM Aug 15 at 22:24
	Let's say you are correct that these anti-nutrients in paleo foods are nothing to worry about for the most part. Then why is that the anti-nutrients in neolithic foods are bad then? Saying an anitnutrient is harmless as long as it's in a "paleo food"...but becomes harmful when in a neolithic food doesn't seem logical to me. Perhaps I'm just too dense to understand. Though I do tend to agree that modern dwarf wheat is bad news. But I think ancient einkorn wheat may be harmless to most. – Mystery Man X Aug 16 at 1:30
	You reference phytic-acid in your article, saying it's mostly in grains and beans, so as long as you avoid those you're probably ok. And perhaps you are correct. However, nuts are considered paleo by most and here's their phytic acid content. Almonds 1,280 mg/100 gram Cashews 1,866 mg/100 gram Chestnuts 47 mg/100 gram Hazelnuts 1,620 mg/100 gram Peanuts, toasted 933 mg/100 gram Jif peanut butter 1,252 mg/100 gram Black walnuts 1,977 mg/100 gram English walnuts 760 mg/100 gram Phytic acid content of other foods: Elbow Macorini = 260 mg/100 gram (LESS than nuts!) – Mystery Man X Aug 16 at 1:34
	Interesting article on oxalic acid... In Defense of Oxalic Acid - dewsworld.com/FInDefenseofOxalicAcid.html – Mystery Man X Aug 16 at 2:37
	@mM -- yes, exactly -- you could say "the poison is in the dose." The point of my article was that it's nearly impossible to find a food (Paleo or not) that doesn't contain some kind of antinutrient or other substance that interferes with digestion/assimilation of nutrients. I think the key is to eat a varied diet so that you're not consuming only raw cabbage and broccoli for weeks on end. Hedge your bets, so to speak. – Amy B. Aug 16 at 12:46

show 3 more comments

So All Food is Out to Kill Us Right?

14 Answers