they're just defending their carb-heavy diet plan. i did p90x for 2 months faithfully- and gained 4lbs by coming off my trad low carb diet and getting on their diet plan. plus the volume of their workout made all of my nagging injuries flare up...
"There have also been studies, such as this one in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition1, that showed "whole-grain consumption was associated with a modest reduced risk" of colorectal cancer. And at least seven different studies2 have also indicated that people who ate three servings of whole grains a day had a 20 to 30 percent lower risk of both cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes than those who ate less than three servings"
"Also, as I previously stated, the parts of grains that we eat are seeds—and they're strikingly similar to legumes and nuts, which Homo sapiens have been snacking on for millennia."
I could go on, but it is littered with faulty logic and badly drawn conclusions. And apparently we paleos can't use penicillin because it is a neolithic invention.
All that being said, things like rice and properly prepared corn are probably not so bad for you. They are displacing more nutritious foods from your diet, but I doubt they'll kill you. Traditional cultures have eaten them and been perfectly healthy, but who's to say they wouldn't have been even better off without these foods?
Very loose logic, for example, comparing penicillin to grains. We don't avoid medicine for some vague idea of morality or rule like vegetarianism. The article makes little mention of nutrient density of veggies vs. insulin response ratio from grains.
Top it all off with flawed associative logic about other issues like poisoning, etc., its just a poorly written article.
I'm of the opinion that it's necessary for people to match their carbohydrate intake to their activity level. For nearly all people on the standard American diet, the level of activity required to balance out that level of carb intake is out of reach or at least unsustainable. As such, it makes far more sense to employ a sliding scale of carb intake that ebbs and flows depending on the day's particular activity level. I workout 3x a week and on off days I eat 1 serving of fruit with each meal, but on workout days I have to double it or I feel my blood sugar plummeting. I don't know if that's typical, but that's what I have to do.
If I ever became a lot more active it is conceivable that the amount of fruit required to fuel me would be ridiculous and at that point I would consider oatmeal or something to boost the carbs, but I wouldn't workout in the morning and eat oatmeal at night. It would still be important to ensure that your blood glucose level doesn't exceed 130 mg/dl or whatever we agree is the dangerous threshold to cross.
Before I start: credentials: Kinesiology Major, McMaster University, Hamilton. I believe the paleo philosophy has value, and I in fact "train paleo", with barefoot running, HIT, compound exercises (big crossfit fan!) HOWEVER...
@mari & @Tim Logic isn't faulty just because the conclusions don't fit your world view, especially when the arguments being made don't ACTUALLY contradict your world view. The Author is not making an anti-paleo, or even a Pro-Grain argument. He is (ironically) pointing out the "loose logic" in the Paleo argument in an effort to enlighten paleo-fanatics in an attempt to adopt moderation skepticism in their thinking:
the penicillin argument the author makes goes as follows: 1-All things NOT paleo are BAD (implied argument many paleo's make) 2-Penicillin was, likely, not available 10,000+ years ago, and therefore not paleo. Ergo Penicillin is bad The fact that we know that argument is ridiculous is pointing out that premise 1 is faulty.
The "Paleo" label, is becoming increasingly a subculture label and rallying cry for individuals who don't want to do their own research, rather than a legitimate nutritional theory. It is getting to the point that once an "authority figure" (of many times dubious credentials) calls something "paleo" then his or her lemmings jump off the cliff on command.
The Author simply points out that many PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH ARTICLES have demonstrated benefits of WHOLE grains for specific conditions, therefore, not all grains are pure evil, as specifically stated or implied by many in the paleo community. He says refined grains are bad and points out the Food Pyramid has even changed (based on research) to moderate previous recommendations, and ultimately requests (with sarcastic tone) a deep breath and night of reading the Journal of Nutrition by the fire (http://jn.nutrition.org/)
So please, please, please read an article as the author intended, and THEN refute the specific arguments with facts or else you are liable to miss the point and make an ass of yourself.
@mari Your argument for nuts and beans as a caveman delicacy isn't an argument. It is a statement that actually supports the authors point.
By saying the article contains logical fallacies and then demonstrating you do not understand formal logic, you look like a complete idiot.
@luckybastard While is sucks that your PRE EXISTING injuries crept up, is it possible they are due to PRE EXISTING mechanical flaws or PRE EXISTING muscle imbalances, and not the plate of spaghetti P90x may have asked that you eat? Also, could the weight have been muscle growth?
@Adam Regarding support for lucky's post. Lucky's testimonial is by no means complete enough to render a verdict. There are too many variables uncontrolled. Based on that point, it is obvious that lucky has no formal education or knowledge of training, nutrition, or fitness and is by no means an expert to take an opinion from.
@lucky I do commend your efforts. Few people actually take the time to get off the couch. Unfortunately, there is so much bad information coming from people with weekend training courses that few people see results. I understand it can be frustrating.
@Steven- Don't call an article "subjective opinion" without clarification. By saying the article is simply "subjective", the argument you are implying is: 1-Science requires observable, verifiable facts. 2-You are a rational being only swayed by science. 3-There are no verifiable facts in the article. Ergo crappy article.
Allow me to retort. Contrary to premise 3, there are verifiable facts, based on science. Many, many facts. While this doesn't prove your premise 2 to be false (note: I agree with premise 1), it DOES prove you are: (a) too lazy to attempt to refute the facts in the article OR (b) not educated enough to refute the facts in the article OR (c) both.
Either way you contributed nothing valuable to the discussion and should be ashamed of yourself. Next time don't say anything, as you could lead people like luckybastard (or yourself, frankly) astray.
Now, I recognize the tone of my points is incendiary. If you are insulted by it, deal with it. It is no more insulting to you than your posts would be to the article Author.
I will submit the following for discussion: Paleo nutritional and training theory has an appealing logical basis, and some tangential scientific support. However, general nutrition, let alone paleo-based theories, is not well understood by the scientific community as a whole. Therefore, we should all approach the subject with caution until all facts are known.
This is in response to the post by brianthekinesiologist...sorry, read his first. Technology...?.
Before I start: Credentials..30 years certified Personal Trainer, 6 years Weight and Diet Coordinator The Pritikin Center, Type 2 now Type 1 Diabetic studying under Dr. Richard K Berntein and currently working for the past 3 years with Dr. Ron Rosedale in India with Obese and Diabetics @ HK Hospital Mumbai.
"Eventually, people started to figure out that you need carbs to survive, given that they're the body's primary source of fuel"
False. You use either glucose or keytones as primary fuel .If you feed the body sugars or things(grains) that turn to sugar your body will use those first because they are toxic. Not because they are the prefered fuel. Feed the body low carb thus low sugar and the process of insulin sensitive lypase is not interrupted and the body burns ketones and body fat for fuel. Much healthier. As Dr. Rosedale is fond of saying..."Your health and longevity is determined by one equation...How much fat/sugar you burn over a lifetime. The more fat you burn, the healthier. The more sugar you burn, the less healthy.
"The superfood of the 1980s Pritikin era is today's toxic enemy number one"
Right. I went into the Pritikin Centers as a teacher and the no fat high carb low protein BS drove me from pre diabetic to Type 2 to Type 1. Had I known then what I know now about the nutritional benefits of fat, I wouldn't be injecting myself daily. The 1980s saw an explosion of diabetes and obesity because of the mentality that fat was bad and grains and sugars were good.
"Whole wheat is a great source of manganese, tryptophan, magnesium, and fiber. Brown rice has all that plus selenium. Whole-grain oats add vitamin B1 and phosphorus to that list".
It doesn't matter what nutrients a grain gives you, once they force your blood sugars over 120 you pee out any nutrients you might have injested. All grains turn to sugar, in 15 seconds, 15 minutes or longer. Then in the body...sugar is sugar is sugar. whether it came wrapped in a bagel, a candy bar, a twinki or a slice of 'Healthy Whole Wheat Bread".
"Without the fiber to slow absorption, refined grains can create insulin spikes, which in turn lead to excess body fat and diabetes."
Again, slow down th absorption doesn't matter. You will still produce the same amount of insulin to cover the sugar. High insulin is a growth factor and it is just as dangerous and harmful to health as high sugar.
"The benefit of this is that complex carbs can provide more of an energy "slow drip" because they take longer to enter the system."
Complex and simple terms are misleading. Whether simple or complex, it all turns to sugar. Your pancreas will overwork to overproduce insulin. Isn't any of this obvious yet?
"Other primarily complex-carb-based foods include legumes (like beans) and tubers (like potatoes and yams), but even if you skip those, complex carbs are nearly impossible to avoid. They tend to show up in most carb-based foods. In broccoli, 50 percent of the digestible carbs are complex. Even a medium-sized banana contains 10 grams of digestible complex carbs."
Again. Misleading. Do you think it really matters to my health if I breakdown complex over 15 seconds as opposed to 5. Take a piece of Whole Wheat Complex Carb, masticate it for 15 seconds, spit on a keto stix, Sugar...glucose. Before it hits your stomach it is glucose. Carbs are not simple or complex, they are sugar or fiber. Whatever is not fiber, is sugar. Period.
"First off, there's not as much phytic acid in grains as there is in almonds, Brazil nuts, or tofu—all considered healthy foods in many anti-grain circles."
No one eats the amounts of nuts that are recommended as opposed to whole grains. The phytic content is much lower. We limit the amount of nuts. People die every year of brain "drowning" from drinking too much water. Do you see the difference betwen too much and the damage that causes and the amount of water in a steak? The cure is in the dosage... and no one here considers tofu a "health food".
"Usually, the attack is based on . . . well, I'm not sure what it's based on, because relevant scientific research is a little thin when it comes to the evils of consuming a moderate amount of whole grains."
If you don't know then you have not read any of the opposing science and you have an agenda that you are supporting. Go to the Weston A Price Foundation web and start an education.
"The title alone explains that this is a study about how low-carbohydrate diets help to reduce inflammation in obese people. I'm not sure how that means grains in a healthy body will cause inflammation. Just because one nutrient has therapeutic properties in certain situations doesn't mean another nutrient is toxic. That's not just bad science, it's stupid. Furthermore, if you do read the study,8 you'll see it was not a lifetime nutritional plan, but a 12-week program in which low-fat and low-carb diets were compared. And even though the low-carb diet provided a greater decrease of inflammation, the low-fat diet, which contained 56 percent carbs, decreased some inflammation as well. So how could carbs be the problem?"
Some inflammation? Some? Paleo actually had the best response. I am after the best response...not a "some" diet.
"It's important to do your own research and make your own nutritional choices, but just because you're doing that, it doesn't necessarily mean you always need to go against the grain"
For this last pun I banish the entire article on the merits of the "Obvious".
"@lucky I do commend your efforts. Few people actually take the time to get off the couch. Unfortunately, there is so much bad information coming from people with weekend training courses that few people see results. I understand it can be frustrating."
This is the same "I can't help you because I don't know how" bullshit that "experts" (after patronizing you with the congrats) always give. Mr. Kinesiologist, your "expertise" is in movement, not diet. One can obtain a healthy, lean body eating Paleo with a minimum of movement. Change your diet and you will find that your "expertise" is more suited for rehab.
If I ever need your services, leave your card, I will call you.
Ladies and gentlemen, I commend all of you for responses to my post. Like I said, the post was intended to be incendiary, and for a reason. There is a fine balance between the necessity of conflict to advance discussion, and the tendency for conflict to polarize opinion and cloud judgement. For these reasons, explosive, insulting language and haughty tones are not accepted, nor should they BE accepted, in scientific discourse. However, I believe many of the discussions in the forums ARE NOT scientific.
If we are to truly evolve our rational understanding of nutrition, or biomechanics, or politics, or history, in order to help ourselves and correctly educate those desperately seeking advice, we must be equally vigilant in policing the passionate conviction and dismissive language ever present in any ethos, regardless of the level of positive intention behind them.
I would implore all "Paleo Hacks" to realize history has shown the force most damaging to scientific progress are small facts extrapolated to justify large faith under a common banner. When the faith reaches critical mass, questions cease to be asked, outside ideas are blocked from entering via dismissive counter-labeling and the pursuit for Greater Truth grinds to a halt from laziness and internal justification; the Human Mind becomes closed.
I argue that the Paleo community is in danger, if it is not already there, of reaching this level. I search the forums and read "is this Paleo?", is that "accepted by Paleo theory", can someone give me a "Paleo take" on this article (as implied by the title of the post that started this)? They all read "Please justify what I believe, even though I don't really know what I believe".
The leaders of the Paleo Community, if they wish to truly help humanity, should rally their troops around reason and moderation by abandoning unnecessary labeling lest they repel those turned off by religious zealotry. What the Paleo/Evolution Theory of nutrition (and biomechanics) should do, and how it should be advertised to the world, is suggest new hypotheses for scientific research.
For these reasons the tone of the original article was scathing and arrogant. Contrary to accepted tone in scientific discourse, it takes direct conflict to shake the foundations of the religious ethos and motivate the blindly faithful to doubt. From doubt comes thought and thought comes Greater Truth. Special thanks to Andre for his passionate, but more importantly, well thought out (and polite ;) ) response. I do not agree with many of your interpretations, but you have re-laid the foundation for honest, productive debate, one I would be more that happy to have over the phone, as reading volumes on a computer is tiring (I appreciate the irony).
Those personally hurt by my post, I humbly apologize for any direct insult I may have caused. I am sure if we met we were to learn the nuances of each other's personalities and life experiences and how they have affected our beliefs on nutrition and other subjects, we would all come away as friends.
I will, like mari, stand by MY assertions that those who ONLY read, post and respond in like-minded forums as a way to blindly justify their beliefs without being open to outside challenge are in fact the scourge of humanity. I am in no way implying that those on this forum, or those who posted previous, are such; however the MECHANISM of group mentality fueled by internal justification is the same that leads to female genital mutilation and book burning.
@Lucky: I wasn't telling you to get off the couch, I was congratulating you for getting off the couch. Your more detailed responses later on demonstrated you are much better informed than you showed in your original post, and in fact, rarely on the couch in the first place. However, once again, neither I, nor the author, condone grain consumption, just moderate thinking. I am happy that going more Paleo has helped you. Paleo-esque thought has helped me better understand throwing mechanics. Next time please be more specific on HOW it helped you, or grain consumption hurt you, and how you came to that conclusion.
@mauri: Thank you for taking the time to cite specifics in your response to my post. I would still appreciate examples of faulty logic, if you are able to take the time.
@Patrik: I will agree to eliminate the direct personal attacks. However, I hope direct intellectual debate on the facts of an article, or even a tenant of Paleo Nutrition are encouraged.
@ Kent: "tl;dr" Thank you for helping me make my point.