Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

11

4

http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/1/no-such-thing-as-a-macronutrient-part-ii-carbohydrates.html

Rather than talking about diets as low or high carb, he proposes talking about diets in terms of the kinds of carbohydrate consumed: glucose and starch, fructose, inulin, or cellulose.

I like the idea. I would add though, to meaningfully talk about the source of carb in a diet, it is also important to know what comes in the food along with the carbohydrate type. Thus we can differentiate between high starch from grain, and that from tubers, for example. Just as he did in his fat taxonomy, after classifying and ranking fats, he classifies sources.

flag	asked Feb 2 2011 at 15:42 Ambimorph 19.7k●18●66

2

as most of Dr. Harris' stuff, its spot on. as Kamal says below: Chemistry into Context. – Stephen-Aegis Feb 2 2011 at 21:18

The link is now archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/5/… for people that are interested – Korion Sep 2 2011 at 13:47

1

Thanks ! – Ambimorph Sep 2 2011 at 14:12

Kirik Jenness · Answer 1 · 2011-02-02 16:10:14Z UTC

4

I'm very interested in how this entire series he's doing will play out. Part I, which was on fats, was brilliant as far as I'm concerned.

I do wish he provided citations for some of the things he writes.

answered Feb 2 2011 at 16:10

Kirik Jenness
41●1

I, too, would like to see a few more citations... – Mark Feb 2 2011 at 17:08

5

To be fair, much of the content is chemistry/biochem textbook stuff, not pubmed article type stuff. It's just that he puts the chemistry into context. – Kamal♦ Feb 2 2011 at 17:22

Travis Culp · Answer 2 · 2011-02-03 02:00:18Z UTC

I completely agree; I think that fructose should be thought of as being essentially a deleterious lipogenic hormone instead of a carbohydrate. Additionally, I eat as much potato as I like without fear of the carb boogie man coming to get me. A low fructose diet is the most important step toward losing fat. It is far more important than "low carb."

texasleah · Answer 3 · 2011-02-02 21:31:13Z UTC

I love the "taxonomy". Especially in regard to explaining your "weird" diet to SAD coworkers and friends. It makes so much more sense to say, "I eat a lot of Grass Fed Saturated Fat/Protein" when they question how you can feel safe eating such high amounts of saturated fat. The differentiation does the job of emphasizing the quality of fat or carbs over the quantity very nicely. An added bonus is that explaining GRAF/zero FF (for example) means no more explaining how the diet is not the traditional LC diet they have heard about for years.

It is a lot of fun and I gain valuable knowledge discussing ratios, nutrients, calories etc on sites like this, but in the end it is really just splitting hairs. For me, paleo is about the quality of real food. Period. And the PaNu acronyms are a great way to do that succinctly.

jbone · Answer 4 · 2011-02-03 02:35:29Z UTC

0

I wish he would say more about his opposition to glycation (i.e., post cites on effects). I mean, sure, it's bad, but do we /really/ know just how harmful it is? This is one of those cases where I feel like the agenda is driving the scientific interpretation and he's wandering into too strong of claims territory.

answered Feb 3 2011 at 2:35

jbone
331●1●8

Glycation has tons of studies showing it's link to almost all the negative signs of aging. – Stephen-Aegis Feb 3 2011 at 14:32

"Link" is the operative word. How much does it take to generate an effect? How bad is the effect? Etc. – jbone Feb 4 2011 at 3:27

4

Are you aware of what "glycation" means? The pathologic alteration of structural and functional molecules in the body. There is nothing controversial about glycation being negative - cataracts, autonomic dysfunction, diabetic neuropathy, loss of tissue elasticity, microvascular disease, kidney failure - do you see some possible upside to these effects? Ask a blind diabetic on dialysis with two below the knee amputations if I am exaggerating the negative consequences of glycation. What do you suspect my "agenda" be exactly.? Unfairly maligning a pathologic process? – Kurt G Harris MD Feb 4 2011 at 5:47

2

Sure, there are negatives, but that doesn't mean that any amount of glycation is damaging. I mean, city air has carcinogens in it, but that doesn't meant hat it needs to be avoided entirely in order to live well; it also doesn't mean that breathing /any/ amount of it is meaningfully damaging. By "agenda" I meant you had determined a view about nutrition, and it seemed to be informing your view on just how bad glycation is, even as you lack further evidence on its effects at various doses. – jbone Feb 5 2011 at 16:11

Todd Hack · Answer 5 · 2011-02-03 12:51:17Z UTC

0

He is coming on Robb Wolf's show soon, fyi

answered Feb 3 2011 at 12:51

Todd Hack
11●2

Any thoughts on Kurt Harris' taxonomy of carbohydrate?

5 Answers