The OP was taking about the “Whole9 30 day challenge (Paleo diet)” specifically - as was I when I bumped this thread. As has been pointed out, you can find websites to support any claim you wish.
Well Stoid, I certainly agree that there is no point in you and I continuing this, to be generous, discussion. Enjoy your lard!
Drain, there are many bits of Sisson’s program that make a lot of sense to me and compared to standard American nutrition someone who does Sisson’s plan will be very likely significantly healthier. The fact that some of the rest is pseudoscientific malarky doesn’t matter if the result is an improved diet plan that someone actually follows long term. IMHO its grades:
Eat real food. Good advice. Plus 4.
Decreased grains? Relative to the American standard good advice. Plus 2.
Poo-pooing whole grains? No harm so long as he advises other high fiber sources, but he only does to moderate levels. Minus 3.
Avoid added sweeteners? No argument there. Plus 4.
Fats advice? Compared to the standard American diet he is at least getting them off of fried foods, at least restaurant fried foods. Yes trans fats very bad. And he pushes olive oil. Coconut fat with its MCTs … to me the jury is still out but it may be a good idea. Canola is out despite its being a very good source of MUFA, but then he gets some MUFA in with olive oil, which he promotes. But the push for a diet high in saturated fats of butter and lard - not very primal. Minus 3.
Soy never? Meh. Pseudoscience but no harm in its exclusion per se. Zero.
No beans or legumes? More pseudoscience and removes a very good protein source. Minus 1.
Lots of omega 3. Plus 4.
Grass fed meats and high omega 3 eggs. Plus 4.
Eat fish. Plus 4.
High intensity interval training (HIIT). Plus 4. Not that there is no place for cardio and the long slow run but more benefit is to be had from the shorter intense work out in my opinion too. Plus 3.
Eat vegetables. Yup. Plus 4. Concern that vegetables cause goiters? Oh that’s silly. Minus 4.
Eat fruit but only sparingly, emphasis on berries. Berries indeed high in antioxidants but overall fruit good too. Minus 3.
Nuts. Some garbage in that section. The Brazil nuts he forbids are high in selenium, important for prostate cancer prevention. But you need only a little - one Brazil nut a day does it - and there are other good sources in his diet plan (shellfish, fish, liver …) And his statement about avoiding nuts in order to lose weight is plain out wrong. Higher nut consumption is associated with lower BMIs. Still he allows some and that’s okay. On balance a zero.
Allows sweet potatoes, yogurt, kefir, some marrow and organ meats from those grass fed cows. Overall plus 3.
So, again IMHO, despite some pseudoscience the overall mix is better by far than the crap most Americans eat. Yes, changing from usual American crap to that is a big improvement. Huge.
You did not address this specifically to me, but I feel that I have contributed to hijacking this thread from its intended purpose - of how this particular diet plan - whatever it is named - is working out for people who have tried it.
I apologize for that and will try to refrain from contributing to doing that further.
No worries. I’ve found a lot of the additional information on paleo dieting in general to be interesting.
OMG, potatoes are a nightshade!
Wait, so are tomatoes, peppers, and eggplant. :dubious:
CMC fnord!
I don’t think you need to apologize for presenting good evidence that Paleolithic peoples did not consume the sort of modern “paleo” diets extolled in this thread, and outlining the health risks associated with high saturated fat consumption.
I have seen lots of online discussions here and elsewhere started for the purpose of exchanging anecdotes about supplements and diets. Some people get cranky when evidence is presented questioning those interventions (“I don’t care about that stuff, I just want to hear if it worked for you!”). But in the ongoing battle against ignorance, I think most of us realize the limitations of anecdotes and the value of good clinical evidence.
There are a number of factors that affect cardiovascular disease (CHD) risk, and diet (including saturated fat (SFA) intake) is just one of them. I agree that drastically cutting back on SFAs alone will not keep you safe from heart attack and stroke, and that some SFA consumption is fine in a balanced diet that has an overall heart-healthy profile. What is risky, especially in a person with other risk factors for CHD, is switching to high intake of fatty meats, lard etc. with the expectation that cutting out “unnatural” processed foods will eliminate any added risk and actually make one healthier. Evidence for this, especially on a longer-term basis just isn’t there.
One other thing to remember is that for virtually any dubious health claim, one can root out a number of studies and folks with impressive-sounding titles in support. What is absent in these Google-fests is the realization that such views are in a distinctly small minority of health professionals, come from untrained fringe advocates (like standup comedians) or emanate from people with scientific credentials that are not in the field they profess knowledge of.
As to Stoid’s Googling, a quick check reveals cherry-picking and overlooking of inconvenient statements, like this one from one of her links (UN report):
“• There is convincing evidence that replacing (saturated fatty acids) with (polyunsaturated fatty acids) decreases the risk of CHD.”
And from another review linked by Stoid (Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism): “The main finding was a significantly decreased risk of CHD death and CHD events when (polyunsaturated fatty acids) replaces (saturated fatty acids).”
Oops.
If you want to argue that saturated fats alone are not the be-all and end-all of cardiovascular disease risk, and that overall diet and other factors are key, I’ll agree. But continuing to claim in the face of a huge amount of evidence that “…saturated fat has never been shown to be unhealthy. Ever.” is indefensible and foolish.
Thank you both for that reassurance. With that I will indulge in one more hijack.
First though, Jack, well yeah, as above, I’m done with whatever you call this was with Stoid.
Reviewing all this has, however, gotten me questioning about a recurring mantra in many of these nutrition sites and among some serious nutritionists - that the omega 6 to 3 (n-6:n-3) ratio is hugely important to health outcomes. It seems that many are taking that as an established bit yet it seems to hardly be the case when one actually looks at the evidence.
From a 2005 review:
From one in 2008 that included large randomized controlled trials:
A 2009 advisory specific to omega-6’s:
Rigidly avoiding some nuts because they have more omega 6 than 3, in a diet that already hits at least that 250 mg of omega 3 a day, or avoiding an oil because along with its high amounts of MUFA it also has more omega 6 than 3, seems a bit goofy. Even if it is an accurate reproduction of Paleolithic nutrition. 
Many paleo dieters don’t eat any of those as well.
Are you feeling alright?
Because the (very minimal) benefits of replacing (a little) saturated with (a little) polyunsaturated has been covered endlessly since the very start of the discussion of the issue, including repeatedly in my posts, in detail, with lots of links and quotes, including the one of the quotes you pull above and claim I skipped!
It has been covered so extensively because it is the only thing that anyone has ever managed to come up with that even suggests that saturated fat might possibly be bad (except that of course it doesn’t). It was DSeid’s only argument, and then it was your only argument (did you read your own link??). So I am at a loss as to what you are fantasizing about with the above.
Post #108, Dseid’s:
Which was Dseid’s “Ta Da!” to support his (STILL!) unsupported assertion that
which was what started this whole discussion, as I pointed out inPost #110, which is also the post where I quoted the part that (oops!) Dseid left out:
Post #139, where you found the study with the line you pulled, referencing Dseid’s study and yours, paragraph 1:
then, from YOUR study:
(which also included this, by teh way: “British Journal of Nutrition which reported that substitution of certain PUFA for SFA and trans fatty acids increased risk of coronary heart disease)”)
Then the quote that I posted right here on this page includes the words:
And I commented right after:
And then this:
So it seems that all that
proves is that you are reading nothing and paying no attention to anything at all, just wishing and hoping and corssing your fingers that a lazy search on a page for SFA might yield somethign that sounds like it proves that I’m being intellectually dishonest, but you can’t be bothered to make any real effort to figure out if it really does.
So…
*(that so far doesn’t exist anywhere except in your imagination) *
(Except of course that it’s factually true and I’ve proved it with the genuinely “huge amount of evidence” that I have provided in this thread.)
Oops.
To sum up:
1.The only thing that science has ever managed to demonstrate about saturated fat having* negative health consequences of any kind whatsoever* is that coronary artery disease might be slightly improved by a very small percentage if a small percentage of saturated fat is replaced with polyunsaturated fats (but not just any polyunsaturated fats, since some types have actually shown to be more harmful as a replacement).
2.The experts have been very clear that this does not equate with simply removing saturated fats, or replacing them with carbohydrates. No benefit has been shown in doing either of those things. ONLY swapping one for the other. Period.
- Therefore, any assertion that saturated fat is unhealthy, bad for you, damaging, harmful, dangerous, disease-causing or otherwise a bad idea is false.
Oh, and one last thing…
If it’s so easy to come up with such studies for what you call “dubious” health claims, what explains yours and Dseid’s complete failure to come up with anything at all in the way of studies supporting what you persist in asserting is proven fact? Where is the “huge amounts of evidence”? Okay, that’s not fair, forget the huge amounts, how about anything more than zero?
Good luck with that.
I totally missed this post.
I would say you should take your own advice, since you are making some pretty big twisty leaps with the terms “link” and “correlated”.
Since neither of your links go anywhere I thought I’d try to find them myself.
Searches:
*meta analysis controlled randomized saturated fat mycardial infarction
meta analysis clinical trial saturated fat
*
After going through every one of the top 50 or so hits on each search, I gave up. No study said what you are claiming above.
I did find a two year old Dope thread on the subject, though, that had a lot more participants than this one, and which ended up in the same way this one has: a few die-hards with their fingers in their ears, insisting that something must be wrong with something because no matter how many scientific stduies saw otherwise, saturated fat just must be awful! (DSeid being one of them). Lots of really great links, though.
And this quote:
“The diet-heart hypothesis has been repeatedly shown to be wrong, and yet, for complicated reasons of pride, profit and prejudice, the hypothesis continues to be exploited by scientists, fund-raising enterprises, food companies and even governmental agencies. The public is being deceived by the greatest health scam of the century.”
–George Mann, ScD, MD, Former Co-Director, The Framingham Study
Y’all can keep being deceived if you want to (why you want to I so don’t get) but I’m going to enjoy some bacon, butter and cheese, lose a few more pounds while munching on fatty steak, and record the ever-downward trend of my blood pressure while I enjoy some cream custard for dessert.
Pardon my butting in here, but not everyone gets such good results. I’ve read the studies and the books. After six weeks on Sisson’s paleo plan, I ended up adding six pounds on my already obese frame and my cholesterol and blood glucose hit the roof.
I really dislike how these discussions inevitably end up in a almost religious cult-like fervor on both sides of the fence. I’m not into duelling nutritional studies, either. (Seriously, for every study you bring up, there’s another one to refute it.)
But I want to make the point that there is no “one size fits all” when it comes to a healthy way of eating.
Seriously, that is so not true, as I’ve demonstrated in this thread.
As far as one size does not fit all, I agree with you there.
I’m sorry (and honestly surprised) that it didn’t work for you. You’re right, everyone’s body is different, and we all need to find what works for us as individuals.
Stoid, we’re on the same side, but can you lay off the condescension, please? It does nothing but undermine your arguments.
As long as my arguments are soundly backed by solid information from reputable sources, and they are, any perceived tone or attitude, real or imagined, should make no difference. The truth is the truth, no matter who tells it.
Tone affects whether people take you seriously enough to actually go look at your cites or not. Nutrition science is obviously an area where there is a ton of conflicting information, and reasonable people can and do disagree. It is important to actually be a reasonable person in these discussions, so that those reading can see that it isn’t just the lunatic fringe who are convinced that this way of eating is healthful.
Well, yes. You of course, by definition, will be dealing with anecdotes in a “How did you do on X or Y?” thread, and anecdotes can have a huge selection bias.
You are completely correct (and I tried to make this point earlier as well) that there are lots of different, sometimes apparently mutually contradictory, nutrition plans that “work” (depending on what one defines as “working”). If nothing else a plan can only work if it is one that a particular individual can actually follow long term. Some need to embrace extremes in order to make changes to their lifestyles, others can adopt moderate approaches.
And yes, there are lots of individual studies that can be cherry picked through … yet evaluating the evidence in toto is really the only means we have of determining what sort of changes may actually be harmful versus healthful and whether or not a claim that one approach is oh so much healthier than any other stands up to the critical eye. That is why we tend to give more weight to reviews of the complete body evidence by established experts more than youtube videos of self appointed experts.
So for example - the reviews of all the evidence by those sorts of expert panels clearly establish that, for a given fat intake, high saturated fatty acids (SFA) and low PUFA and MUFA are less healthy than the converse. (And it is interesting that for most of our evolutionary history as modern humans, eating game meats and fish, we had a diet that was high in MUFA/PUFA/omega 3’s, and relatively low in saturated fats.)
I also react almost viscerally to the religious fervor some promote their personal chosen diet plan as the one. In that regard even single (but large well designed) studies like this one are informative.
Now one large prospective cohort study, by itself, is not conclusive. I would not take the position that this proves the superiority of a vegetable predominant low carb approach … but it does falsify the proposition that an animal based low carb approach is clearly superior. And should give one pause before adopting one for the long term.
Jesus people. Really, Unless you are actually living in a cave and hunting a gathering exclusively, this is not a paleolithic diet. We humans are so skilled at turning everything into a herculean task. Eating should not be this much work. That is why all these fad diets fail. They are too restrictive and require jumping through too many hoops. You want to follow how your ancestors lived? Try this - Cook at home. Use fresh ingredients. And be more active.
From my health coach, the honorable, wise sage Lewis Black “The people who told us about sun block were the same people who told us, when I was a kid, that eggs were good. So I ate a lot of eggs. Ten years later they said they were bad. I went, “Well, I just ate the eggs!” So I stopped eating eggs, and ten years later they said they were good again! Well, then I ate twice as many, and then they said they were bad. Well, now I’m really fucked! Then they said they’re good, they’re bad, they’re good, the whites are good, th-the yellows - make up your mind! It’s breakfast I’ve gotta eat!”
My tone was a direct result of being treated as a lunatic fringe after providing many citations to solid information which was already being ignored.
Secondly, anyone who gets involved in debates but decides whether to look at a cite or not based on a “tone” deserves to be condescended to, because you have abandoned all hope of dispelling your own ignorance when you refuse to take in information and evaluate it for yourself.
As for the “ton of conflicting information” that’s true in a general sense, but not regarding the issue of saturated fat. Tons of conflicting opinions, yes, but the information is very consistent, and the distinction matters.
Fine, Stoid, keep doing what you’re doing. But while I agree with most of your arguments in this thread, and disagree with DSeid, he’s the one coming off as the more reasonable person. If you don’t believe that affects how receptive people are to your arguments, there’s not much else I can say.
If you think someone who misrepresents their own cites, who flat-out ignores everything that doesn’t support his (current, it keeps shifting) position and then makes insulting personal remarks at the opposition appears reasonable, it is vivid evidence for the remarkable disparity in human viewpoints.
And again: people who skip examination of evidence and critical evaluation of argument to stubstitute their personal reaction to an individual’s manner are demonstrating that they don’t really care much about what’s true or not, just about how they feel. That certainly has a very important place in many areas of human interaction, but it is not a valuable or appropriate way to consider important matters of science and health.
Over the course of my 53 years on this earth I’ve taken in a lot of information from people I found rude, condescending, irritating, obnoxious, mean, and a whole host of other unpleasant things. I didn’t dismiss it out of hand because I didn’t like the way it was presented or the person who presented it. In fact my negative reaction to the messenger was motivating for me to examine the message even more closely, because I’d hate to wake up and discover that I had shut my mind to the truth because of a personal reaction to an individual. There’s no way I’m going let someone else’s unpleasantness keep me ignorant.
Everyone has to take responsibility for their choices, and I’m a-ok with mine.