This is a thoughtful article, but as usual with this subject, the comments after it are in many cases angry and conflicting. Once again, I'm reminded to never, ever write a blog post about nutrition and/or exercise. I'll do as the author suggests, and quietly "pick my own poison".
> Most humans have to avoid dairy; many must avoid wheat. Find out if you’re one of them.
And how do I find out if I have to avoid dairy or wheat ? Last year I stopped eating them for a couple of months but didn't see a notable difference in my general well being.
If you noticed no difference, that seems like a good sign it might be alright for you. That said, based on people I know, those who should not be eating dairy or wheat get various levels of intestinal distress if they do; it's pretty obvious.
But most importantly, consult a doctor or other medical professional if you need more information.
this is what I don't get: author says most should avoid dairy, you (and others) say it's easy to recognize problems with eating it. Yet the vast majority of all people I know have no problems with dairy whatsoever. So is the author wrong, does he mean something else, do I live with people who can't recognize problems originating from dairy use or do I live with a special subgroup of people who all happen to have no problem with dairy?
It seems to depend on the region of the world your ancestors are from. Those cultures which used milk as a food source for adults tend to have lower incidences of lactose intolerance.
Approximately 65% of the worlds population suffers from a diminished ability to digest dairy after childhood, see http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/lactose-intolerance. That said lactose intolerance usually doesn't occur in people of European descent so I would imagine you happen to live in s special subgroup who has no such problem.
For dairy in particular, it's the last one. Globally, lactose persistence (the opposite of lactose intolerance) is a minority trait that appears to have arisen in populations that raised domesticated cattle, but not elsewhere. Most African and southeast Asian adults, for example, are lactose intolerant. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence
I just wanted to point out that African and Asian adults would certainly constitute "most" people, based on population. As I understand it, populations that can consume dairy tend to be centered on Northern Europe, a very small fraction of the global population.
I'll only speak for myself, but I was first thrown off by the "most" part as well, until I realized I had a pretty Euro-centric view of it. "Most people I know have no problem with dairy," I thought to myself. Then I remembered most people I know have European ancestry.
Not to nitpick, but it's "lactase" persistence. Lactase is the enzyme which breaks down lactose. People without lactase in their gut cannot digest lactose, hence "lactose intolerance" in those without "lactase persistence".
It's pretty obvious when you connect the dots, but lactose intolerance (like many things) is a spectrum. Personally, milk with my cereal occasionally is fine, but I have a pretty bad night if I mow down a full bowl of ice cream (or as I am wont to do yearly, several glasses of egg nog).
Lactose intolerance is typically pretty easy to determine -- most people who are lactose intolerant will quickly notice when they suffer from gas, bloating, diarrhea etc. shortly after consuming dairy foods.
Wheat is a bit more complicated since there different potential issues that present differently. There's a good overview of celiac vs. gluten sensitivity vs. wheat allergy at http://gastro.ucla.edu/site.cfm?id=281 if you're interested.
The problem is simple carbs and addiction to sugar. Try ween of simple carbs and excess sugar. Veggies and meat / fish. Takes about 6 months to get off and get used not eating or very little amounts of simple carbs and little sugar. Also try intermitting fasting. Works for me. I feel great and workout / cross fit daily with my first meal around 2pm and last meal around 7-8pm
lol. Crap i went off on a tangent! Answer to your question: I honestly don't know, but i suppose testing would be your best bet. Yeah and try crossfit, or calisthenics!
Do you spend more on food than you did as a non-vegan?
What made you take up veganism?
I've been considering it for a while, I had a realization while eating a slice of salami a few weeks ago and I realized something had to die for me to eat it and it made me feel bad.
Lots? I'm sure it's nothing compared to the premeditated killing of 150 billion animals born and bred into captivity on purpose, every year. Seeing as how not eating is infeasible, I'm not sure your solution is reasonable.
No, they're not. Unlike animals, plants lack a central nervous system, which would allow them to feel pain and ultimately suffer. Yes, plants respond to stimuli, in the same way a ball being rolled off a table does. But you cannot say plants and animals have the same capacity for sentience. Even if that were true, it should be immediately apparent animals require more plants to feed throughout their lifespan than do vegans.
I hope you made this comment out of ignorance, not arrogance. Take a look at http://adaptt.org/veganism.html - The Insipid "Killing Plants" Argument, if you're honestly sure plants and animals are the same.
Is a CNS required for sentience? If so, why do most vegans(that I can find online) agree that it would be wrong to eat a jellyfish, which generally lacks a CNS?
> Yes, plants respond to stimuli, in the same way a ball being rolled off a table does
Not even close to correct. Plants attempt to establish dominance in their domain from other plants by gathering more resources, can respond to try and protect themselves from certain types of pests/blight/fire, etc.
> Do you spend more on food than you did as a non-vegan?
I did when I'd first started out with plant-based eating, because I didn't know which foods to purchase and a lot went to waste. I had also sought out meat, cheese and dairy alternatives like Beyond Meat and Tofurky which aren't competitively priced (yet).
Now that I've been vegan for over a year - and eating almost exclusively whole foods - the grocery bill for my household is drastically lower. I buy a lot of food in bulk. A 25 lb. bag of brown rice provides tens of thousands of calories to last months and costs a mere ~$60, for example. Canned legumes, frozen fruits and veggies and seasonal produce from my garden, CSA or farmers' markets are all very affordable.
Later, I learned animal agriculture is responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions and avoiding animal products can protect against most "diseases of affluence", which reaffirmed my decision.
Vegan here - I take a sub-lingual Methylcobalamin B12 vitamin. Iron is had from a variety of foods, lentils and spinach especially come to mind. With regard to protein, there is an ample amount (~10%) in all whole plant foods which doesn't make this a practical concern.
Definitely try to figure out where your supplement comes from.. Ideally, after seeing this [1] and other negative reports on quality of some supplements, you'd almost have to put it through a spectrum analyzer to make sure
The brand I purchase is Jarrow which seems reputable. Is there a practical guide to inexpensive home testing? I guess an alternative is annual B12 injections from your physician or some sort of wellness center. For the record, the only other supplement I take is an algae-based EPA/DHA pill and I'm told all brands of such are manufactured in one place.
Is there a practical guide to inexpensive home testing?
None that I know, might exist though. I mean, you can buy dead cheap properly working test kits for MDMA for instance, then why not for B12 you'd wonder.
But rather than testing the B12 itself you might just (or also) test if you have enough of it. Many vegans I know make a yearly appointment with their doctor for a blood test looking for defficiencies in a number of substances. Most are always fine btw. Oh and google came up with this: http://www.testcountry.com/products.html?product=1883. Again, hard to tell if it's ok - but you could compare it with blood test results. Then again, blood test might be cheaper than this kit.
Okay, so we've got the unrelated vegan comment, there's already an unrelated CrossFit comment, all we need is someone to mention they're an atheist and we've got the trifecta.
It's almost as if nutrition is incredibly complex and different things work for different people.
You'd think so but as with any religion there are different interpretations. There's a very libertarian (economically speaking, not civil rights) strand of Christianity that can be summarized in what I parodied: because the world was intelligently designed it's our god-given right to subdue nature and make the best use of it.
The evidence for plant-based, low-fat vegan diets seems more convincing to me. Is there a paleo version of http://nutritionfacts.org - complete with direct links or citations to research supporting the proposed way to eat? I'm not trying to be snarky, but rather genuinely curious what scientific basis this diet really has. The article says we're wise to limit saturated fat intake and increase fibre intake, but isn't that antithetical to eating meat and animal products?
Parent is probably referring to nutrient deficiency in the general population, which is almost exclusively not vegan. As I recall, the deficiencies are calcium, iodine, vitamin C, vitamin E, fiber, folate, magnesium, and potassium. If you ate everything a vegan did, I'm willing to wager you would be full, and wouldn't be hungry for meat. I think the point is, the plant-based diet is less calorie dense, but more nutrient dense, so one is more likely to develop deficiencies from eating mostly animal products.
Lewis & Clark boatmen all suffered from terrible skin problems after a year eating only wild game. Their Indian guide who stewed up vegetables every evening was fine.
What is your source for this? It directly conflicts with Ambrose's book, which is perhaps the best-researched history of the trip.
Members of the Corps all had a meat ration of 5 lbs. a day (when available) for everyone, including native guides (none of whom was on the whole trip) and Sacagawea.
I'm not aware of any one resource like that (though if you like that, you might find examine.com interesting; it's very neutral, and doesn't always hew to the beliefs of any one diet).
That said, paleo-ish writers like Chris Kresser do a good job of synthesizing academic papers that lead him to follow a paleo-ish diet. E.g., here's a bunch about red meat: http://chriskresser.com/the-truth-about-red-meat/
Low-fat diets aren't particularly good for you, as you can see by the current generation of unhealthy heart disease-having Americans dutifully following them.
If your macronutrient ratio is going to be high-carb, you at least need a strong culture of small portions like Asians do to keep a precise daily calorie target.
> Low-fat diets aren't particularly good for you, as you can see by the current generation of unhealthy heart disease-having Americans dutifully following them.
I'm not aware of any such cohort. Can you cite any examples of unhealthy low-fat diet populations? Perhaps you could explain what you mean by, "low fat". My own interpretation is fewer than 10% of calories from fat, mostly from unsaturated fat. (Polyunsaturated fat, of course, being the only essential fatty acid for humans, where as mono-unsaturated, saturated and trans fatty acids have no recommended daily amount, as they are unnecessary altogether.)
> If your macronutrient ratio is going to be high-carb, you at least need a strong culture of small portions like Asians do to keep a precise daily calorie target.
So the traditional ~2 billion Chinese people following a mostly plant-based, rice diet (before the advent of Western, high-fat, high-protein foods) were all restricting calories? I find that difficult to fathom.
I've always appreciated Michael Pollan's essay (and books) on this subject. His advice can be summed up as "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." [1] In his books he argues strongly against the nutritionist strategy of trying to separate out the healthy components of foods from the foods themselves. For example, I know many nutritionists who take vitamins, but Pollan points out when you take the Vitamin C without the orange we normally get it from, you loose all that dietary fiber. This is what he means by "eat food."
Along these lines, while I have many quibbles with the paleo diet's recommendations, my biggest complain is calling it "paleo." The paleolithic era of human history lasted from 2.5 million years ago to 10,0000 years ago [2], when agriculture took over and we adapted to an entirely new diet. Almost nothing we eat today existed 3,000-10,000 years ago: corn was just grass, tomatoes were berries, lettuce was weeds, and all animal-food sources were free-range, tough to chew, and gamey in flavor. One of the starkest examples of this for me is the peach, which was mostly just a pit with no meat until generations of farmers spent 6,000 years turning it into the meaty succulent fruit we know today [3]. Our paleolithic ancestors spent all day nibbling on seeds, berries, various leaves, and insects trying to just stay alive; our agrarian ancestors transformed the Earth into the relative paradise of bountiful fruits, vegetables, and livestock that theologians would later attribute to gods.
This said, I appreciate that this author is speaking out against the high-carb, high-sugar foodstuffs corporations are pouring into us by adding sugar and salt to EVERYTHING. The key quote in this essay is, "Recent data on these issues make me more comfortable today saying what not to eat." I think we all need to start pushing back as consumers against the sugar, salt, and simple carbohydrates the food manufacturers engineer into everything we eat to addict our brains and keep us coming back for more.
Sadly I can't cite a source, but I once read that farming didn't increase the lifespan or health, but actually greatly reduced it (note that we today have a totally different diet from the first days of farming). However it made an extremely higher population density possible. A real paleo diet would be so land consuming that it wouldn't be possible for more than a negligible fraction of today's population.
Perhaps you're thinking of Jared Diamond's (author of Guns, Germs, and Steel) The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race? Which can be read here: http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html
I've heard mixed things about salt. For example, look at the results in this Google search[1]. "Salt is obviously bad." "It's a myth, salt is probably fine." Etc. My takeaway has been that, as long as you don't have high blood pressure or some specific condition, the typical amount of salt in modern diets is fine.
> My takeaway has been that, as long as you don't have high blood pressure or some specific condition, the typical amount of salt in modern diets is fine.
<corn (maize) was just grass, tomatoes were berries>
Actually, both were completely unknown to the Old World until brought from the new world, as were potatoes. ("Corn" was previously a generic term for edible grains.)
Does the below excerpt alleviate the belief that GMO foods are harmful?
In 1985 scientists believed that few genetic changes had occurred since we were all
hunting and gathering, say 10,000 years ago. Now we know that lots of genes
have changed. One fascinating new finding is that within the last few thousand
years Eskimos evolved genes for enzymes to process the fatty acids in Arctic
fish.
Well I am careful because I am not a specialist. One would however expect GMO engineers to use techniques that are atypical of the way nature explores the possibility space. It is telling that they call it engineering, which requires intent and goals.
Therefore I don't think knowing that selectively bred organisms have been safe so far says anything about the safety of GMOs.
In a way selective breeding is a subcategory of GMO engineering. There's nothing fishy about fish genes that are added to crops, for example -- it's just taking the element of chance necessary for mutations to develop out of it, really.
I can't see why it would. I am sure some people would argue that any GMO food is somehow evil and deadly, but I think that thinking of that sort can be discarded. However some GMO foods achieve pest and disease resistance by causing the plant to secrete toxins - pesticides, and these are what some experiments have shown troubling results for. On the other hand farmers spray these toxins on crops in any case.
Personally I grow my own and eat organic when I can, but that's fine if you can afford it and live in the country.
> these are what some experiments have shown troubling results for
If you're referring to Roundup, the study everyone likes to quote is so hilariously flawed it actually indicates that males who drink a pint of Roundup a day show health benefits.
The problem with GMO studies is that the ones biased against GMO tend to be unsound and the ones biased in favour of it tend to be paid for by GMO companies. Even the WHO doesn't bother actually reading the studies and goes around toting dodgy abstracts.
The only person I know who did this diet ended up staying 350 pounds with persisting respitory issues. (Obviously present before the diet) he sat on me the other day and just about crushed my rib cage. But I'm still at a cool 135 lbs just eating whatever I want (which is surprisingly almost entirely organic foods) I'm here to tell you, Paleo probably doesn't do shit besides stroke your fucking ego into thinking you're a caveman or some dumbass shit.
Paleo isn't magic, but it is consistent with previous advice. High in fruits, veggies, seafoods, nuts, and unprocessed meats. Low in sugars, other processed foods, grains, and dairy.
I'm sure someone could do Paleo and stay 350 pounds, but that would be hard as eating almost 3000 calories a day from fruits, veggies, seafoods, nuts, and unprocessed meats is hard since they're so filling per weight (as opposed to sugar in particular which is not at all filing per weight).
To be honest you can simplify Paleo thusly: Drop sugar from your diet as completely as possible.
> Recent data on these issues make me more comfortable today saying what not to eat. Our ancestors had no ...
Isn't that yet another fallacy? Just because our ancestors didn't have it, doesn't automatically mean it's bad for us.
If we can learn anything at all from our ancestors, then it's that the human body is pretty adoptable to different food sources. So if we want to know what's bad for us we should simply do studies today. It's not that I disagree with the recommendations, but I find the way of reasoning flawed.
I know most of us start a diet just to lose weight (I know I did), but paleo has really become a lifestyle,
and a life changing decision for me.
Losing weight was just an added bonus, but the true benefits were great for my health in general.
I'm using the paleo grub cookbook, you can check it out at http://lookingupstuff.com/weightloss/2015/04/23/paleo-grubs/
78 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 147 ms ] threadAnd how do I find out if I have to avoid dairy or wheat ? Last year I stopped eating them for a couple of months but didn't see a notable difference in my general well being.
But most importantly, consult a doctor or other medical professional if you need more information.
this is what I don't get: author says most should avoid dairy, you (and others) say it's easy to recognize problems with eating it. Yet the vast majority of all people I know have no problems with dairy whatsoever. So is the author wrong, does he mean something else, do I live with people who can't recognize problems originating from dairy use or do I live with a special subgroup of people who all happen to have no problem with dairy?
It seems to depend on the region of the world your ancestors are from. Those cultures which used milk as a food source for adults tend to have lower incidences of lactose intolerance.
I'll only speak for myself, but I was first thrown off by the "most" part as well, until I realized I had a pretty Euro-centric view of it. "Most people I know have no problem with dairy," I thought to myself. Then I remembered most people I know have European ancestry.
Wheat is a bit more complicated since there different potential issues that present differently. There's a good overview of celiac vs. gluten sensitivity vs. wheat allergy at http://gastro.ucla.edu/site.cfm?id=281 if you're interested.
Sounds like you're in the clear, though.
I think the most genius part of the paleo diet movement was the naming of it.
I've been considering it for a while, I had a realization while eating a slice of salami a few weeks ago and I realized something had to die for me to eat it and it made me feel bad.
The only 100% moral solution obviously is not to eat.
I hope you made this comment out of ignorance, not arrogance. Take a look at http://adaptt.org/veganism.html - The Insipid "Killing Plants" Argument, if you're honestly sure plants and animals are the same.
Is a CNS required for sentience? If so, why do most vegans(that I can find online) agree that it would be wrong to eat a jellyfish, which generally lacks a CNS?
> Yes, plants respond to stimuli, in the same way a ball being rolled off a table does
Not even close to correct. Plants attempt to establish dominance in their domain from other plants by gathering more resources, can respond to try and protect themselves from certain types of pests/blight/fire, etc.
I did when I'd first started out with plant-based eating, because I didn't know which foods to purchase and a lot went to waste. I had also sought out meat, cheese and dairy alternatives like Beyond Meat and Tofurky which aren't competitively priced (yet).
Now that I've been vegan for over a year - and eating almost exclusively whole foods - the grocery bill for my household is drastically lower. I buy a lot of food in bulk. A 25 lb. bag of brown rice provides tens of thousands of calories to last months and costs a mere ~$60, for example. Canned legumes, frozen fruits and veggies and seasonal produce from my garden, CSA or farmers' markets are all very affordable.
> What made you take up veganism?
Two YouTube videos -
101 Reasons to Go Vegan - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4HJcq8qHAY
Best Speech You Will Ever Hear by Gary Yourofsky - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4
Later, I learned animal agriculture is responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions and avoiding animal products can protect against most "diseases of affluence", which reaffirmed my decision.
[1] www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supplements-and-safety/
None that I know, might exist though. I mean, you can buy dead cheap properly working test kits for MDMA for instance, then why not for B12 you'd wonder.
But rather than testing the B12 itself you might just (or also) test if you have enough of it. Many vegans I know make a yearly appointment with their doctor for a blood test looking for defficiencies in a number of substances. Most are always fine btw. Oh and google came up with this: http://www.testcountry.com/products.html?product=1883. Again, hard to tell if it's ok - but you could compare it with blood test results. Then again, blood test might be cheaper than this kit.
It's almost as if nutrition is incredibly complex and different things work for different people.
As a Christian I think you should eat everything there is because if God put it there, He obviously intended us to use it.
http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/dp...
Also, there was a recent article on Vox talking about why nutrition research is so hard to do:
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10760622/nutrition-science-comp...
There are several nutrients you can easily be undersupplied with if you're not watching out really carefully: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Nutrients
Those can be easily supplied by eating a small amount of meat and other animal products without loosing the benefits of a mostly plant based diet.
huh?
If i eat everything that a vegan eats plus a serving of meat - how am i missing nutrients that the vegan is not?
or did you actually mean people who have poor eating habits? (who also happen to eat meat)
Members of the Corps all had a meat ration of 5 lbs. a day (when available) for everyone, including native guides (none of whom was on the whole trip) and Sacagawea.
https://franceshunter.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/scurvy-and-th...
Here's one about saturated fat: http://examine.com/faq/is-saturated-fat-bad-for-me/
That said, paleo-ish writers like Chris Kresser do a good job of synthesizing academic papers that lead him to follow a paleo-ish diet. E.g., here's a bunch about red meat: http://chriskresser.com/the-truth-about-red-meat/
If your macronutrient ratio is going to be high-carb, you at least need a strong culture of small portions like Asians do to keep a precise daily calorie target.
I'm not aware of any such cohort. Can you cite any examples of unhealthy low-fat diet populations? Perhaps you could explain what you mean by, "low fat". My own interpretation is fewer than 10% of calories from fat, mostly from unsaturated fat. (Polyunsaturated fat, of course, being the only essential fatty acid for humans, where as mono-unsaturated, saturated and trans fatty acids have no recommended daily amount, as they are unnecessary altogether.)
> If your macronutrient ratio is going to be high-carb, you at least need a strong culture of small portions like Asians do to keep a precise daily calorie target.
So the traditional ~2 billion Chinese people following a mostly plant-based, rice diet (before the advent of Western, high-fat, high-protein foods) were all restricting calories? I find that difficult to fathom.
Along these lines, while I have many quibbles with the paleo diet's recommendations, my biggest complain is calling it "paleo." The paleolithic era of human history lasted from 2.5 million years ago to 10,0000 years ago [2], when agriculture took over and we adapted to an entirely new diet. Almost nothing we eat today existed 3,000-10,000 years ago: corn was just grass, tomatoes were berries, lettuce was weeds, and all animal-food sources were free-range, tough to chew, and gamey in flavor. One of the starkest examples of this for me is the peach, which was mostly just a pit with no meat until generations of farmers spent 6,000 years turning it into the meaty succulent fruit we know today [3]. Our paleolithic ancestors spent all day nibbling on seeds, berries, various leaves, and insects trying to just stay alive; our agrarian ancestors transformed the Earth into the relative paradise of bountiful fruits, vegetables, and livestock that theologians would later attribute to gods.
This said, I appreciate that this author is speaking out against the high-carb, high-sugar foodstuffs corporations are pouring into us by adding sugar and salt to EVERYTHING. The key quote in this essay is, "Recent data on these issues make me more comfortable today saying what not to eat." I think we all need to start pushing back as consumers against the sugar, salt, and simple carbohydrates the food manufacturers engineer into everything we eat to addict our brains and keep us coming back for more.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t....
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic
[3] https://jameskennedymonash.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/artifici...
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+in+diet&ie=utf-8&oe=utf...
But, salt is exactly what raises blood pressure in the first place. Take a look at this - http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-evidence-that-salt-raise...
Actually, both were completely unknown to the Old World until brought from the new world, as were potatoes. ("Corn" was previously a generic term for edible grains.)
Therefore I don't think knowing that selectively bred organisms have been safe so far says anything about the safety of GMOs.
Personally I grow my own and eat organic when I can, but that's fine if you can afford it and live in the country.
If you're referring to Roundup, the study everyone likes to quote is so hilariously flawed it actually indicates that males who drink a pint of Roundup a day show health benefits.
The problem with GMO studies is that the ones biased against GMO tend to be unsound and the ones biased in favour of it tend to be paid for by GMO companies. Even the WHO doesn't bother actually reading the studies and goes around toting dodgy abstracts.
Paleo isn't magic, but it is consistent with previous advice. High in fruits, veggies, seafoods, nuts, and unprocessed meats. Low in sugars, other processed foods, grains, and dairy.
I'm sure someone could do Paleo and stay 350 pounds, but that would be hard as eating almost 3000 calories a day from fruits, veggies, seafoods, nuts, and unprocessed meats is hard since they're so filling per weight (as opposed to sugar in particular which is not at all filing per weight).
To be honest you can simplify Paleo thusly: Drop sugar from your diet as completely as possible.
Isn't that yet another fallacy? Just because our ancestors didn't have it, doesn't automatically mean it's bad for us. If we can learn anything at all from our ancestors, then it's that the human body is pretty adoptable to different food sources. So if we want to know what's bad for us we should simply do studies today. It's not that I disagree with the recommendations, but I find the way of reasoning flawed.
bon appétit.