CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Nutrition
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Nutrition Diet, supplements, weightloss, health & longevity

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-29-2008, 12:20 PM   #41
S.S.
Departed S.S. is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
 
Posts: 3,800
Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip Garrisonq View Post
The theory is based on fossil and dental records, but also largely on the the highly probably fact that very early man lived and ate almost the same way modern hunter gatherer tribes eat and live. These tribes do not have the disease trends we have. That is really the "meat" of the paleo argument.
Exactly. I have yet to see evidence that suggests that the diet of modern hunter-gatherer tribes differs significantly from that of ancient peoples.
 
Old 12-29-2008, 12:38 PM   #42
Robert Wolf
Member Robert Wolf is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chico  CA
Posts: 2,669
Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Allen Hanson View Post
First, let me say that I adhere to a generally paleo diet. I think it has strong scientific underpinnings and it is effective for me.

I do question one of the basic premises of the Paleo Diet, however, which I have not seen addressed by Cordain or others. The basic premise is that humans have not had time to adapt (or evolve) to consume foods not available to our paleolithic ancestors.

How does this square with the observed phenomenon of Northern European adaptation to dairy consumption (production of lactase) as opposed to Africans and Asians who cannot digest dairy. Is this an evolutionary adaptation or not? If so, doesn't this contradict the basic premise?

Scott-
There are very few accepted adaptations which have had time to acrue...the light completion of N europeans appears to be both geographic and a selective pressure from gluten consumption (cordain has written on this).

Lactose deal is not that big a deal in that we have the abnility to digest lactose as infants, most loose this ability with age. Some do not. All that happened was a tweak that allows some folks to continue to digest lactose throughout life. A similar phenomena occurs with the two types of hemoglobin we produce. We have a gene for fetal hemoglobin that goes dormant at birth. Some people who have disease of the adult hemoglobin have benefitted from gene therapy which turns the fetal hemoglobin back on. It would not be tough to engineer this into the germ cells and make it an inheritable thing. This is short term evolution that reflect epigenics...just tweaking the genes we already have. Here is a nice piece on the topic fromt he paleodiet update:
Geologic Time, Magnitudes, and the Paleo Diet J R Lagoni


The reason the Paleo Diet leads to optimum health is because it is the diet we evolved to eat. Humans have only been eating grains for about 10,000 years, and eating dairy for even less time.

To understand and appreciate the basic premise of the Paleo Diet - that our genetic composition has not substantially changed since the geologically recent times of mass-agriculture and industrial age food - it is very helpful to have a clear perception of the magnitudes of time (both very large and very small) that we are talking about.

A change in magnitude (in math or science) is a number written in scientific notation that is at least one power of ten more or less. So, 20 and 40 (written scientifically as: 2 x 101 and 4 x 101) are actually of the same magnitude, or often stated as being the same "order of magnitude". However, 20 and 400 (written scientifically as: 2 x 101 and 4 x 102) are one power of ten different and therefore one order of magnitude different. It is much more than mere doubling or exponential change (it must be a change in exponents of ten versus any smaller base number), and it is not uncommon in the natural world or science.

The graph below illustrates the magnitudes of the time our ancestors ate a Hunters and Gatherers' (H-G) Diet versus when our ancestors consumed a Mass-Agriculture Diet. The specific times used in this graph are 2,000,000 for the H-G Diet and 10,000 years for the geologically recent Mass-Agriculture Diet. Although exact dates and amounts can be argued, and would change some among different ethnic groups and regional histories, the graph would always look very much the same - because regardless of the specific dates you utilize, it always would very definitively involve magnitudes of change difference
https://www.mcssl.com/merchantLogos/81949/chart.gif

Figure 1: Bar graph illustrating a ratio of geologic time: 2,000,000 years vs. 10,000 years. These times are good representations of the magnitude of time of the Paleolithic Era foodstuffs of our ancestors as compared to the time our ancestral lineages have been on a Mass-Agriculture Diet.
It is startling to see the Mass-Agriculture Diet as a nearly flat, non-existent bar. In a mathematical sense one could almost say it is approaching the inverse of infinity ... or that it is "infinitesimally small" in comparison to our earlier foodstuffs. It is more than a full 2 magnitudes smaller. As a decimal ratio of 2,000,000: it is .005

While we can continue to debate (and we should) the exact amounts and rates of change in human physiology and the dietary amount of animal products vs. fruits/vegetables, etc. - an obvious fact is that the amount of time we and our ancestors have had mass agriculture and industrial era food is incredibly small indeed ... and not debatable.

When we talk about "evolutionary discordance" in regard to our modern diet vs. the Paleo Diet, this is what it means in one very real sense. A diet based on the way humans ate for a couple million years will lead to optimimum health and reduce the risk of degenerative disease.
 
Old 12-29-2008, 12:46 PM   #43
Lurene Grenier
Member Lurene Grenier is offline
 
Lurene Grenier's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Severna Park  MD
Posts: 144
Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...

Fossils are quite rare and hard to come by - for example it was shown that out of all the humans that have ever lived in the united states, only 50 fossilized bones will probably remain. However, that said, there are many examples: Archaeopteryx lithographica for one.

As for irreducible complexity, that hinges on the assumption that the component parts are not useful - the eye argument. If you look though you'll find photo sensory organis in various states of complexity in many current animals.

Gravity is also a theory.
 
Old 12-29-2008, 01:23 PM   #44
Ben Chapman
Member Ben Chapman is offline
 
Ben Chapman's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Tacoma  WA
Posts: 533
Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Wolf View Post
As a biochemist I am truly staggered by the complexity of life. Once you start working with DNA and the seeming chicken and egg issue of DNA replication and the attendendent need for proteins to aid in DNA replication things get complex and interesting indeed...but the issue of irriducable complexity has never borne itself out. We keep finding cellular mechanisms which can perform a given function that was stated "CAN NOT BE MADE SIMPLER". That is one issue. A second issue arrises from some of the work of Stehan Wolfram and his work on Cellular Automatia. The notion that all of complexity occurs in simple stepwise fasions is inaccurate and greatly obscures many of the mechanisms of extreme complexity such as DNA replication and protein folding. Id also highly recommend the book "African Exodous". I doubt if it will change your mind, but at least you will know what all of us loosers who buy the whole evolutionary biology thingy are deluding ourselves with. It has the best synergy between fossil records and molecular biology I have seen to date.

Also, for the continuity of YOUR argument you need to pick whether you are a new-earth creationist or if you DO buy into evolution (which you are saying is bunk) but with some outside influence. The inteligent design folks FULLY embrace evolution, an old earth and all of that.

I saw one of the Honchos from the Discovery Institute speak on this topic at the University of Washington. The notion was compelling, but it has never gone anywhere and they never do any actual RESEARCH. Once you discover that the mission is NOT to uncover facts, but to push an agenda which grows from their Wedge Strategy...which you gotta love the open-minded mission here: "to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". Once you understand they have absolutely NO interest in science, but rather pushing a political/religious agenda, then things start making sense. But again, these guy accept evolution...grudgingly. This is how they allow their work to kinda pass the sniff test and keep the topic alive.

so, for the continuity of your own argument, I'd pick a camp and run with that.



So, that's all pretty "solid" stuff, this point is much more an observation and much in the realm of opinion....Pope John Paul 2 ( I doubt you'r catholic but I liked this guy a bunch and he was a THINKER) was of the position that so long as evolution does not try to teach that there is no God, there was no problem with it AND that this theory best describes the world around us. Now, for some damm reason, scientists try to weigh in on this topic of "is there or is there not a god" when the issue is one of the supernatural...if there is a god and the supernatural, it may not lends itself well to proof in a test tube! All science can say is "Have not found proof yet..." this is where faith comes in...it just buggars me to see folks draw battle lines in these very interesting places.
I'll begin by saying for sure you are better educated in this arena than I and obviously better read at it. But at the very basic level my arguement remains the same. As you've said, it ultimately comes down to a faith issue (one which I had never intended on entering on this forum. I understand that there will always be other research and proof to refute any theory that arises, the problem is there is enough of it and it almost is always accomplished by folks who have already made their minds up about what conclusion they are trying to prove (this happens from both sides). I don't consider anyone a Loser for believing in evolution, nor do I consider myself one for not believing in it. The fact of the matter remains that while everyone loves to claim that the ID and young earth side are not approaching it scientifically and simply pushing an agenda, I have yet to see CONCLUSIVELY evidence from the other end that can reasonable PROVE that evolution exists either. I acknowledge that there is legitimate research on the topic. I would also argue that there is legitimate research from the other side that is not tainted with propaganda and agenda (I will tell you that most of this research you wont find because it has been tossed out or repressed simly because of its subject matter, nevermind that hte researchers doing the studies have more than 70 peer reviewed studies published, for some reason if a study arises in this realm, it is repressed, but that's not what I am here to discuss. I would say that there is much closemindedness coming from both sides).

I am a "show me the money" kind of person, I like to see concrete evidence, Yet still, many folks on here claim that the fossil record is complete, I hear you, but please show me. This idea that most species wouldn't have fossils would be easier to swollow if there wasn't such a darn thorough catalog of almost every current LIVING species already in the fossil record. If the fossil record is incomplete because most intermediary species were never fossilized, how do you explain such a complete representation of the current living species in the fossil record? I'm just saying it doesn't make sense, why would the current ecosystem be so greatly represented, but the millions of years previous be so poorly represented? It's pretty inconsistent.

As to the studies showing speciation. I have to wonder if we are thinking of a different definition of speciation. All the studies posted were experiments showing variation within a certain already interbreeding, chromosomally consistent organism. That is to say, if you add an appendage to a fruit fly, you still just have a fruit fly with an extra appendage. The speciation I am talking about has to do with descent with modification, the large steps that would need to arise through natural selection that don't seem to be documented anywhere, or reproduced anywhere. The transition from water to land, of reptile to bird. bird to mammal. I have yet to had someone ACUTALLY show me a significant intermediary between these very different types of species. in short, is it really speciation if you still have the same organism, but with some flair after the study is done?

As to comparing it as a theory to other theories, I think that's a stretch. I beleive it's labeled the LAW of gravity and it is quite easily observable and reproducable, Nevermind that it's proven mathematically. My intention is stating that it's a theory is that it DOES not so far to my understanding have such conclusive and producable evidence as other theories. Many of the arguments I'm seeing are arguements of "In order for you to prove it wrong, you have to prove your position right" That really isn't the point. My point is that neither side can PROVE anything, I simply would like to see some acknowledgement that both sides have reasons to disagree with the other, and both sides have legitimate reasons to believe what they do. What does this have to do with the paleo diet? It has to do with some of the finer points of it. For example grains; I'm a young earther, and I think that from a historical perspective certain basic grains are ok because I believe they were an integral part of diet throughout history. This is because I believe agriculture and food cultivation has been around long enough to justify the human race consuming them. For this reason, I will eat brown rice and certain kinds of unaltered corn (hard to find that though) and even some forms of wheat, barley and oats. Will I heavily lopside my diet with these? no, I won't, but I won't throw the baby out with the bath water either.

I think people misunderstood the intention of this thread to be one of challenging the efficacy of the Paleo diet. It's not, I think the paleo diet as it's practiced is a good way to get results, I think it's legit. But I think it gets it's legitimacy from a different starting place than the author does. I believe people were DESIGNED to eat a certain way. that more natural foods are intended to interact in synergy with our anatomy. This thread was just a discussion about some of the nitty gritty and why I am not necessarily on board with tossing out grains. We arrive at some of the same practices coming from different starting points. MY point is that neither side can prove themselves right, nor can one prove the other wrong, hence things like grains remain somewhat up in the air.

As to anecdotal evidence, I could point to just as many cases of people seeing incredible performance who ARE NOT on a paleo regimen (Khalipa comes to mind as one), so simple testimony is not necessarily what wins me over to a certain practice; again though, I think there's plenty of reasons empirically and logically to follow other parts of the diet: cutting processed foods, eating organic etc.

Hopefully no one's been offended by this thread, I feel like towards the end here some of the posts were starting to show their teeth. I don't consider someone a "loser" because they choose to believe in evolution. What does irk me is being called a loser, or uneducated because I don't. All I desire is a little mutual respect and the ability to admit shortcomings from both ends.

Sorry about the novella^
__________________
"Tough times don't last, tough people do"
-Eddie Weichers
 
Old 12-29-2008, 01:32 PM   #45
Jamie J. Skibicki
Member Jamie J. Skibicki is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pittsburgh  PA
Posts: 8,841
Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...

The theories that support the earth being 4 billion years old are the same theories that we use to build nuclear reactors, particle coliders, Geiger counters, CRT tvs, look for oil, measure earth quakes, and determine how sound ground is for the construction of buildings.

What proof are you looking for exactly?
 
Old 12-29-2008, 01:39 PM   #46
Ben Chapman
Member Ben Chapman is offline
 
Ben Chapman's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Tacoma  WA
Posts: 533
Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...

Care to elaborate on that?
__________________
"Tough times don't last, tough people do"
-Eddie Weichers
 
Old 12-29-2008, 01:47 PM   #47
Matthew Stafford
Member Matthew Stafford is offline
 
Matthew Stafford's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Gaithersburg  MD
Posts: 321
Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Chapman View Post
As to comparing it as a theory to other theories, I think that's a stretch. I beleive it's labeled the LAW of gravity and it is quite easily observable and reproducable, Nevermind that it's proven mathematically. My intention is stating that it's a theory is that it DOES not so far to my understanding have such conclusive and producable evidence as other theories. Many of the arguments I'm seeing are arguements of "In order for you to prove it wrong, you have to prove your position right" That really isn't the point. My point is that neither side can PROVE anything, I simply would like to see some acknowledgement that both sides have reasons to disagree with the other, and both sides have legitimate reasons to believe what they do. What does this have to do with the paleo diet? It has to do with some of the finer points of it. For example grains; I'm a young earther, and I think that from a historical perspective certain basic grains are ok because I believe they were an integral part of diet throughout history. This is because I believe agriculture and food cultivation has been around long enough to justify the human race consuming them. For this reason, I will eat brown rice and certain kinds of unaltered corn (hard to find that though) and even some forms of wheat, barley and oats. Will I heavily lopside my diet with these? no, I won't, but I won't throw the baby out with the bath water either.
Again, I'm picking out the parts of this topic I'm actually interested in. The use of law in describing a heavily tested theory has fallen out of favor because the word "law" denotes an absolute which does not exist in science. Things that have historically been called laws (Law of Universal Gravitation, for example) haven't had their names changed, but they are still theories. Your use of theory is still incorrect, which is about the only thing I'm arguing here. In common language, theory is used loosely but once you enter the realm of science the definition is rather strict.
__________________
5'9" - 176lbs. - Down 30lbs. since starting CrossFit in July 2008

Last edited by Matthew Stafford; 12-29-2008 at 01:58 PM.. Reason: Jamie did a much better job at explaining the physics than I cared to.
 
Old 12-29-2008, 01:49 PM   #48
Mike ODonnell
Member Mike ODonnell is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Atlanta  GA
Posts: 1,566
Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...

If you have absolutely perfect health markers while eating grains....low BF%....no inflammation....normal BP/Cholesterol.....and everything else, have at it I say. There are no guarantees or absolutes in life....you just do what you feel brings you maximum health and prevention. Eating how our body was evolved to do is just one preventative way....but there are no guarantees on anything except toasters.
__________________
The IF Life
Fitness Spotlight
 
Old 12-29-2008, 01:56 PM   #49
Jamie J. Skibicki
Member Jamie J. Skibicki is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pittsburgh  PA
Posts: 8,841
Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...

I will, but it will take some research to get an explination that both complete and easily understood.

The basic premise is that science is a closed system and all the parts must work together. If you have a theory, say gravity, that works bodies near the earth, but then doesn't work for interstellar space, then your theory of gravity is wrong. The same theories of radioactive decay that work so well for nuclear reactors are the same theories that are used for dating the rocks of the solar system and the earth.

While we are talking about theories and science, a defintion of theory is in order. A theory cannot be proved. It can only be disproved. What you do is you come up with a theory and you try it in a bunch of different circumstances. Assuming it holds in all these cases, you give it to other people that then use this theory and assume it is correct. They than use this theory to do other stuff with it.

Example gravity: Once newton figures out g = G m1 * m2/r2 and tests this a few times, people then start using it for astronomy, space flight, artillery firing angles and what not. If the theory of gravity was wrong, these things would not work. If they do, then all of their corresponding parts must work.

Now a theory can be disproven with one example. Thats it, 1. You can have 1,000,000 test that cover a wide range of circumstances that all work but if one doesn't, the theory is disproven.

Take Newtons laws. F=ma is wrong. dead wrong. Einstien proved this. But 300 years of construction and science and engineering was based off of this. Who could all this stuff work and the theory still be wrong.

Well, it's wrong, but a damn fine approximation. You only find out it's wrong at high speed (close to the speed of light) or high gravity. Our daily experiences and even the experinces of scientist and engineers in the lab never bump into these effects. SO even a wrong theory can be of great use, as long as you know where it breaks down.
 
Old 12-29-2008, 02:07 PM   #50
Phillip Garrison
Banned Phillip Garrison is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mesa  AZ
Posts: 1,382
Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Chapman View Post
I'll begin by saying for sure you are better educated in this arena than I and obviously better read at it. But at the very basic level my arguement remains the same. As you've said, it ultimately comes down to a faith issue (one which I had never intended on entering on this forum. I understand that there will always be other research and proof to refute any theory that arises, the problem is there is enough of it and it almost is always accomplished by folks who have already made their minds up about what conclusion they are trying to prove (this happens from both sides). I don't consider anyone a Loser for believing in evolution, nor do I consider myself one for not believing in it. The fact of the matter remains that while everyone loves to claim that the ID and young earth side are not approaching it scientifically and simply pushing an agenda, I have yet to see CONCLUSIVELY evidence from the other end that can reasonable PROVE that evolution exists either. I acknowledge that there is legitimate research on the topic. I would also argue that there is legitimate research from the other side that is not tainted with propaganda and agenda (I will tell you that most of this research you wont find because it has been tossed out or repressed simly because of its subject matter, nevermind that hte researchers doing the studies have more than 70 peer reviewed studies published, for some reason if a study arises in this realm, it is repressed, but that's not what I am here to discuss. I would say that there is much closemindedness coming from both sides).

I am a "show me the money" kind of person, I like to see concrete evidence, Yet still, many folks on here claim that the fossil record is complete, I hear you, but please show me. This idea that most species wouldn't have fossils would be easier to swollow if there wasn't such a darn thorough catalog of almost every current LIVING species already in the fossil record. If the fossil record is incomplete because most intermediary species were never fossilized, how do you explain such a complete representation of the current living species in the fossil record? I'm just saying it doesn't make sense, why would the current ecosystem be so greatly represented, but the millions of years previous be so poorly represented? It's pretty inconsistent.

As to the studies showing speciation. I have to wonder if we are thinking of a different definition of speciation. All the studies posted were experiments showing variation within a certain already interbreeding, chromosomally consistent organism. That is to say, if you add an appendage to a fruit fly, you still just have a fruit fly with an extra appendage. The speciation I am talking about has to do with descent with modification, the large steps that would need to arise through natural selection that don't seem to be documented anywhere, or reproduced anywhere. The transition from water to land, of reptile to bird. bird to mammal. I have yet to had someone ACUTALLY show me a significant intermediary between these very different types of species. in short, is it really speciation if you still have the same organism, but with some flair after the study is done?

As to comparing it as a theory to other theories, I think that's a stretch. I beleive it's labeled the LAW of gravity and it is quite easily observable and reproducable, Nevermind that it's proven mathematically. My intention is stating that it's a theory is that it DOES not so far to my understanding have such conclusive and producable evidence as other theories. Many of the arguments I'm seeing are arguements of "In order for you to prove it wrong, you have to prove your position right" That really isn't the point. My point is that neither side can PROVE anything, I simply would like to see some acknowledgement that both sides have reasons to disagree with the other, and both sides have legitimate reasons to believe what they do. What does this have to do with the paleo diet? It has to do with some of the finer points of it. For example grains; I'm a young earther, and I think that from a historical perspective certain basic grains are ok because I believe they were an integral part of diet throughout history. This is because I believe agriculture and food cultivation has been around long enough to justify the human race consuming them. For this reason, I will eat brown rice and certain kinds of unaltered corn (hard to find that though) and even some forms of wheat, barley and oats. Will I heavily lopside my diet with these? no, I won't, but I won't throw the baby out with the bath water either.

I think people misunderstood the intention of this thread to be one of challenging the efficacy of the Paleo diet. It's not, I think the paleo diet as it's practiced is a good way to get results, I think it's legit. But I think it gets it's legitimacy from a different starting place than the author does. I believe people were DESIGNED to eat a certain way. that more natural foods are intended to interact in synergy with our anatomy. This thread was just a discussion about some of the nitty gritty and why I am not necessarily on board with tossing out grains. We arrive at some of the same practices coming from different starting points. MY point is that neither side can prove themselves right, nor can one prove the other wrong, hence things like grains remain somewhat up in the air.

As to anecdotal evidence, I could point to just as many cases of people seeing incredible performance who ARE NOT on a paleo regimen (Khalipa comes to mind as one), so simple testimony is not necessarily what wins me over to a certain practice; again though, I think there's plenty of reasons empirically and logically to follow other parts of the diet: cutting processed foods, eating organic etc.

Hopefully no one's been offended by this thread, I feel like towards the end here some of the posts were starting to show their teeth. I don't consider someone a "loser" because they choose to believe in evolution. What does irk me is being called a loser, or uneducated because I don't. All I desire is a little mutual respect and the ability to admit shortcomings from both ends.

Sorry about the novella^
My main problem with ID and new earth pushing it as "science" and not religious agenda, is why are only orthodox christians espousing ID. If Jews or agnostics were too than it might not be agenda driven.

How long were you a bilogy major? Because you seem to display a few major misunderstanding of the fossil record and what is a law versus a theory. Gravity is a theory, so relativity. A law only states ratios that always occur. For examples Chertoffs law states that in DNA sequences A always pair with T and C with G. That's all a law is. Everything is theories from Gravity, relativity to evolution. Theories are the best explanation for the collection of data we currently have. If new data comes along that contradicts the theory, the theory is either thrown out or modified.

Last edited by Phillip Garrison; 12-29-2008 at 02:10 PM..
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I want to Paleo....... William L Eurto Jr Nutrition 13 03-11-2008 05:04 PM
Paleo Help Brandon Deen Nutrition 4 03-05-2008 11:42 PM
Have Paleo Diet for Athletes; Need Paleo Diet Also? Brad Davis Nutrition 3 07-22-2007 09:22 PM
Paleo Roy Nutrition 16 09-15-2003 10:32 PM
Paleo?? wagner, tyler Nutrition 14 06-22-2003 09:27 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:40 PM.


CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.