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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-08-2006, 05:33 PM   #11
Frank Menendez
Member Frank Menendez is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Miami  Florida
Posts: 810
Oh god, and I thought I was done with the LSAT. *sigh*...
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2006, 09:06 PM   #12
David Ingersoll
Member David Ingersoll is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Montreal  Quebec
Posts: 46
If I remember correctly, there are two papers in the literature which show that although milk has a low glycemic index, it nevertheless stimulates a strong insulinemic response.

Cordain has a paper on this; it may be on his site.

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2006, 08:45 AM   #13
Sean Harrison
Member Sean Harrison is offline
 
Sean Harrison's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taipei  Taiwan
Posts: 400
I also have thought that just because cavemen couldn't find said food item, does it necessarily follow that we can't eat it? It should all come to down to the science.
I can understand that grains may "gum" us up and mess up insulin and so forth, but I was reading Neanderthin and the authors seemed to judge beans as bad for the aforementioned reason.
A little like "If God had meant us to fly he'd have given us wings."
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2006, 08:58 AM   #14
Heather L. Gibbons
Member Heather L. Gibbons is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 33
www.thepaleodiet.com - go to published research and read each individual study. It's not so much about the arbitrary removal of food based on a theory of Neandertal dietary habits but on the actual impact these specific food groups are having on our body. Each one has a different risk you either are or aren't willing to take when consuming said food. By the time you finish reading the research, I suspect none of these food groups are tasty enough to throw yourself under a bus for.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2006, 09:42 AM   #15
Jesse Woody
Affiliate Jesse Woody is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Orange  Virginia
Posts: 915
That's what's great about Cordain's site/work, he puts his stuff out there for the general research population which means it has to have more backing it than "If Paleo man didn't eat it, then we shouldn't either"...I think this is more the general template from which he begins his studies, but one-by-one each hypothesis turns out to be true, or as Cordain puts it "It's easy to manufacture the questions when you already have the answer..."

(Message edited by gear on June 09, 2006)
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2006, 09:45 AM   #16
Guest
Departed Guest is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 1970
 
Posts: 1,095
heather makes a good point that i think is being overlooked - there are a lot of correlations being posited as reasons, such as paleolithic man didn't have access to food X, so we shouldn't eat food X. that's not the actual reason, though. the reason is that, because we didn't have access to food X during the vast majority of our evolution, we're not physiologically suited to deal with food X--grains, legumes and dairy are the three best examples of this.

it's not a matter of logic, particularly when the "reasons" are being misinterpreted, but of science.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2006, 10:56 AM   #17
Charlie Jackson
Banned Charlie Jackson is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Santa Carlos  New Mexico
Posts: 204
because we didn't have access to food X during the vast majority of our evolution, we're not physiologically suited to deal with food X--grains, legumes and dairy are the three best examples of this.


the problem with that argument is that if the food is similar enough to food we evolved to eat, there is no reason it can't be eaten.

if we evolved eating food A and A = B, then we can eat food B.

If I remember correctly, there are two papers in the literature which show that although milk has a low glycemic index, it nevertheless stimulates a strong insulinemic response.

Beef stimulates a stronger insulinemic response than white pasta under certain conditions.

http://www.mendosa.com/insulin_index.htm
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2006, 11:41 AM   #18
Robert Wolf
Member Robert Wolf is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chico  CA
Posts: 2,669
Yes charlie, but pasta elicits NO glucagon response. one will not develop insulin resistance as a consequence of eating high lysine content protein sources like beef. White pasta on the other hand...

The point that if a food is "similar enough" to a paleolithic food that it will not be problematic seems pretty obvious. Olive oil is a prime example. Some purists don't eat it. It makes perfect sense to me TO eat it.

The research Heather refrenced, along with Frank Booth's paper and others are absolutely foundational to understanding this Whole thing (not to say that its the gospel, but it is where these theories are based from). If you have not at least read that stuff you're not even in the conversation yet. The main point in those papers, again and again deals with trends and potentialities...like all of life.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2006, 11:55 AM   #19
John D Wilson
Member John D Wilson is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ojai  CA
Posts: 95
Robert, could you provide me a link or?? to Frank Booth's paper? I went to Heather's link - it's overwhelming, but I'll work on it.

Thanks
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2006, 02:55 PM   #20
Neal Winkler
Member Neal Winkler is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Shiloh  Il
Posts: 613
John, did you find my argument to have any logical fallacies in it? :happy:

Here's the Booth article: http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/full/543/2/399

I have a question for everyone:

Evolution has supposedly programmed us for behaviors that enhance survival - one such example would be overeating during times food surplus in order to prepare for times of food scarcity.

But in todays environment of constant food surplus this behavior has led to our downfall. So, in order to be more healthy, we need to "overcome" this latent behavior by exercising self-control, or something like that.

Does the behavior to overeat in times of food surplus being "programmed" mean that it's deterministic? If so, how am I supposed to overcome this urge? But obviously many people do overcome this urge (like everyone on this board) ,and there are at least two possibilities why:

(1) I don't have the gene which codes for this behavior but other people do
(2) I do have the gene but have another gene which overrides that behavior and codes for a different one. Maybe we could call it the, "if the enviroment changes to where there is a constant food supply then I will stop overeating," behavior. However, people who do overeat don't posses the gene for this behavior.

One of the hallmarks of science, most would argue, is that statements in science must be falsifiable. There must be a set of circumstances in which recalcitrant data can disprove your theory or hypothesis, otherwise, it is unscientific.

If I ask you the question, "How come I don't overeat," you might tell me that the reason I can ovecome my evolutionary urge to overeat is (1). So, if I did overeat, you would just say its obvious why, because I have the overeat gene and such a behavior would offer a survival advantage. But I don't overeat, so now you can just say that I don't have the gene. No matter the scenario, you have a convienent answer as to why I do what I do.

But maybe you would say that it's most likely that I do have the gene. Since I have the gene, but I don't overeat, I must have another gene which overrides the overeat one for circumstances in which overeating is deterimental. This is (2). This would offer survival advantage as well.

Either I have the gene or I don't. If I overeat then you say it's because I have the gene. If I don't overeat then you say I don't have the gene or I have an overriding gene. It seems to me that, no matter what I say you can just deny I have a gene if I engage in behaviors that would not enhance survival, or make up another contrived behavioral gene that exaplains away how such behavior would in fact enhance survival. I can't think of a set of circumstances in which this hypothesis could be falsified, and therefore, it doesn't seem to be scientific.

Thoughts?

  Reply With Quote
Reply


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

vB 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
Have Paleo Diet for Athletes; Need Paleo Diet Also? Brad Davis Nutrition 3 07-22-2007 09:22 PM
What the Paleo Diet has done for me James Lewis Nutrition 24 03-15-2007 03:41 PM
Against the Paleo Diet? Travis Mulroy Nutrition 2 06-15-2005 05:06 AM
Paleo-zone diet = anti-rhabdo-diet? Seth Drown Nutrition 3 04-05-2005 11:03 AM
Paleo Diet.... Jay Edvardz Nutrition 4 12-15-2003 11:54 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.