Paleo/Primal Living Fans Respond to this?

[BangWhosNxt]

Seriously-Dead has quickly become my favorite poster on here due to an incredible depth of knowledge and an ability to inject reason into every thread.

Seriously-Dead for mod!!!

He's good. Definitely enjoy reading his post.

Hardheart - you frequently act like a douche constantly looking for an argument often times with zero provocation. If you took the time to actually read what people said, and to open your mind a bit you might actually learn a bit more and more people would take you seriously. But every time you post its some stupid, ad hominem filled tirade and often is not even on topic, even though you do have some good knowledge. You have some posts at times so don't let that get lost by being a dick all the time.

Can't help but agree with all of this.

 

[hardheart]

Can't help but agree with all of this.

Was the circle jerk really necessary? He doesn't like my attitude, neither do you.

If the most substantive thing you have to post is that you don't like my attitude make yourself a shit sandwich and show yourself the fucking door. Otherwise, find yourself welcome to make a substantive post about health, diet, supplementation, or weightloss. I'm fucking tired of you window shoppers circle jerking. Get an original thought, participate, or keep your opinion about me (and everyone else who actually participates) to your fucking self.

 

[anaconda]

Was the circle jerk really necessary? He doesn't like my attitude, neither do you.

If the most substantive thing you have to post is that you don't like my attitude make yourself a shit sandwich and show yourself the fucking door. Otherwise, find yourself welcome to make a substantive post about health, diet, supplementation, or weightloss. I'm fucking tired of you window shoppers circle jerking. Get an original thought, participate, or keep your opinion about me (and everyone else who actually participates) to your fucking self.

lol believe it or not I actually like you as a poster. but too often you post these angry posts which prevents a lot of people from learning from you or taking you seriously. Now you could say "I don't care if you take me seriously" but the fact that you post here regularly belies that notion.

This thread was pretty shitty from start to finish though so I don't feel too bad about clogging it up.

 

[hardheart]

lol believe it or not I actually like you as a poster. but too often you post these angry posts which prevents a lot of people from learning from you or taking you seriously. Now you could say "I don't care if you take me seriously" but the fact that you post here regularly belies that notion.

This thread was pretty shitty from start to finish though so I don't feel too bad about clogging it up.

You post relevant info, frequently. I don't mind your criticisms. But rare posters ganging up on me by piggy backing off your post is bullshit.

 

[Nemesis48]

Not really. There is evidence that keto diets preform better when calories are not controlled for and subjects are allowed to eat to satiety. When calories are controlled for and adequate protein is contained in both keto diets and diets with carbs they preform the same.

Depends on the genetics I suppose - because there are a lot of studies, a huge list of which I have on the previous page, plus a bunch of my own personal experience which confirms that some genetic types cannot flourish on a high carb diet. I simply cannot lose weight if I eat the way you say I should be able to. Also I hate bringing up weight, because it also has to do with metabolic health - it's nice to not have constant energy crashes, crappy mood, get sick constantly etc. Tried it for years, didn't work. IMO the uncontrolled studies even demonstrate the result even more so - because the higher fat/protein diets are rarely controlled for calories and somehow lose more weight, how is this possible? IF you told someone "eat as much of this as you want" and they lose MORE weight than a calorie restricted carbohydrate-high control, isn't that a damning condemnation of the other side, particularly as it applies to REALWORLD nutrition not in a clinical setting? Food for thought - no pun intended.

Also don't make me make another heart image.

 

[mtruitt76]

Lol. No need for a heart image. Real world low carb diets with no calorie restrictions can work better for some people than a calorie controlled diet with carbs. If memory serves me correctly there is a study demonstrating this, but the reason the low carb works is because fewer calories are consumed and not because of any metabolic advantage.

Low carb and keto are perfectly valid dieting strategies and some people will succeed with the low carb approach when all others fail. My only issue is when those people come to believe it is a universally better approach, that and those who endorse it for athletes.

So no need for a heart. No hard feelings on my part.

 

[BangWhosNxt]

Was the circle jerk really necessary? He doesn't like my attitude, neither do you.

If the most substantive thing you have to post is that you don't like my attitude make yourself a shit sandwich and show yourself the fucking door. Otherwise, find yourself welcome to make a substantive post about health, diet, supplementation, or weightloss. I'm fucking tired of you window shoppers circle jerking. Get an original thought, participate, or keep your opinion about me (and everyone else who actually participates) to your fucking self.

Cry me a river.

The point I was trying to make by agreeing with anaconda, is that there's a lot of people just like you, posting in the same type of condescending manner is you. All this does is stifle discussions and ruins the credibility of said poster. But whatever, I'm sure you'll keep up the tough guy routine just in spite of me.

 

[anaconda]

You post relevant info, frequently. I don't mind your criticisms. But rare posters ganging up on me by piggy backing off your post is bullshit.

no worries. the only reason I pointed it out is because I used to post in a very similar manner (and still do at times). but after a while I realized it doesn't really benefit anyone so I've toned it down a lot.

There are still a few people on sherdog that I will go at 100% whenever they post though, lol.

 

[hardheart]

Cry me a river.

The point I was trying to make by agreeing with anaconda, is that there's a lot of people just like you, posting in the same type of condescending manner is you. All this does is stifle discussions and ruins the credibility of said poster. But whatever, I'm sure you'll keep up the tough guy routine just in spite of me.

Why would I change because of you? Do you think you're fucking special? Are you mental? Oh, I piggy backed on this regular poster's quality post so if this guy doesn't change he's just not changing to spite me because everything I say is awesome and there's no way I'm just a nuthugger so he's just an internet tough guy.

Seriously? What the fuck is wrong with you. Post something of value or go the fuck away. Sure, I post garbage like this (frequently) but just as frequently CONTRIBUTE VALUE TO THIS FORUM.

 

[Pitmiksovic]

Depends on the genetics I suppose - because there are a lot of studies, a huge list of which I have on the previous page, plus a bunch of my own personal experience which confirms that some genetic types cannot flourish on a high carb diet. I simply cannot lose weight if I eat the way you say I should be able to. Also I hate bringing up weight, because it also has to do with metabolic health - it's nice to not have constant energy crashes, crappy mood, get sick constantly etc. Tried it for years, didn't work. IMO the uncontrolled studies even demonstrate the result even more so - because the higher fat/protein diets are rarely controlled for calories and somehow lose more weight, how is this possible? IF you told someone "eat as much of this as you want" and they lose MORE weight than a calorie restricted carbohydrate-high control, isn't that a damning condemnation of the other side, particularly as it applies to REALWORLD nutrition not in a clinical setting? Food for thought - no pun intended.

Also don't make me make another heart image.

Its possible because of the higher protein content. These free living studies that compare low carb to high carb diets usually set the protein at 15-20% for the high carb diet and 25-30% for the low carb diet. So are we comparing high carb to low carb or high protein to low protein? How does a low carb diet do vs a high carb diet in a free living setting when protein levels are equal? Increasing protein intake alone has demonstrated in studies an ability to produce a spontaneous unintended reduction in caloric intake the same way low carb diets have. In order to demonstrate that this effect is from lowering CHO and not from increasing protein, equal levels of protein must be used when comparing diets.

Do you have any links to free living studies that do use equal levels of protein when comparing diets? I know the first one in the list you posted used about 20% protein for all 3 diets but over a 2 year period there was really no significant difference in weight loss, in fact it was pretty pathetic for all 3 diets -

"The mean weight loss was 2.9 kg for the low-fat group, 4.4 kg for the Mediterranean-diet group, and 4.7 kg for the low-carbohydrate group (P<0.001 for the interaction between diet group and time); among the 272 participants who completed the intervention, the mean weight losses were 3.3 kg, 4.6 kg, and 5.5 kg, respectively. "

7 lbs, 10 lbs, 12 lbs - not much difference over a 2 year period.

I have gone thru that list of studies before on the "diet doctor" site -Science and Low Carb / Paleo | DietDoctor.com and I don't recall any of the other studies matching protein intake for the diets.

 

[Pitmiksovic]

To the specific population that I targeted, yes, they are no better.

Whole Health Source: Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials

Whole Health Source: Paleolithic Diet Clinical Trials Part II

"The paleolithic group was counseled to eat lean meat, fish, fruit, leafy and cruciferous vegetables, root vegetables (including moderate amounts of potatoes), eggs and nuts. They were told to avoid dairy, grain products, processed food, sugar and beer.

Both groups were bordering on obese at the beginning of the study. All participants had cardiovascular disease and moderate to severe glucose intolerance (i.e. type II diabetes). After 12 weeks, both groups improved on several parameters. That includes fat mass and waist circumference. But the paleolithic diet trumped the Mediterranean diet in many ways:
Greater fat loss in the the midsection and a trend toward greater weight loss
Greater voluntary reduction in caloric intake (total intake paleo= 1,344 kcal; Med= 1,795)
A remarkable improvement in glucose tolerance that did not occur significantly in the Mediterranean group
A decrease in fasting glucose
An increase in insulin sensitivity (HOMA-IR)
Overall, the paleolithic diet came out looking very good. But I haven't even gotten to the best part yet. At the beginning of the trial, 12 out of the 14 people in the paleo group had elevated fasting glucose. At the end, every single one had normal fasting glucose. In the Mediterranean group, 13 out of 15 began with elevated glucose and 8 out of 15 ended with it. This clearly shows that a paleolithic diet is an excellent way to restore glucose control to a person who still has beta cells in their pancreas."


"The most remarkable thing about Lindeberg's trial was the fact that the 14 people in the paleolithic group, 2 of which had moderately elevated fasting blood glucose and 10 of which had diabetic fasting glucose, all ended up with normal fasting glucose after 12 weeks. That is truly amazing. The mediterranean diet worked also, but only in half as many participants.

If you look at their glucose tolerance by an oral glocose tolerance test (OGTT), the paleolithic diet group improved dramatically. Their rise in blood sugar after the OGTT (fasting BG subtracted out) was 76% less at 2 hours. If you look at the graph, they were basically back to fasting glucose levels at 2 hours, whereas before the trial they had only dropped slightly from the peak at that timepoint. The mediterranean diet group saw no significant improvement in fasting blood glucose or the OGTT. Lindeberg is pretty modest about this finding, but he essentially cured type II diabetes and glucose intolerance in 100% of the paleolithic group. "


All while eating fruit.

 

[hardheart]

That's a blog, not an academically viable journal. Link to the actual studies, or at least post a citation in APA format and try again.

 

[Pathogenic]

That's a blog, not an academically viable journal. Link to the actual studies, or at least post a citation in APA format and try again.

Here you are:
The first study was published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, found here and the second was done by the University of Lund in Sweden and was published in Diabetelogia, and can be found here.

Take from them what you will.

 

[Pitmiksovic]

That's a blog, not an academically viable journal. Link to the actual studies, or at least post a citation in APA format and try again.

The link to the studies was in the article. Thanks Pathogenic for posting it anyway though.

Here's a full text version - A Palaeolithic diet improves glucose tolerance more than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischaemic heart disease

If you read it you will find that the article I posted accurately represents the study.

If you scroll down to table 5, you'll see the paleo group consumed roughly double the amount of fruit as the control diet.

Table 4 shows at baseline only 2 participants in the paleo group had normal glucose levels at the beginning of the study, 10 of them had diabetic levels. All 14 participants in the paleo group had normal glucose levels after 12 weeks.

 

[hardheart]

The link to the studies was in the article. Thanks Pathogenic for posting it anyway though.

Here's a full text version - A Palaeolithic diet improves glucose tolerance more than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischaemic heart disease

If you read it you will find that the article I posted accurately represents the study.

If you scroll down to table 5, you'll see the paleo group consumed roughly double the amount of fruit as the control diet.

Table 4 shows at baseline only 2 participants in the paleo group had normal glucose levels at the beginning of the study, 10 of them had diabetic levels. All 14 participants in the paleo group had normal glucose levels after 12 weeks.

The first study was inconslusive.

The second study shows that if you go full paleo, and you lose waist size, your glucose levels will normalize.

My point stands: a cup of fruit is no better for a diabetic than a candy bar

 

[Seriously-Dead]

My point stands: a cup of fruit is no better for a diabetic than a candy bar

The amount of cognitive dissonance on display here is nothing short of amazing.

 

[hardheart]

The amount of cognitive dissonance on display here is nothing short of amazing.

He linked to a blog with two shitty studies, one of which cites itself as inconclusive. Am I somehow supposed to be miraculously turned around by a half-study and a straw-man?

You don't have anything showing that 70g of sugar from candy is any worse or better than 70g of sugar from bananas. Obviously, as I've already stated there are vitamins etc in fruit that most candy won't have, but that isn't going to offset the impact of the sugar on a diabetic.

 

[Seriously-Dead]

This was taken from the study he just linked to (the study where everyone in the Paleo group had fasting glucose levels return to normal after 12 weeks).

It is important to separate glycaemic control, as measured by HbA1c, from glucose tolerance. A habitual diet which reduces the post-prandial glucose response, such as a low glycaemic load diet, can reduce the metabolic consequences of glucose intolerance, including delaying the manifestation of diabetes, without necessarily improving glucose tolerance itself [19, 44]. Although we cannot rule out glycaemic load as an important factor for glucose tolerance, our finding that the effect of Palaeolithic diet on glucose tolerance was independent of carbohydrate intake agrees with earlier studies which do not indicate a beneficial effect of carbohydrate restriction on glucose tolerance [20, 45

 

[hardheart]

This was taken from the study he just linked to (the study where everyone in the Paleo group had fasting glucose levels return to normal after 12 weeks).

You mean the straw-man study? Where people who changed their entire fucking diet showed lower glucose over a 12 week period? So you're saying if you change your whole diet, fruit will be ok? I'm not disputing that. Also, for the study to conclusively be used to prove his point, there would need to be a group using candy instead of fruit, along with an otherwise paleo diet. Then, you could talk about comparing the two in the context of a major dietary change over an extended period of time.

I'm talking about singular feeding. C'mon, the answer to proving me wrong is in this forum (was a year ago or so, but its here somewhere). I posted it myself.

Challenge your assumptions. You might learn something.

 

[Seriously-Dead]

First off, they ate SEVEN TIMES the amount of fruit compared to the swedish norm. That's not a little bit of fruit. That's enough to make up a significant portion of their daily caloric intake - in fact, they ate more weight in fruit than anything else. They still consumed about 130g of carbs/day, almost exclusively from fruit. Waist circumference decreased by 21% in association with increased fruit intake. That's a lot.

Second, I have seen the studies comparing added sugar foods (candy) vs. natural sugars (fruit) and their insulin and glycemic responses. Yes, they produce the the same glycemic response. One example here --> Cambridge Journals Online - Abstract

But this is where almost everyone who looks at glycemic response makes a serious mistake - it's what happens after the glycemic response that dictates real life health outcomes and the risks associated with an increased glycemic load. Glycemic load in a vacuum means nothing - it's whether or not vascular damage, CVD risk, inflammation, and glucose intolerance increases over the long haul. High glycemic load can illicit a negative inflammatory response (namely by upregulating inflammatory agents like TNFa). It's not will, it's can.

Here's an example from a diabetic meal response study:
ScienceDirect.com - Journal of the American College of Cardiology - Postprandial endothelial activation in healthy subjects and in type 2 diabetic patients: Role of fat and carbohydrate meals (let me know if the link works, I accessed through my uni portal so it might not work).

Here's a brief summary of the study, I'll just discuss the relevant portion. They took their diabetic group, who had an inflammatory response to both high-fat (didn't say what it was, but it was 58g carbs and 50g fat) and high-carbohydrate meals (cheese pizza, 144g carbs and 17g fat). Then they measured the inflammatory response to those meals and recorded the changes from fasting, to 2h and 4h postprandial. Then a few weeks later they gave them the same meals, but included a vitamin/antioxidant supplement of Vit E and ascorbic acid. The results?

When vitamin supplementation accompanied the high-fat or pizza meal, there was a significant reduction of the rise of cytokine and adhesion molecule parameters, with values that were significantly lower as compared with those recorded following the meals without vitamins (TNF-&#945;, p = 0.025; IL-6, p = 0.035; ICAM-1, p = 0.016; VCAM-1, p = 0.04) and not significantly different from baseline (Table 2).

Fruits naturally contain high levels of various antioxidants and vitamins (varying on the fruit of course, but all fruits contain something). An increased glycemic response alone doesn't mean anything. It's the impending result of that glycemic load that means something. In the context of antioxidant and vitamin dosage, that glycemic load has negligible impacts on inflammatory cascade normally associated with higher glycemic loads.

And this should go without saying, but we have barely understood what exactly is in most fruits. Almost every fruit has different compounds that are beneficial in different ways. It seems like every other day I see a new article out about how X fruit has new Y compound that is beneficial for Z symptom.