- 5,300 Posts. Joined 9/2011
- Location: Colorado
- Select All Posts By This User
"blood type diet" was debunked months ago.
Lectins are but one of a whole list of bad juju in grains
Paleo actually bears more resemblance to a cult than a simple assumption. And "Paleo" diets historically varied hugely depending on a number of factors, including where specifically a given population group lived, and in fact would be very difficult to replicate for most people today. That doesn't mean a "Paleo" diet is unhealthy, but neither is a "Mediterranean" diet.
There are some interesting extreme cases out there, such as some forms of low-carb diet helping to treat epilepsy. But, for most people, there's actually a lot of latitude for a healthy diet, whether measured for athletic performance or for long-term health.
Paleo actually bears more resemblance to a cult than a simple assumption. And "Paleo" diets historically varied hugely depending on a number of factors, including where specifically a given population group lived, and in fact would be very difficult to replicate for most people today.
The Paleo diet claims are that it prevents tooth decay, to your point above that there was no single "paleo diet" since they were hunter gatherers and it was whatever was growing in their area. The tooth decay claim got pawned by the science.
The study proves zip. The found a group of 'outliers" A group that did not know how to eat acorns properly and therefor rotted their teeth.
The American Indian ate lots of acorns and they were fine.
It was archeological and biological facts not a 'study'. As for the believers in the paleo diet or the gluten fad, science facts never disprove matters of faith. The pseduo scientific diet fads come and go with regularity.
Grass fed meat,veggies,some fruit,nuts & seeds some starchy tubers depending on activity level.
Nothing has changed,the video starts poopooing paleo then explains it perfectly.
Of coarse it was localized,,we don't live in that world anymore. Paleo is about food quality. Its very well established that grains,dairy & sugar are not good for you.
It's enough to make ya just hate on skinny red-headed kids.!
Well aware of all of that,I just don't enjoy typing and explaining everything down to the last detail. This is exactly what the lady in the video did.
"Grass Fed" is a blanket statement ,my eggs are pastured& my fish is wild.
I could go on but choose not to
Things like eggs from pasture-fed hens may or may not have any long-term health benefits (taking the eggs as an example, pasture-fed may be slightly higher in some vitamins on a per-egg basis -- but regular eggs are very high in nutrients, too, so particularly given the higher cost of pasture-fed, it's unclear you get any value by buying the pasture-fed). But, unless there is athletic value from eating them, it's not very responsive to JASP's original post. Things like grass-fed beef, by the way, are assumed to be healthier because of different levels of some types of fats, but that ignores that a very significant portion of "Paleo" diets that DID have a high component of meat from deer, bison, etc. (and this was far from all) was in fact saturated fat, from organ meats among other things. Because people haven't been advocating grass-fed beef AND beef kidney fat AND beef intestine and hooves and lungs, etc., we clearly are not talking about a hunter-gatherer diet but instead modern notions of "good food." Paleofantasy by Marlene Zuk is a good read among others showing how actual science stacks up against some of the "Paleo" claims.
Regardless, I'm pretty confident that grass-fed beef and grain-fed beef are equally good to serve to a ski team, or to people on vacation or kids in ski school, in terms of the effect on skill acquisition.
In terms of neuroplasticity, one of the most effective inputs possible to promote it is a controlled substance, amphetamine. And there is evidence one of the contributors to this is in fact actual axonal growth. Speaking to JASP's original post, I am certainly open to the idea that there may be dietary changes that likewise can create an optimal environment for acquiring new motor skills (and, for skiing and riding, the related cognitive skills as well), but basically there needs to be more work done. There is no reason to think grains or grain-fed beef are going to be any more an issue for athletes than eating salmon should be.
I finished watching the program that prompted your OP last night. I liked it right up to the point he starts discussing cholesterol, then I hated it. He's saying cholesterol is good for your brain and overall health. That seems to be very bad advice given the links between cholesterol and heart disease and stroke, and now alzheimer's!
Cholesterol levels linked to brain deposits that cause Alzheimer's
After reading dozens of contradictory books on diet and health, I'm coming to believe a vegan diet is probably optimal with the caveats a) nobody knows for sure, b) everybody is different, and c) an optimal diet is extraordinarily difficlut to maintain. I also beleve many if not most should eat far less gluten and wheat.
I'd suggest these books for the anti-cholesterol counterpoint to Perlmutter. I believe both these docs have also had PBS specials:
Given the much longer history of low cholesterol diets and their proven results, I'd rather bet my life (literally) on them. I'd love to hear any thoughts on the cholesterol good vs. bad debate.
Salmon and the fish oil contained in them is worth mentioning as a great alternative to red meat. A small amount of red meat isn't bad but proteins from other sources like fish, game, and poultry are strongly suggested in the diabetic diet I mentioned. Not sure how the discussion got so focused on the paleo diet but putting that particular diet aside the existence of many similar diets being prescribed for a wider and wider variety of health issues suggests to me grains and disproportionate amount of them is no better for us than too much red meat, alcohol, or any other food / drink. As far as cholesterol, well good and bad cholesterol exist and clogging our arteries would be a bad thing. I'm sure as was mentioned by someone, religious faith in one or another dietary program makes this a sensitive and controversial topic. So rather than tout one regimine over any other, I am going to switch attention to some recipes and menu issues that might offer those who desire to limit glutens, or whatever some alternatives.
Fruit and nuts being one such food group. Sadly, due to some nut allergies many school lunch programs simply cannot serve nuts. I sort of wonder about the percentage of folks severely allergic to nuts. Is it high enough to justify limiting the food choices of the rest of the folks in that program that are not allergic to nuts? I know as an adult showing the restraint to not ingest "forbidden" foods is easier than we might expect from a child but how far should that whole "no nuts anywhere because a kid can't resist eating them" mantra extend. I really don't view it any differently than diabetic kids who must develop some restraint when it comes to candy.
Veggies and dip. Usually the dip is where this option falls flat. Dressings high in fats like we see in Mayo are yummy but often are applied in excess and the relative good of eating veggies is lost and the calories consumed skyrockets. Nor are starchy foods like carrots viable for the diabetics in the world. Again my opinion is knowing what they can eat is part of dealing with that disease and moderation (small amounts of such foods) is the key. Eliminating carrots thus isn't what I see as necessary.
Lean red meat has taken it on the chin over the years but often it's important to understand sitting down to a pound of steak is totally different from the idea of eating a three or four ounce portion of good beef. It's yummy but too much of it isn't very healthy for anyone, let alone athletes trying to eat to win.
Anyways I started this list in an attempt to solicit participation and perhaps discuss food options.
Excuse my while I go make some beer battered onion rings.
... I sort of wonder about the percentage of folks severely allergic to nuts. Is it high enough to justify limiting the food choices of the rest of the folks in that program that are not allergic to nuts? I know as an adult showing the restraint to not ingest "forbidden" foods is easier than we might expect from a child but how far should that whole "no nuts anywhere because a kid can't resist eating them" mantra extend. I really don't view it any differently than diabetic kids who must develop some restraint when it comes to candy.
I don't think it's about restraint, it's about (as you said) the severe cases and anaphylaxis on contact, not even ingestion. I had a boy in soccer carpool for a few years who had an extremely severe peanut allergy, and I was always freaking out that there might be an old pbj sammie under one of the seats or something ... the kids ate tons of pbj's when they were younger; it was a staple for breakfast and afternoon snack.
Let's not be too unhealthy. They were fried in vegetable shortening and I coated them in a beer batter. A bit prophetic, it went great with the rum and cokes that I made. I may not ever run a marathon or get an L3 cert, but I sure enjoyed some absolutely delicious food with some great friends.
Best not go too wholesome. http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/05/14/1948550612447114.abstract