Tr?id=708008405978544&ev=pageview&noscript=1
15

votes

Most convincing paleo studies?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created August 03, 2010 at 7:46 PM

What are the most convincing paleo papers/studies done in peer-reviewed journals?

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on August 04, 2010
at 03:16 PM

I think Stephan's analyses of peer-reviewed articles are better -- rigorous, carefully executed, with an eye toward the breathtaking complexity of nutritional biochemistry -- than most any peer-reviewed articles themselves. He points out why the studies are poorly designed, why they failed to prove what they tried to prove, alternative hypotheses worth investigating, etc. And on the occasions where he presents a well-executed study, his analyses are just as careful, not blindly accepting.

Ae011d9f1c8654ea66854ca2a977c397

(1165)

on August 04, 2010
at 07:22 AM

@Stephen-Aegis, are you in the United States? I just clicked the link and it worked. Maybe Reuters limits access from out of the country...

499f188c87c6980742b9ba98caa6f563

(683)

on August 04, 2010
at 05:25 AM

There's something else as well. Many cancer cells have damaged DNA and thus cannot use lipids as an energy source the way healthy cells can. They are dependent on sugar exclusively. Now it seems fructose is even worse for these cancer cells (but let's not forget this is a test in a petri dish, not a body). The funny part of the article was this: "Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose." Can anybody here think of a better way to stop tumor cells from making use of fructose? Anyone? Bueller?

499f188c87c6980742b9ba98caa6f563

(683)

on August 04, 2010
at 05:24 AM

There's something else as well. Many cancer cells have damaged DNA and thus cannot use lipids as an energy source the way healthy cells can. They are dependent on sugar exclusively. Now it seems fructose is even worse for these cancer cells (but let's not forget this is a test in a petri dish, not a body). The funny part of the article was this: Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose. Can anybody here think of a better way to stop tumor cells from making use of fructose? Anyone? Bueller?

499f188c87c6980742b9ba98caa6f563

(683)

on August 04, 2010
at 05:14 AM

That article is very interesting, and then this:

Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose.
How about not supplying fructose?

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 04, 2010
at 02:53 AM

Cancer thrives on high octane fuel because cancer cells need more energy and nutrients than normal cells. Just because cancer likes certain types of food does not mean that those foods are bad for your other cells, other than of course that cancer is bad for your other cells.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22923)

on August 04, 2010
at 02:11 AM

Links no good...

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

5 Answers

2
1a8020e101199de55c1b3b726f342321

(1973)

on August 03, 2010
at 10:45 PM

The Tokelau Island Migrant Study is up there.

"Over the course of the last month, I've outlined some of the major findings of the Tokelau Island Migrant study. It's one of the most comprehensive studies I've found of a traditional culture transitioning to a modern diet and lifestyle. It traces the health of the inhabitants of the Pacific island Tokelau over time, as well as the health of Tokelauan migrants to New Zealand."

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/01/tokelau-island-migrant-study-final-word.html

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/Tokelau

77732bf6bf2b8a360f523ef87c3b7523

(6157)

on August 04, 2010
at 03:16 PM

I think Stephan's analyses of peer-reviewed articles are better -- rigorous, carefully executed, with an eye toward the breathtaking complexity of nutritional biochemistry -- than most any peer-reviewed articles themselves. He points out why the studies are poorly designed, why they failed to prove what they tried to prove, alternative hypotheses worth investigating, etc. And on the occasions where he presents a well-executed study, his analyses are just as careful, not blindly accepting.

1
Ae011d9f1c8654ea66854ca2a977c397

(1165)

on August 03, 2010
at 09:17 PM

I just posted this article in another thread but here is a small example. Paleo diet practitioners often mention that fruit should only be eaten in small amounts and mostly in summer. This is because fruit was seasonal and therefore for most of our existence we only got it in small amounts. Now there are studies that say cancer thrives on fructose. Once again, following the Paleo diet has you covered.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN0210830520100802

62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on August 04, 2010
at 02:53 AM

Cancer thrives on high octane fuel because cancer cells need more energy and nutrients than normal cells. Just because cancer likes certain types of food does not mean that those foods are bad for your other cells, other than of course that cancer is bad for your other cells.

4b97e3bb2ee4a9588783f5d56d687da1

(22923)

on August 04, 2010
at 02:11 AM

Links no good...

499f188c87c6980742b9ba98caa6f563

(683)

on August 04, 2010
at 05:14 AM

That article is very interesting, and then this:

Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose.
How about not supplying fructose?

499f188c87c6980742b9ba98caa6f563

(683)

on August 04, 2010
at 05:24 AM

There's something else as well. Many cancer cells have damaged DNA and thus cannot use lipids as an energy source the way healthy cells can. They are dependent on sugar exclusively. Now it seems fructose is even worse for these cancer cells (but let's not forget this is a test in a petri dish, not a body). The funny part of the article was this: Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose. Can anybody here think of a better way to stop tumor cells from making use of fructose? Anyone? Bueller?

Ae011d9f1c8654ea66854ca2a977c397

(1165)

on August 04, 2010
at 07:22 AM

@Stephen-Aegis, are you in the United States? I just clicked the link and it worked. Maybe Reuters limits access from out of the country...

499f188c87c6980742b9ba98caa6f563

(683)

on August 04, 2010
at 05:25 AM

There's something else as well. Many cancer cells have damaged DNA and thus cannot use lipids as an energy source the way healthy cells can. They are dependent on sugar exclusively. Now it seems fructose is even worse for these cancer cells (but let's not forget this is a test in a petri dish, not a body). The funny part of the article was this: "Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose." Can anybody here think of a better way to stop tumor cells from making use of fructose? Anyone? Bueller?

0
49de4cd2f26705785cbef2b15a9df7aa

(840)

on August 03, 2010
at 08:08 PM

I've bookmarked a few paleo-related articles on Delicious.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!