3

votes

Rude anti-paleo people - A rant (and a question)

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created December 08, 2011 at 8:13 AM

This is just me letting some steam off....

I've joined a weight loss forum, for support and also to journal. It has helped me before. There are all sorts of people on it, on all sorts of different plans.

Someone was asking whether a low carb, high fat, high proteing diet worked (A la Atkins). I just couldn't believe the rude and aggressive replies this got!

I don't understand why people get so defensive when they hear "paleo" or "atkins" or "low carb". One guy was even furious that paleo-like diets removed sugar completely. "There is nothing wrong with some sugar in your diet. What is wrong is removing entire food groups from your diet".

I even got people reprimanding me for my reply, with words in capital letters (YOU SHOULDN'T) or underlined. I just think that's so rude. Why can't people live and let live? If someone asks a question like this it's to get different perspectives on a subject, I would assume...

Ok, I'm done... Thanks for listening!

UPDATE:

Here's a question: how do you respond on other websites when you get this sort of response? Also, what strategies to you employ in the first place to avoid this sort of response?

Medium avatar

(10601)

on December 08, 2011
at 06:41 PM

Like moth to flame. Like fruitfly to banana.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on December 08, 2011
at 06:38 PM

Somehow that doesn't sound kosher dorado.

83d6a06c93bb3490dbca339cbbb63385

(526)

on December 08, 2011
at 06:26 PM

Ignore the rude answers and only engage with the good people.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on December 08, 2011
at 06:14 PM

Very witty, but with respect I don't think this group marches in lockstep in comparison with Weight Watchers or even Atkins or vegans. The best part of checking the site each day is to see who's giving whom a hard time. I do hear a few people here who seem to equate a piece of fruit with poison, or think a tbsp of honey will kill you outright, but most leave quite a bit of wiggle room and enjoy haggling over variations in the optimal options.

B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on December 08, 2011
at 05:40 PM

i hope they at least felt the breeze as i flew over their head- thanks Nance :)

Medium avatar

(10601)

on December 08, 2011
at 05:23 PM

I'll intentionally post harsh if I smell a bot. I swear, on one forum all you had to do was use the number "seventeen"'and the bots showed up. Ridicule reveals them, and stands unrebutted. If it turns out to be a real person I apologize.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:58 PM

Holy crap cliff, have you looked at your upvote and downvote totals? You downvote more than you upvote. Seriously though, if you want to debate the ends and outs of different studies, you need to debate somebody more familiar with the body of research. You should speak up more on the blogs of people who are familiar with the research.

91c2e2a35e578e2e79ce7d631b753879

(2081)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:47 PM

Wait - sugar is a "food group"?? That's news to me.

5ef574d7893bc816ec52e04139e9bc09

(6097)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:44 PM

Man up .

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:44 PM

Food ideology is becoming worse than political or religious dogma and people are very protective of what they believe and do. No mother likes to be told that she's been poisoning her kids for years. So, of course, if they have bought into one paradigm, they are going to defend it and attack other paradigms. We get a fair bit of that around here too (carb levels/dairy/lean vs fatty/etc.).

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:38 PM

@cliff, thanks for the clarification. I eat honey and fruit, so I can't take a holier-than-thou position here. I do avoid refined sugars, but only because they come with wheat or in excessive amounts.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:13 PM

Yes. That. Fear of having been betrayed by authorities they trust.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:08 PM

I down voted the thread because paleo2.0 is making what imo are unsubstantiated claims. I only decided to down vote it once he decided sugar causes liver damage but he doesn't have the time to substantiate that claim.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:06 PM

The studies feed animals diet of 60% fructose, its impossible to eat a 60% fructose diet without eating refined crystalline fructose.

E76821f1019f5284761bc4c33f2bf044

(383)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:59 PM

But paleo is as simple as it gets: eat what you evolved eating! I tell people that I wouldn't feed a zoo gorilla nutella, and I won't eat it for precisely the same reasons. We can fall down bioscience rabbit holes explaining WHY this is, but the WHAT/HOW of paleo is dead easy. Occham's razor; the paleo paradigm is so simle and elegant that I intuitively accepted it before I understood it properly.

A1a0baccef58499acf9ceb3c874997f2

(675)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:56 PM

I agree. Sometimes you just need to ignore. Or even laugh, which is what I did when I read that someone on that forum said that sugar is a food group. ;)

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:55 PM

I don't know if throwing out a random hypoxia study is really much of a debate. You also admit that there are studies showing that excess fructose is linked to NAFL, but claim that these are flawed. From what I have read, the argument that "too much sugar can be bad for the liver" does seem pretty decent to me. Maybe all the people I have read have screwed me over. It wouldn't be the first time. But I just don't have to time or inclination to make a research project out of it. I need someone else to present the evidence and convince me. I just saying it seems like a decent argument to me.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:42 PM

+1 for a witty comment. Too bad whoever gave you a down-vote didn't match yours.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:40 PM

I'm not sure why all the down-voting is going on here! +1 for triggering spirited discussion from differing viewpoints. Mine is that sometimes people on this and other forums respond as if they've been threatened. I don't mean this as a negative, but I think our inner children are saying things like "Don't take my fruit away!" (that one is me) or "I must have my bacon!" etc.

B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:40 PM

well said. IMO as a group we are no less guilty of this type of behaviour.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:28 PM

I'm debating with the person who claimed "Too much sugar can be bad for the liver"

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:28 PM

You said "Too much sugar can be bad for the liver" now you calim its HFCS? This is the problem, people make too many assumptions without ever even looking at the data. You clearly haven't researched this as the evidence linking fructose to NAFL is mostly based on feeding animals supraphysiological amounts of fructose and epidemiological studies which are flawed.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:27 PM

I really don't keep track of all the stuff I have read, so I don't have any conclusive evidence at my fingertips. It would probably be more productive anyway to debate the issue with someone who is more familiar with the key papers.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:18 PM

I also think the way most "excess" sugar is delivered is through HFCS beverages, which adds another wrinkle.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:17 PM

so where is the conclusive evidence that too much sugar can be bad for the liver?

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:16 PM

I don't know if hypoxia is appropriate to evaluate the merits of excess sugar consumed on a regular basis. I think there would probably be more interesting arguments to vindicate sugar in regards to choline deficiency, but more evidence is needed.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:02 PM

Why is it that people in the paleo community pick and choose whatever study they want but ignore the 100s of studies implicating saturated fat in insulin resistance(which is another load of baloney)

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 02:59 PM

based on what? "The results indicate that fructose protects the liver against hypoxic cell death by the glycolytic production of ATP in the absence of oxygen. " http://ajpgi.physiology.org/content/253/3/G390.short

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 08, 2011
at 02:43 PM

I said it was a "decent" argument for avoiding "excess" sugar. Too much sugar can be bad for the liver.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 02:37 PM

the arguments for avoiding sugar are baloney, we can make the same arguments for avoiding, sat fat, protein etc. etc.

B9637ddb9a9a5c6a7306e3c804fcd21d

(3217)

on December 08, 2011
at 12:35 PM

It can be a question...she's asking why people are so rude and if anyone else has had a similar experience and would like to rant too. :-D but that forum looks good.

0a2dd50f2d3951bf3fb83fc4638c9512

(1960)

on December 08, 2011
at 12:03 PM

Amen, April. Kinda makes you feel at times like wide swaths of the human race are committed to doggedly resisting evolution instead of participating in it, doesn't it?

27a29804a79e90f5b8193ea33f392852

(227)

on December 08, 2011
at 09:49 AM

"The greatest ignorance is rejecting what you don't understand" That's very well said April! And I guess I have to learn to do what you do, just ignore it! Thanks for your comment...

27a29804a79e90f5b8193ea33f392852

(227)

on December 08, 2011
at 09:48 AM

oops, sorry, didn't know I couldn't post something that wasn't a question. I guess I should have read the rules for posting first!

446d2dddaeeccb2cc31a09cf20e40d46

(676)

on December 08, 2011
at 09:18 AM

Is this a question in any way? Perhaps have a look here: http://rantandraveforum.com/?

  • 27a29804a79e90f5b8193ea33f392852

    asked by

    (227)
  • Views
    1.4K
  • Last Activity
    1532D AGO
Frontpage book

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

11 Answers

13
Medium avatar

(10663)

on December 08, 2011
at 08:31 AM

The greatest ignorance is rejecting what you don't understand. People fear/hate things that are unfamiliar to them. They're unwilling to learn. And yeah it's frustrating to hear people slam Paleo when they most likely have not even tried it themselves. I think that once they educate themselves about Paleo, once they see that this makes sense, they'll be afraid that they've been living their lives the wrong way. I think that's why it's so difficult for the Paleo movement to gain momentum because this society has been built around the idea that whole-wheat complex carbohydrates are good for you and eating animal fat and dietary cholesterol will kill you. That way of thinking has been carved in stone in the minds of millions and it'll be tough to budge. Some people just can't handle that big of a change, even though the Paleo diet is as simple as it gets, really. My friends lecture me about how I shouldn't use coconut oil because it's all saturated fat and I'm eating too much red meat and why don't I eat dessert and blahblahblah. I've learned to ignore it and it's too bad they can't accept that this is the way that we evolved to eat.

27a29804a79e90f5b8193ea33f392852

(227)

on December 08, 2011
at 09:49 AM

"The greatest ignorance is rejecting what you don't understand" That's very well said April! And I guess I have to learn to do what you do, just ignore it! Thanks for your comment...

0a2dd50f2d3951bf3fb83fc4638c9512

(1960)

on December 08, 2011
at 12:03 PM

Amen, April. Kinda makes you feel at times like wide swaths of the human race are committed to doggedly resisting evolution instead of participating in it, doesn't it?

A1a0baccef58499acf9ceb3c874997f2

(675)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:56 PM

I agree. Sometimes you just need to ignore. Or even laugh, which is what I did when I read that someone on that forum said that sugar is a food group. ;)

7
B9637ddb9a9a5c6a7306e3c804fcd21d

(3217)

on December 08, 2011
at 12:30 PM

A good rant is very primal, so no worries!!!

I agree with what April said about ignorance, I think that's one reason. People will do everything to hold on to their addiction/basic set of beliefs.

Another reason people react like that because of some sort of inner jealousy. They know deep down that eating mountains of sugar is awful, but they feel they'll never be able to stop eating sugary food, so they're innately angry at people who have made the transition and dared to challenge conventional wisdom, and succeeded at it, and the way they vent it is by being rude about paleo.

And, another thing: Paleo isn't Atkins. It annoys me so much when people say I'm on a 'high-protein'/'Atkins'/ diet. No. I'm. Not. But people tend to bunch together everything into groups and oversimplify and overgeneralise.

And whats even more important, Paleo adherents are not like Atkins adherents! A lot of Atkins people do the 'low carb for the sake of low carb' and eat mainly low-carb processed junk food. The Paleo diet is naturally low carb, i.e. from eating natural foods people evolved on, you automatically go on the lower side of the carb scale. You don't artificially bring it about by extracting gluten from wheat and using it instead of flour, i.e. continuing to eat hyper-processed food as long as its low carb.

Just to add to the ignorance issue, people have a distorted view of the Atkins diet, and a distorted view of Paleo people following this distorted version of Atkins, so no wonder people think its another fad.

Aaaah. If ranting feels so good, it's got to be healthy!!!

Lots of paleo love to all

Milla :-)

3
F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:12 PM

I think that the negative reaction is a result of fear - fear that if you are right, they have been UNNECESSARILY starving themselves eating skinless chicken breasts and fat-free salad dressing and healthy whole-grain cheerios with skim milk, while dutifully walking for hours on the stairmaster. Fear that their doctors, the USDA, and the media have lied to them. Fear that they have been getting sicker while you are getting healthier, feeling happier, and losing weight while living an easier more satisfying lifestyle. It's hard to admit that you needlessly suffered for so many years.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:13 PM

Yes. That. Fear of having been betrayed by authorities they trust.

3
B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on December 08, 2011
at 02:33 PM

the banana dude probably feels your pain whenever he comes here for a visit. i guess the difference is that we are right and he is wrong.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on December 08, 2011
at 06:41 PM

Like moth to flame. Like fruitfly to banana.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:42 PM

+1 for a witty comment. Too bad whoever gave you a down-vote didn't match yours.

B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on December 08, 2011
at 05:40 PM

i hope they at least felt the breeze as i flew over their head- thanks Nance :)

3
F92e4ca55291c3f3096a3d4d3d854986

(11698)

on December 08, 2011
at 01:15 PM

I'm wondering if that forum is going to work for you in the long run. I'm just thinking that diet is going to be a main topic of conversation on there, and since you're eating in a way that is still pretty foreign to most people (especially people trying to lose weight, and that whole low-fat approach), you're going to be constantly put on the defensive, having to explain yourself and defend Paleo. To me the irritation and stress of that wouldn't be worth it. But, of course, to each her own. Maybe the benefits of the group will outweigh the annoyance/ignorance factor.

2
Medium avatar

(10601)

on December 08, 2011
at 02:53 PM

I'm rude to paleos all the time. Here's a few things that tick me off.

-The insistence that paleo is the only way to health.

-Holy text syndrome. This comes across as religion at best, spamming at worst.

-Rejection of common wisdom.

-Neglecting to hunt-and-gather.

I'm a sympathetic critic. If you wear it on your sleeve others will be much harsher.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on December 08, 2011
at 05:23 PM

I'll intentionally post harsh if I smell a bot. I swear, on one forum all you had to do was use the number "seventeen"'and the bots showed up. Ridicule reveals them, and stands unrebutted. If it turns out to be a real person I apologize.

B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:40 PM

well said. IMO as a group we are no less guilty of this type of behaviour.

2
Dfada6fe4982ab3b7557172f20632da8

(5332)

on December 08, 2011
at 01:40 PM

It can be extraordinarily difficult to engage in such discussion. I think it is in part because true understanding of paleo requires a lot of depth and people just don't expect that from a diet. They want easy answers, they want trite soundbites and to be able to reduce everything to calories in/calories out or the like. They want to generalise and pigeonhole your approach in their own framework of understanding when the reality is they need a whole new framework. That is challenging to a lot of people. And if you stop to consider how badly off track we've gotten as a society in the last few decades in trying to understand and respond to increasing health issues it's nothing short of tragic.

To persuade people you need to debunk well-established myths, you also need to be able to explain progress they've made following other plans, educate them about science and history, as well as get a good grounding in individual and group psychology, the issues of marketing and greed in the food industry and a whole lot more. That's not going to happen with someone who doesn't want to listen, and who doesn't want to accept that many of their cherished preconceptions are wrong.

As a lifestyle I don't think you really experience it fully unless you believe in it and are able to understand what to do when tested in an unfamiliar situation. But if you can get someone to follow a suitable diet in a prescriptive way for a month then they will seemingly always see enough benefit to gain that belief and be open to developing the rest of the conceptual framework that makes it such a fantastic way to live.

E76821f1019f5284761bc4c33f2bf044

(383)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:59 PM

But paleo is as simple as it gets: eat what you evolved eating! I tell people that I wouldn't feed a zoo gorilla nutella, and I won't eat it for precisely the same reasons. We can fall down bioscience rabbit holes explaining WHY this is, but the WHAT/HOW of paleo is dead easy. Occham's razor; the paleo paradigm is so simle and elegant that I intuitively accepted it before I understood it properly.

1
518be53d5bdcf1d04fcb1a171bd3f0b1

on December 08, 2011
at 02:32 PM

I had a similar reaction to yours on this forum when I replied to someone stating that I have great success using homoeopathy. Perhaps we're all guilty of being a bit fearful of what we don't understand occasionally. Love that statement "The greatest ignorance is rejecting what you don't understand".

0
Medium avatar

on December 08, 2011
at 04:57 PM

Oh, those other bad diets, the ones not Paleo, which dare to march in lockstep rhythms that keep throwing off our own lockstep rhythms. How dare those practitioners proclaim lists of "thou shalt, thou shalt not" that differ in any manner from our own prescriptions and proscriptions. Especially the latter: We have declared which foods are not to be eaten, and yet, these veganoids continue to consume those foods, and worse, to do so with impunity. These heretics and blasphemers seek to taunt us and our hallowed ways. By making us feel self conscious about our own choices, they deserve our wrath. Anybody up for a little jihad?

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on December 08, 2011
at 06:14 PM

Very witty, but with respect I don't think this group marches in lockstep in comparison with Weight Watchers or even Atkins or vegans. The best part of checking the site each day is to see who's giving whom a hard time. I do hear a few people here who seem to equate a piece of fruit with poison, or think a tbsp of honey will kill you outright, but most leave quite a bit of wiggle room and enjoy haggling over variations in the optimal options.

Medium avatar

(10601)

on December 08, 2011
at 06:38 PM

Somehow that doesn't sound kosher dorado.

0
96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:47 PM

issakova, you asked "how do you respond on other websites when you get this sort of response? Also, what strategies to you employ in the first place to avoid this sort of response?"

I stop going to forums where either a) everyone marches in lock-step to the favored opinions and/or b) people are mean and rude rather than going to the trouble to think and respond

I've stayed on PH because there's honest disagreement here and it makes it interesting yet unduly sharp responses are discouraged.

On the employment of strategies, I admit I haven't done that consciously. I am sensitive by nature and if I see I've gotten down-votes I do wonder why if there's no comment. If there's a down-vote in the reputation tab, I go look at the comments to see if there's a differing opinion that might change mine. That has happened more than once, so I've learned not to fear down-votes.

0
7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 08, 2011
at 02:33 PM

It???s just human nature. People here will sometimes respond the same way to someone suggesting that we should avoid meat or saturated fat. Everybody thinks they are right.

In terms of general health, there are some decent arguments for avoiding excess omega-6s and excess sugar. Arguments against grains, legumes, and dairy are not really that strong (unless you have particular sensitivities); they are mainly just speculation and rationalizations.

Going low-carb is primarily a weight loss strategy and you can get into all kind of diet wars there about what kind of diets work best. You can argue all you want with whoever at whatever forum, but if weight loss is the goal then whatever works best is the diet you should follow. You can hear all kinds of strategies from people that may or not may not work for you, but ultimately you just have to experiment.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:18 PM

I also think the way most "excess" sugar is delivered is through HFCS beverages, which adds another wrinkle.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:02 PM

Why is it that people in the paleo community pick and choose whatever study they want but ignore the 100s of studies implicating saturated fat in insulin resistance(which is another load of baloney)

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:08 PM

I down voted the thread because paleo2.0 is making what imo are unsubstantiated claims. I only decided to down vote it once he decided sugar causes liver damage but he doesn't have the time to substantiate that claim.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:27 PM

I really don't keep track of all the stuff I have read, so I don't have any conclusive evidence at my fingertips. It would probably be more productive anyway to debate the issue with someone who is more familiar with the key papers.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:06 PM

The studies feed animals diet of 60% fructose, its impossible to eat a 60% fructose diet without eating refined crystalline fructose.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 08, 2011
at 02:43 PM

I said it was a "decent" argument for avoiding "excess" sugar. Too much sugar can be bad for the liver.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:17 PM

so where is the conclusive evidence that too much sugar can be bad for the liver?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 02:59 PM

based on what? "The results indicate that fructose protects the liver against hypoxic cell death by the glycolytic production of ATP in the absence of oxygen. " http://ajpgi.physiology.org/content/253/3/G390.short

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:28 PM

I'm debating with the person who claimed "Too much sugar can be bad for the liver"

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 02:37 PM

the arguments for avoiding sugar are baloney, we can make the same arguments for avoiding, sat fat, protein etc. etc.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:58 PM

Holy crap cliff, have you looked at your upvote and downvote totals? You downvote more than you upvote. Seriously though, if you want to debate the ends and outs of different studies, you need to debate somebody more familiar with the body of research. You should speak up more on the blogs of people who are familiar with the research.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:55 PM

I don't know if throwing out a random hypoxia study is really much of a debate. You also admit that there are studies showing that excess fructose is linked to NAFL, but claim that these are flawed. From what I have read, the argument that "too much sugar can be bad for the liver" does seem pretty decent to me. Maybe all the people I have read have screwed me over. It wouldn't be the first time. But I just don't have to time or inclination to make a research project out of it. I need someone else to present the evidence and convince me. I just saying it seems like a decent argument to me.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:28 PM

You said "Too much sugar can be bad for the liver" now you calim its HFCS? This is the problem, people make too many assumptions without ever even looking at the data. You clearly haven't researched this as the evidence linking fructose to NAFL is mostly based on feeding animals supraphysiological amounts of fructose and epidemiological studies which are flawed.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:40 PM

I'm not sure why all the down-voting is going on here! +1 for triggering spirited discussion from differing viewpoints. Mine is that sometimes people on this and other forums respond as if they've been threatened. I don't mean this as a negative, but I think our inner children are saying things like "Don't take my fruit away!" (that one is me) or "I must have my bacon!" etc.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on December 08, 2011
at 04:38 PM

@cliff, thanks for the clarification. I eat honey and fruit, so I can't take a holier-than-thou position here. I do avoid refined sugars, but only because they come with wheat or in excessive amounts.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on December 08, 2011
at 03:16 PM

I don't know if hypoxia is appropriate to evaluate the merits of excess sugar consumed on a regular basis. I think there would probably be more interesting arguments to vindicate sugar in regards to choline deficiency, but more evidence is needed.

Answer Question


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