I'm seeing a lot of advocating for "eliminate, then reintroduce" science in the paleosphere lately. While I think that it is a good approach for determining what foods a person has a sensitivity too, I think it is a terrible method for finding the best nutrition for longevity.
I can tolerate almost any food in moderation fine, and if I keep a decent amount of variability, I can eat bad foods regularly without any real "symptoms." Does this mean I should eat as much bread, ice cream, and twinkies as I can tolerate? I don't think so.
It's cool that people like KGH, Guyenet, Robb Wolf, and others are advocating more safe starches and the like than before with the whole "test for toleration" caveat -- but what evidence do we have that any of these foods are going to increase longevity?
EDIT: First of all, I wasn't denying that some populations who eat certain foods (e.g. starches, dairy, or even grains) live much longer than others. Pointing this out does not prove that we should eat how they did/do. Many other variables could have more of an effect on longevity than humans.
It appears I stepped on some toes, when I included my thoughts on the subject. I deleted them because people aren't really answering my question. My bad; I'm guessing I didn't elaborate enough. Here goes again: What evidence do we have to support the idea that foods we can tolerate, should be included in our diets for long term health? Dairy, legumes, and "safe starches" all come to mind here. I am asking for data from clinical trials -- not observational studies. Sorry for the confusion.
asked bythe_real_cdodd (79)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on October 04, 2011
at 10:11 PM
I'm of two minds about eating to tolerance.
I think it's a good point that just because eating some food doesn't manifest in immediate bad symptoms is not evidence that it is safe. If you'll forgive my imprecision (I can't cross-check right now), I think that Taubes showed a few examples of non-Western peoples moving to a Western place and it taking 10 years for the diseases of civilization to show up. I don't want to find out 10 years down the road that my food choices have been hurting me.
Nonetheless, there are advantages to eating as widely as possible within your tolerances, including covering nutritional bases that may or may not be well understood. Many important symptoms will appear virtually immediately, at least in some people, and that's probably the best metric we have right now.
I'm all for eating mostly animal, as it's helped me in an acute way. And there are certain substances that seem to have enough evidence against them that I wouldn't want to try to tolerate them, such as wheat. But I don't feel it makes much sense to restrict something whose effect on you can't be measured, just because it isn't an animal product; there simply isn't a compelling enough reason a priori to do so.
on October 04, 2011
at 10:01 PM
Wheres the evidence of any long lived low carb cultures? Okiniwans, hunza, goergians, sardinians and 7th day adventist all eat relatively high carb. Like melissa says the burden of proof is on you, we already have tons of evidence that starches possibly increase longevity or at the very least they are neutral.
Your paleo philosphy doesn't hold up in real life examples.