There are a bunch of studies in mainstream news showing the health benefits of veganism and vegetarianism over traditional sad diets. Does anyone in the paleohacks community know of any studies showing health or longevity benefits from eating a paleoesque diet? Epidemiological and clinical studies both welcome with preference given to clinical studies.
Please don't troll on me because you disagree with my username. I had this happen before and when I lashed back Travis shut down my question because I wasn't being polite or something. So let's keep this on the up and up please.
asked byVegan4Life_1 (142)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on March 21, 2013
at 09:02 PM
14 healthy participants (5 men, 9 women) completed a 3-week dietary intervention in which they were counseled to eat a "paleolithic diet". After three weeks, the participants had, voluntarily:
- Decreased their caloric intake from 2,478 to 1,584 kcal
- Increased their percentage protein and fat, while decreasing carbohydrate
- Decreased saturated fat, increased dietary cholesterol, decreased sodium intake, increased potassium
- Lost 2.3 kg (5 lb)
- Decreased waist circumference, blood pressure and PAI-1
The study design was very interesting. He randomly assigned 29 men with ischemic heart disease, plus type II diabetes or glucose intolerance, to either a "Mediterranean diet" or a "paleolithic diet". Neither diet was calorie-restricted.
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)
So in summary, the "Mediterranean diet" may be healthier than a typical Swedish diet, while a diet loosely modeled after a paleolithic diet kicks both of their butts around the block
They were 6 males and 3 females, and they represented people of African, European and Asian descent. Participants ate their typical diets for three days while investigators collected baseline data. Then, they were put on a seven-day "ramp-up" diet higher in potassium and fiber, to prepare their digestive systems for the final phase. In the "paleolithic" phase
- Total cholesterol and LDL dropped, if you care about that.
- Triglycerides decreased by 35%.
- Fasting insulin plummeted by 68%.
- HOMA-IR, a measure of insulin resistance, decreased by 72%.
- Blood pressure decreased and blood vessel distensibility
Paleo diet to treat Diabetes. The diabetes diet included: distributed meals with increased intake of vegetables, root vegetables, dietary fiber, whole-grain bread and other whole-grain cereal products, fruits and berries, and decreased intake of total fat with more unsaturated fat.
Neither diet was restricted in calories. After comparing the effects of the two diets for 3 months, the investigators concluded that the paleolithic diet:
- Reduced HbA1c more than the diabetes diet (a measure of average blood glucose)
- Reduced weight, BMI and waist circumference more than the diabetes diet
- Lowered blood pressure more than the diabetes diet
- Reduced triglycerides more than the diabetes diet
- Increased HDL more than the diabetes diet
The diabetes group looks alot like the AHA/ Vegetarian ideals, and yet all markers were improved with Paleo
I'm bored with the copy and paste, here's a few more you can read on your own:
on March 21, 2013
at 09:51 PM
Since I didn't think someone with the screen name vegan4life would find the whole "eat vegetables and fruits" part of the paleo diet controversial, the following are controlled trials specifically on meat:
Eating meat improves markers of bone health:
Replacing some carbohydrates with red meat lowers systolic blood pressure:
Eating fatty fish reduces cardiovascular disease death and death from all causes in heart disease survivors:
Eating red meat, compared to a meatless diet, reduces markers of colon cancer risk:
So those were a few. I have more saved somewhere on my computer which I might try and turn up.
Also, I upvoted your question and appreciate your polite questioning of our beliefs. I generally feel like it's good to have the non-abrasive alternative viewpoint around, it can be the acoustic foam that keeps us from turning this place into an echo chamber.
on March 22, 2013
at 01:02 AM
Lots of people posted links, and I will add my analysis of the possible downsides of a vegan diet (it's not as mean as it sounds!) http://paindatabase.com/ask-kamal-stabby-vegan-diet
One thing I would advise against is using these name-diet (vegan, vegetarian, paleo, Atkins, etc) studies as a source of evidence for their denotations (vegan means no animal products, vegetarian means no meat, paleo means no neolithic foods, etc) because they are always in their connotative form (vegan diets in practice tend to be fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans etc, paleo diet shuns processed foods, etc) and they don't actually test the denotations. In the case of a vegan diet, they eliminate processed meats, usually fried foods since people aren't going to fast food restaurants or frying chicken, overcooked meat, and they increase many nutrients relative to the other diet. So how do we know that there was a benefit from a vegan diet per se rather than the other things that changed? Does any of that implicate beef stew with vegetables? Is eliminating dairy good or just meat? Vice versa? What if you just ate chicken? Eggs?
And Paleo diets get rid of all sorts of junk, and usually restrict calories quite heavily. But is that evidence against oatmeal?
I guess we have to look at each individual food and do a cost-benefit analysis. That's hard and I would be surprised if anyone has ever done a thorough one, I don't think that a clinical trial and especially a correlative study could tell us the truth. Go to a vegan or paleo site and their pundits are always giving a one-sided story about their ideology of choice in their cost-benefit analyses, oftentimes they don't even address the negatives!
If this post is with the intention of gathering all of the evidence you can to try to put it all together, then that's awesome, good luck. These trials aren't completely useless, but I would just advise against overblowing their results.
on March 21, 2013
at 09:03 PM
Not for paleo, but there is one RCT comparing Atkins (low-carb) and Ornish (vegan):
Long story short, Atkins wins. More weight loss, more improvement in all biomarkers.
RCTs showing benefits of paleo:
Small studies, but impressive nonetheless.
on March 21, 2013
at 08:54 PM
I wonder if you guys are perhaps biting off more (tofu?) than you can chew. The people here almost invariably are heavy meat eaters, and have at the very least seen the resultant increases in satiety and well-being that come from that. Many, including myself, were formerly vegans and now actually feel truly healthy for the first time. Junk food didn't work, a vegan diet didn't work, but a balanced, highly-nutritious diet comprised of unrefined foods did. Hmmm...how about that?
So you see, you'd have to convince us that a diet that makes us feel terrible is healthier than one that makes us feel great. For example, no amount of RCTs in metabolic wards with dramatically significant results could ever convince me to eat low-carb because it makes me feel terrible. No amount of scare tactics from various charlatans will ever get me to again eat a diet that makes me feel worse than the one I eat now. That applies to frugivory or carnivory.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that your religion is allocating precious resources in an attempt to stem the threat of this spooky meat-eating cult, but your conversion rate is going to be quite low. As such, I propose something that should be far more easy to accomplish:
Try to convince wild chimpanzees to become vegans. As I'm sure you know and think about daily, they are certainly not. If you are successful in this endeavor, you should start working on lacto ovo vegetarians, standard vegetarians, the institutionalized, the whole-grainers, junk foodists and then once you've amassed this unholy army of the damned, come march through here and put your jackboots to our throats and force us to convert or die.
At least that's what I would do.
on March 21, 2013
at 08:49 PM
There are a bunch of studies in mainstream news showing the health benefits of veganism and vegetarianism over traditional sad diets.
Oh, do tell? Usually, when I read those studies, I find that they laud eating plants and warn about the dangers of processed meats. This completely jives with the modern paleo diet mindset. Often, the media doesn't even point end readers to the actual studies, which is unfortunate, as readers are left to assume the reporters take on the study is correct.
Epidemiological and clinical studies both welcome with preference given to clinical studies.
There are very few experiment-based studies for any diet, v*gan, paleo, or otherwise. Are they any? I don't know. The usual culprits are labeled as "cost" and "complexity"; I suppose this makes sense, as feeding a large group of people for years in a controlled fashion is nearly impossible.
on March 21, 2013
at 08:38 PM
I upvoted your question because of your courage to ask this question and in hope to get more answers.
I don't know about any studies of the paleo diet. However, most parts of this diet are verified by a ton of research. Abundant O6 can cause inflammation http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/omega-6-000317.htm
Yes SFA raise LDL, however, overall LDL is not proven to be a good indicator of any disease http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/10/4525.long
Theres a lot of evidence showing that lektins, lactose, casein, fructose and gluten are not tolerated by a huge proportion of people.
CLA and Omega-3 have huge beneficial effects on overall health. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23475478
Through googling further you can easily find many more studies about this.
What else are you concerned about?
on March 21, 2013
at 08:30 PM
i haven't come across any studies that directly compare paleo and vegetarian/vegan diets, but i did find this study that compared those on a western, meat eating diet to those on a vegetarian diet. after testing the glycation levels in both vegetarians and vegans they found that the veg. subjects actually had higher levels of AGEs then the ones who ate meat. they were expecting opposite results.
the reason i'm skeptical of this study is because only 9 of the subjects were vegan out of 41. the majority of the veg subjects were vegetarian and consumed dairy and a considerable amount of grains. also 14 of them were "semi-vegetarians". if anything i think this study shows the negative effects of consuming dairy/grains along with a high intake of natural fructose. it says virtually nothing about consuming a diet high in one or the other separately.
on August 08, 2013
at 09:53 PM
Not sure if it counts, but Diabetic Diet isn't so far off from paleo, as carbs are controlled. You can check for yourself if you look up "Create your plate" and decide if it is similar enough for you to consider this study significant or not. It was a fairly long study comparing vegan to the diabetic diet.
Admittedly, there is no talk of "healthy meat" or avoidance of packaged food in the diabetic diet, but it does at least show that long term studies on diets can be carried out if someone is willing to bother.