6

votes

Could obsession with supplements be problematic?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created March 22, 2011 at 2:34 PM

i'm a pretty curious person, however, i'm not a scientist and have no educational background in science other than pre-med bio back in college(accidentally signed up for it but pulled a B:)). since i've been doing this paleo thing i've had a myriad of health benefits eating in a way that is large on eliminating the causes of modern illnesses and trying to get the nutrients that are lacking in whole food form as much as possible. the elimination diet that kurt harris, robb wolf, sisson, kresser and all of the other major paleo guys preach makes sense to me on many levels- simplify the equation and it makes the problem that much easier to solve.

lately, I've been starting to notice(maybe it's always been there but it seems to be more prevalent than a year ago) people going further and- outside of having specific, extraordinary problems- actually starting to add specific supplementation to their dietary regimen with hopes of, well, i'm not exactly sure. i'm not talking about vitamin d3 or very moderate levels of fish oil if you're still doing grain-fed or can't get adequate amounts of fish into your diet. what i'm referring to are the extraction of specific compounds and taking them above and beyond the levels of what's found in the course of an optimal diet.(reading the post on resveratrol got me to writing, although i've seen posts on other supplementation that sparked the thinking on this).

the main attraction of the paleo diet to me is the view that based on science, this is the most conservative approach to diet that one can take and the vast majority of an individual's ailments can be rectified by pressing the reset button on what they're ingesting. another principle that i've internalized is that nutrients and other items from whole foods are far superior in doseage and natural buffering that anything extracted unnaturally and given in larger doses than found in nature in almost all cases.

I'm not a scientist or a doctor, just an observer and practicing participant who just wonders if the paleo movement starts moving past the elimination diet conservatism that is the crux of the paleo movement now, is that a good thing?

the post on resveratrol is what pushed me to write this question but that was just the most recent in a series of questions in increasing frequency about specified ingestion of compounds taken without whole foods. i'm questioning the wisdom of it since the one thing i've seen while researching is that almost every miracle antioxident or whatever compound is the life-changing serum dujour, sooner or later, it almost always come back to there being a downside.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 04:54 PM

Doc cant hurt you unless you allow it. I think patients need to partner with the doc to get the care they want and need.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 23, 2011
at 10:56 AM

alot of ppl would be better off if their docs stopped hurting them. i my case, as well as most cases, results come by just having them remove the harmful inflammatory compounds from their diets. good discussion, though. i'm headed to work. by the way i read your post on resveratrol and it's very interesting but i only understand about a third of it... damn me for majoring in business :)

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 04:23 AM

Science is advanced not by protocols.....its about ideas and creativity. Protocols lead to dogma. And dogma is evidence based meidicine. It becomes cookbook and allows the doctor not to think. Here is the irony of your premise.....you want that system and have it but yet many in this movement complain they cant find a doc who gets it......they dont get it because they are too busy doing what you wanted them to do. And they are on the wrong path. It will take those who question the evidence paradigm and get results....to change them Thank god there are people who want outcomes over dogma.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 23, 2011
at 02:31 AM

above and beyond what is available naturally. that is a big reason for where we are now- people haphazardly ingesting things without a total understanding of what the long-term consequences are. i think that's where your metaphors of other science disciplines fall short. we're talking about the human body here. being wrong really is a life and death situation so it pays to be conservative when talking about using an aggressive and more invasive protocol that goes beyond elimination.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 23, 2011
at 02:27 AM

as i've said before, i don't know enough to speak on it. i do however know that i have my 63 year old, sick(but now much less so) dad on it and he's doing very well just by elimination and whole foods. that's where i am. i'm thinking about what's in front of me. the things that i hear mentioned on the fringes of the paleo movement that are unproven, i am just as skeptical of as i am of the mainstream medical establishment. i need more than one doctor or researcher claiming to be a lone voice in the wilderness. i need peer-reviewed and tested protocols when we start talking about additions

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 02:14 AM

And Calment followed Bernarr Macfadden teachings on food.....this guys advice was spot on and pretty paleo. She embraced his teachings and meshed with good consistent non cortisol producing exercise and very normal food sources she crushed it. She actually met Van Gogh and was born ten yrs before the Eiffle Tower was built and saw its 100th anniversary. I studied her life in detail. She and other centarians have a few things in common. And I have a longevity document that I use for myself my family and my patients. It evovles and grows every day when I add a new part of the quilt to it.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 01:53 AM

Lucky.....most paleo folks ae sub 40. What happens when your above? The target moves from performance and looking good to looking better than your cohort and living healthy and long. Youre going to age. That is why you need to at least consider this now.......morevoer the paleos who listen to me now........will crush the ones who dont. Of that I am quite confident. Why? I got patient and collegues in their 70 and 80s doing this now that look riduculous. and they started 5-8 yrs ago. Can you imagine doing this at the beginning of your entire adult life?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 01:50 AM

She however drank red port wine every single day of her adult life and 2lbs of chocolate a week and she poured olive oil on all her food and on her skin every day. She also drank tea for breakfast and dinner........And she was a person who ate whole foods, lived in Arles France and smoked for 117 of her 122 yrs! She also road a bike every day for the first 110 yrs of her life.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 23, 2011
at 01:41 AM

I don't know enough to talk about any of that. And I'm not sure that most ppl in this movement have that an aim. Most of us are on this protocol because either we were sick and wanted to get well and/or want to perform better. Before we get to living to 125, I'd like to see people living past 80 with no meds and still active as a normal thing, not something so rare it confounds us all.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 01:35 AM

If it was possible we would have had many examples in anthropology and in human history.....right now we have Jean Clamment at 122. She is it. And she did it Mediterrean style not Paleo.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 01:34 AM

A question for you.....Einstein came up with his theory of relativity with a thought experiment in 1905. It was not proved true until 11 yrs later the eclipse of Mercury measured indenpendently. Samething with black holes or quasars. Newton's Laws, Copernicus,Galileo, Watson and Crick......Darwin? All came up with things that were proven true much later. Infact there are thousands of eamples of this. I agree its not for everybody but I want to push the frontiers of healthy human longevity to 12-125 yrs. Just doing paleo wont do that alone.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on March 23, 2011
at 01:01 AM

Quackademic medicine :) Supplements make bigger profits that food ever does.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 23, 2011
at 12:54 AM

But isn't it time that ultimately proves good science? Observing, controlling variables and seeing over a period of time what happens with repeated testing? Part of the appeal of paleo to is that, for the most part, we're not asked to add anything but rather to eliminate. This conservative approach favoring elimination to restore the body's natural balance over addition seems the best course of action being that adding in seemingly innocuous compounds can skew the natural balance even more.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 06:41 PM

sounds good, travis.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on March 22, 2011
at 06:32 PM

I will say that a lamb's liver is about 2lbs, so it doesn't take a large prey animal to produce quite a bit of liver.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on March 22, 2011
at 06:31 PM

It's all conjecture, but I think it's assumed that it's all split up among all of the people in camp, so one guy probably won't routinely eat half of a liver. It's really hard to determine. I think the amount you're eating is almost certainly safe, but Jaminet recommends no more than 1/4lb per week.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 06:15 PM

is there a study that gives us an idea of what is the optimal range as far as the vit a to d ratio is? i can't really see 8 or 16 oz of liverbeing terribly out of whack being that it doesn't take a huge leap to see carnivorous types eat that much vit a rich offal in a week. but of course i could be totally off base here.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:55 PM

That's definitely true, but if you check this out: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/lamb-veal-and-game-products/4670/2 you'll see that 100grams of lamb liver has 25,000IU of preformed vitamin A. I doubt that the A is supposed to dwarf the D to that extent.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:52 PM

from what i understand, vit a toxicity is linked to vit d. if you're not deficient in vit d then it is really really difficult to have toxic levels of vit a. i supplement 5000 iu of vit d every other day in the winter, btw.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:41 PM

Gotta be careful with the vitamin A and copper content in liver. I think it's safer to eat 8oz of liver a week, but a lot more kidney for the rest of the days. I usually eat 1-2 lamb kidneys on non-liver days. It has a lot of the micros without much A or Cu.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:40 PM

i'm totally with you, melissa. i've come off fish oil for the most part(unless on one of those rare occasions when i eat at a restaurant and aren't too sure as to what type of oil they cooked with) and i supplement d3 only in the winter because well, i'm pretty dark and the east coast gets pretty cold in the winter months. i think the fact that you're not taking supps and feel and look great using a good diet is the ideal that we're all trying to get to...

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:36 PM

totally with you on offal. i eat 8oz of liver 1-2x a week and occasionally heart. it makes me feel as if i've got my nutrient bases covered.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:29 PM

good points. i've backed off fish oil myself and started eating wild caught fish 3x a week.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 04:21 PM

i don't either. i don't supplement magnesium, calcium or selenium but i agree with the those things not being around as they have been historically because of farming and other reasons that may not be of a natural occurrence. getting back to historical levels(i know that there is a lot of guesswork involved here also) where there aren't any signs of a deficiency is reasonable supplementation in my view.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 04:05 PM

excessive pufa's with too much fsih oil, the problems with cooking with olive oil, d3 toxicity, vitamin a toxicity. there it seems every other week something comes out that tells us that the good stuff we want to load up on is harmful if 1)they are taken outside of whole foods context because they're usually accompanied by nature's buffering agents and 2)high doses of said compounds are toxic. this is the subject i am trying start a discussion on. and i don't frequent 4 hour body type venues, only here, robb wolf, kurt harris and mark sisson and those are the places where i notice this.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 04:04 PM

i put in my question that the post on resveratrol is what pushed me to write this question but that was just the most recent in a series of questions in increasing frequency about specified ingestion of compounds taken without whole foods. i'm questioning the wisdom of it since the one thing i've seen while researching is that almost every miracle antioxident or whatever compound is the life-changing serum dujour, sooner or later, it almost always come back to there being a downside.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 22, 2011
at 03:53 PM

Fine, I will change the title, but it would be helpful if you provided examples of the type of behavior you are questioning. As far as I know the paleo community is rather anti-supplement or at least minimalist. It's the 4 Hour Body sorts that are supplement freaks.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 03:03 PM

@kamal similar topic to kh's post but he doesn't allow commenting on most posts now and i really would like to hear other's thoughts on this subject.

Ac1e55cf06c2180f4008ff01953d10dd

(3524)

on March 22, 2011
at 02:57 PM

I agree this is a legitimate question, for sure.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on March 22, 2011
at 02:55 PM

There's got to be another hack covering this same topic, right? If not, at least one of Kurt Harris's posts cover it nicely...http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/8/therapy-versus-life.html

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 02:54 PM

i meant, where paleo is heading at the grassroots level.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 02:53 PM

thanks. i don't ask too many questions here but i think my question is legitimate as a general question about where paleo at the grassroots level, particularly when compared to the other types of fare that is posted on the board. besides, i really am curious even though i have an obvious bias. as far as it being a strawman, please elaborate...

Ac1e55cf06c2180f4008ff01953d10dd

(3524)

on March 22, 2011
at 02:51 PM

Perhaps the question can be summed up as "how much supplementation is paleo"

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 22, 2011
at 02:41 PM

you can fix it by making the title a real question that summarizes the point of your question like "could our obsession with supplements be toxic?"

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 22, 2011
at 02:39 PM

This is a. a strawman b. a great blog post, not a great question.

Frontpage book

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

9 Answers

4
7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

on March 22, 2011
at 05:36 PM

I worked hard to get off all of my meds for blood pressure and edema. I am not interested in replacing those pills with other pills.

I feel a little less "Paleo" because I don't take Vitamin D or fish oil and can't join in on those questions. I get blood tests at least twice a year and I have not seen any deficiencies that make me want to change my stance on supplements, though. I just do my best to get everything from real food.

Plus, I'd rather spend my money on improving my food sources than spending money on supplements.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:40 PM

i'm totally with you, melissa. i've come off fish oil for the most part(unless on one of those rare occasions when i eat at a restaurant and aren't too sure as to what type of oil they cooked with) and i supplement d3 only in the winter because well, i'm pretty dark and the east coast gets pretty cold in the winter months. i think the fact that you're not taking supps and feel and look great using a good diet is the ideal that we're all trying to get to...

3
Medium avatar

on March 22, 2011
at 05:32 PM

Well, it's thought that a substantial amount of the soil was washed out to sea as a result of flooding linked to the last glaciation. Certain areas that are highly goitrogenic tend to be associated with that glaciation. If iodine and selenium were lost, so too might other minerals. Add the fact that our fertilization protocols have been heavy on NPK and light on the traces, and you have a food supply that it is nutrient-depleted when compared to what our predecessors may have had access to.

You can cover most of your bases by simply eating organ meats frequently, but you're not going to get things like iodine in any substantial quantities from it. Adding in some kelp can take care of that for you. It's so much easier to eat offal than try to figure out how much chromium or vanadium we actually need in our diets. We'll likely never really know.

Personally, I supplement with 4000IU of D3 (for 3/5ths of the year), 300mg of Mg citrate and about 300mg of food-sourced vitamin C. I have a bunch of foods that I eat in particular dosages as though they're supplements, but that's kind of a gray area. The best sources of Mg also happen to have a lot of oxalates that make it less bioavailable, so I'm not sure how much of the nutrition we're actually absorbing.

There's a fellow named Tom Barr who is well-respected in aquatic plant circles who has come up with a nutrient dosing protocol called the "estimative index." In short, he advocates overshooting a bit on all of the nutrients and then doing a 50% water change every week. The rationale is that you won't have, for example, boron rate-limiting your plant growth, and you do a huge water change frequently in order to ensure that you don't get wacky algae growth or poison your fish. We don't have the luxury of water-changes, but we do have homeostatic mechanisms that purge slight excesses in minerals. Thus we can overshoot slightly without it being problematic. Fat soluble vitamins are another thing entirely and must be more carefully managed to avoid toxicity.

I do agree that highly dense extracts of novel substances such as resveratrol are likely a bad idea. It's basically a pharmaceutical approach to supplementation and the end product is at best ineffective, but possibly dangerous. None of us are walking around with a resveratrol deficiency, so supplementation doesn't really make sense. A lot of us are walking around with mineral deficiencies, however.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:55 PM

That's definitely true, but if you check this out: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/lamb-veal-and-game-products/4670/2 you'll see that 100grams of lamb liver has 25,000IU of preformed vitamin A. I doubt that the A is supposed to dwarf the D to that extent.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:41 PM

Gotta be careful with the vitamin A and copper content in liver. I think it's safer to eat 8oz of liver a week, but a lot more kidney for the rest of the days. I usually eat 1-2 lamb kidneys on non-liver days. It has a lot of the micros without much A or Cu.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on March 22, 2011
at 06:32 PM

I will say that a lamb's liver is about 2lbs, so it doesn't take a large prey animal to produce quite a bit of liver.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 06:15 PM

is there a study that gives us an idea of what is the optimal range as far as the vit a to d ratio is? i can't really see 8 or 16 oz of liverbeing terribly out of whack being that it doesn't take a huge leap to see carnivorous types eat that much vit a rich offal in a week. but of course i could be totally off base here.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 06:41 PM

sounds good, travis.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:36 PM

totally with you on offal. i eat 8oz of liver 1-2x a week and occasionally heart. it makes me feel as if i've got my nutrient bases covered.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:52 PM

from what i understand, vit a toxicity is linked to vit d. if you're not deficient in vit d then it is really really difficult to have toxic levels of vit a. i supplement 5000 iu of vit d every other day in the winter, btw.

Medium avatar

(39821)

on March 22, 2011
at 06:31 PM

It's all conjecture, but I think it's assumed that it's all split up among all of the people in camp, so one guy probably won't routinely eat half of a liver. It's really hard to determine. I think the amount you're eating is almost certainly safe, but Jaminet recommends no more than 1/4lb per week.

2
531db50c958cf4d5605ee0c5ae8a57be

on March 22, 2011
at 05:14 PM

I suspect that many of us came to paleo-type diets because of longstanding health issues. I did, to be sure (celiac disease-related stuff). In my zeal to make up for past dietary abuses, and egged on by my somewhat-of-a-nutjob doctor (a complete supplement freak, especially with respect to fish oil--he himself took 24 grams of the triple strength stuff daily), I began taking megadoses of just about everything under the sun. At one point I was taking large daily doses of cinnamon (12 grams), fish oil (15 grams), vitamin E (400 IU), garlic, vitamin C (2000 mg), magnesium (2000 mg), B-100 time-release (6 tablets!), D (5,000 IU), and calcium, not to mention multivitamins. I also experimented with stuff like aloe vera, glucosamine, kelp....

It's funny reading reviews of supplements on some of the sites I used to buy my supplements from. People write about how great some multivitamin or vitamin C tablet is. I found myself thinking, "I can't tell any difference, whether it's doing anything for me or not," at least for the most part. I must say that taking 6 B-100 tablets definitely has a cause-effect relationship that can be felt (it's not good--too much niacin makes me itchy). Also, taking upwards of four 500 mg magnesium tablets can have an explosive effect on one's digestion. But mostly, there was no difference. So I phased them out, except for magnesium and vitamin C, at drastically lowered doses. And the occasional vitamin D.

There is, and shouldn't be, any sort of paleo orthodoxy on this (or any topic really). But any food or supplement choices that are so ridiculously unsustainable, as my previous habits clearly were, should be critically evaluated. I mean, really, taking a dozen pills with a meal...not just too expensive, but too wasteful, and not necessary if one's diet is truly "together" and balanced.

2
Da8e709acde269e8b8bfbc09d1737841

(1906)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:13 PM

Whether you agree with Michael Pollan or not, there's a lot of truth in his core mantra, "Eat real food." There's definitely something to be said for the synergies between nutrients, while taking nutrients via supplementation can have different effects on a person. The min-maxing folks in the 4-Hour Body group aren't the only ones ignoring the difference between nutrients in whole foods versus in supplements, as there's an enormous amount of supplementation talk in the paleo community, particularly among crossfitters.

Even fish oil is now on the discussion table; it seems you may be better off eating fish than supplementing with fish oil, particularly if your fish oil is of the "average" variety. One of Wolf's recent podcasts discussed this in more depth, and it just hammers home the idea that supplementation is simply not ideal compared to getting the real, natural thing.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:29 PM

good points. i've backed off fish oil myself and started eating wild caught fish 3x a week.

1
8f4ff12a53a98f3b5814cfe242de0daa

(1075)

on March 23, 2011
at 12:57 AM

I think paleo is playing off how the "alternative medicines" groups have been playing up vitamins and various supplements. Many medical colleges are putting money into quakery like traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy, reiki, healing by touch, etc as "integrative medicine" and "complementary alternative medicine". ie. University of Maryland has reiki masters on staff.....

In these groups you will see a recommendation for massive quantities of supplements. Especially the ones following Dr. Oz's (and Oprah to and extent) stylings. These sort of promotions bridged into mainstream and apparently are spreading further.

Really annoys the doctors not in on the take. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on March 23, 2011
at 01:01 AM

Quackademic medicine :) Supplements make bigger profits that food ever does.

1
Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 12:37 AM

It's depends on your goal. Orthrexia exists in all things. For me paleo is evolution. For me to ignore good science is un paleo. Paleo is based upon eating and living based upon how we were designed. Last time I checked brain development is pretty human paleo..... just my humble opinion

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 01:35 AM

If it was possible we would have had many examples in anthropology and in human history.....right now we have Jean Clamment at 122. She is it. And she did it Mediterrean style not Paleo.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 23, 2011
at 02:27 AM

as i've said before, i don't know enough to speak on it. i do however know that i have my 63 year old, sick(but now much less so) dad on it and he's doing very well just by elimination and whole foods. that's where i am. i'm thinking about what's in front of me. the things that i hear mentioned on the fringes of the paleo movement that are unproven, i am just as skeptical of as i am of the mainstream medical establishment. i need more than one doctor or researcher claiming to be a lone voice in the wilderness. i need peer-reviewed and tested protocols when we start talking about additions

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 23, 2011
at 10:56 AM

alot of ppl would be better off if their docs stopped hurting them. i my case, as well as most cases, results come by just having them remove the harmful inflammatory compounds from their diets. good discussion, though. i'm headed to work. by the way i read your post on resveratrol and it's very interesting but i only understand about a third of it... damn me for majoring in business :)

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 01:34 AM

A question for you.....Einstein came up with his theory of relativity with a thought experiment in 1905. It was not proved true until 11 yrs later the eclipse of Mercury measured indenpendently. Samething with black holes or quasars. Newton's Laws, Copernicus,Galileo, Watson and Crick......Darwin? All came up with things that were proven true much later. Infact there are thousands of eamples of this. I agree its not for everybody but I want to push the frontiers of healthy human longevity to 12-125 yrs. Just doing paleo wont do that alone.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 04:54 PM

Doc cant hurt you unless you allow it. I think patients need to partner with the doc to get the care they want and need.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 01:53 AM

Lucky.....most paleo folks ae sub 40. What happens when your above? The target moves from performance and looking good to looking better than your cohort and living healthy and long. Youre going to age. That is why you need to at least consider this now.......morevoer the paleos who listen to me now........will crush the ones who dont. Of that I am quite confident. Why? I got patient and collegues in their 70 and 80s doing this now that look riduculous. and they started 5-8 yrs ago. Can you imagine doing this at the beginning of your entire adult life?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 01:50 AM

She however drank red port wine every single day of her adult life and 2lbs of chocolate a week and she poured olive oil on all her food and on her skin every day. She also drank tea for breakfast and dinner........And she was a person who ate whole foods, lived in Arles France and smoked for 117 of her 122 yrs! She also road a bike every day for the first 110 yrs of her life.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 02:14 AM

And Calment followed Bernarr Macfadden teachings on food.....this guys advice was spot on and pretty paleo. She embraced his teachings and meshed with good consistent non cortisol producing exercise and very normal food sources she crushed it. She actually met Van Gogh and was born ten yrs before the Eiffle Tower was built and saw its 100th anniversary. I studied her life in detail. She and other centarians have a few things in common. And I have a longevity document that I use for myself my family and my patients. It evovles and grows every day when I add a new part of the quilt to it.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 23, 2011
at 12:54 AM

But isn't it time that ultimately proves good science? Observing, controlling variables and seeing over a period of time what happens with repeated testing? Part of the appeal of paleo to is that, for the most part, we're not asked to add anything but rather to eliminate. This conservative approach favoring elimination to restore the body's natural balance over addition seems the best course of action being that adding in seemingly innocuous compounds can skew the natural balance even more.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 23, 2011
at 01:41 AM

I don't know enough to talk about any of that. And I'm not sure that most ppl in this movement have that an aim. Most of us are on this protocol because either we were sick and wanted to get well and/or want to perform better. Before we get to living to 125, I'd like to see people living past 80 with no meds and still active as a normal thing, not something so rare it confounds us all.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 23, 2011
at 04:23 AM

Science is advanced not by protocols.....its about ideas and creativity. Protocols lead to dogma. And dogma is evidence based meidicine. It becomes cookbook and allows the doctor not to think. Here is the irony of your premise.....you want that system and have it but yet many in this movement complain they cant find a doc who gets it......they dont get it because they are too busy doing what you wanted them to do. And they are on the wrong path. It will take those who question the evidence paradigm and get results....to change them Thank god there are people who want outcomes over dogma.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 23, 2011
at 02:31 AM

above and beyond what is available naturally. that is a big reason for where we are now- people haphazardly ingesting things without a total understanding of what the long-term consequences are. i think that's where your metaphors of other science disciplines fall short. we're talking about the human body here. being wrong really is a life and death situation so it pays to be conservative when talking about using an aggressive and more invasive protocol that goes beyond elimination.

1
Medium avatar

(12379)

on March 22, 2011
at 05:51 PM

I like this question very much. I see other posts on supplementation and I feel as though my diet should cover most of what these supplements are meant for.

I do however supplement with Vitamin D - especially in the winter, as there aren't many hours of daylight - and I'm at work for most of them. And winter really kicks my immune system, so any boost I can give myself if definitely a plus.

I really don't like taking pills though, probably because I'm rubbish at it - I always forget to take them(see profile - mother of a toddler). So I figure that if I can boost my diet so that it hits all my dietary needs that is so much better for me than pills, pils, pills. Not to mention it tastes better!

1
99ac392257e444e014be6d4da6a900e4

(1036)

on March 22, 2011
at 04:51 PM

I've gone back and forth on the issue. I have been "obsessed" with supplements for years but feel that it wasn't good for me. I'd plan my day around making sure I got all my supplements. I take cod liver oil, triglyceride fish oil, ala/l-carnitine. Other than that, I only take a post workout protein shake (mixed with raw milk). Basically, I eat as few processed foods as possible, get plenty of pastured meat and eggs, and try to get 1-2 cups of spinach per day.

1
Ac1e55cf06c2180f4008ff01953d10dd

on March 22, 2011
at 04:13 PM

Any obsession is problematic. You accept two exceptions: fish oil for those who can not find or afford pastured meat, and vitamin D. I agree with your exceptions, and would add that some minerals (say magnesium, calcium, or selenium) are often not present in our diet in the amounts we need. I understand this has been caused by the soils depletion, or because we are very good at cleaning (unlike our distant ancestors). Anyway if someone supplements with any of these minerals (to reach the levels we are supposed to have, but may not receive in our diets) I would not call it obsession, either.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on March 22, 2011
at 04:21 PM

i don't either. i don't supplement magnesium, calcium or selenium but i agree with the those things not being around as they have been historically because of farming and other reasons that may not be of a natural occurrence. getting back to historical levels(i know that there is a lot of guesswork involved here also) where there aren't any signs of a deficiency is reasonable supplementation in my view.

Answer Question


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