0

votes

How do you reconcile the fact that paleo views seem to directly contradict the views of organizations like the AHA?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created March 18, 2013 at 1:02 AM

Like, lead government organizations, governments, politicians and doctors aren't all conspiring against you. How do you figure all these qualified individuals are 'wrong' and you're right in consuming all these animal products, sat fats and cholesterol. I mean if you're wrong, you're screwed, right?

C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on July 21, 2013
at 03:50 PM

Personal stats....male 5'7" 146, 6.5% BF, total cholesterol 179, HDL 75, LDL 90, Triglycerides 72. Max benchpress 315.

C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on July 21, 2013
at 03:49 PM

roughly 10-15% BF is a wide range, from somewhat lean to somewhat pudgy.

70c75942b975919dfbed8dddbd767b60

(289)

on April 11, 2013
at 10:10 PM

Credentials don't make someone qualified. Someone who wants to find a plausible but preconceived conclusion will most likely believe they've found it even after much study and experimentation.

70c75942b975919dfbed8dddbd767b60

(289)

on April 11, 2013
at 09:59 PM

@Vegan4Life are you actually aware of actual studies that purport to show the link between CHD and saturated fats & meats? You don't sound so sure yourself (by your use of the phrase "Isn't it possible..."). Also, what if reducing sat fat & meats causes other problems like stroke, depression, asthma? We can't look only at CHD. The SAD has broken our lifestyle across the board; it only makes sense that the solution also has to be holistic.

70c75942b975919dfbed8dddbd767b60

(289)

on April 11, 2013
at 09:52 PM

Never knew that about Japanese health insurance. Wikipedia page on "Trametes versicolor" mentions it too.

7cf9f5b08a41ecf2a2d2bc0b31ea6fa0

(4176)

on March 22, 2013
at 11:15 AM

government guidelines go against veganism also, that was my point, were you born stupid or did your brain shrink from eating vegan?

A08b210e4da7e69cd792bddc1f4aae4b

(1031)

on March 22, 2013
at 03:08 AM

@Vegan4Life, the irony of an organisation that purports to advocate for the health of Americans while promoting the consumption of foods that elevate blood sugar levels, stimulate systemic inflammation, encourage increased atherosclerosis, are nutritionally deficient or toxic, and contain antinutritional compounds seems to be rather lost on you.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on March 22, 2013
at 01:20 AM

plus Ribeyes taste amazing!

9215c97e4d3296f0de599ef9292cee15

on March 22, 2013
at 12:58 AM

Do more research on what the climate was like when our species evolved please. It may have been Africa, it was still a period of radical climate shifts, and our ancestors migrated along the coast lines eating seafood, not hanging around banana trees like deluded 80/10/10-ers fantasize about.

9215c97e4d3296f0de599ef9292cee15

on March 22, 2013
at 12:51 AM

This is very simple. Government guidelines don't mean jack shit to someone with an independent brain.

9215c97e4d3296f0de599ef9292cee15

on March 22, 2013
at 12:50 AM

No, because that's not enough time to adapt to that diet. Our species and the homonids we evolved from were eating mostly cooked and raw meat and fat for millions of years. That's what our bodies and digestive systems are adapted for.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on March 21, 2013
at 09:06 PM

I reconcile that all of my markers are better now than they have ever been. Also the recommendation to reduced cholesterol and it's link to heart disease are from Ancel Keyes and "The China Study" which have been thoroughly debunked by modern science.

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:46 PM

@bobk I'm 6'2" 200 pounds and roughly 10-15%bf. There are vegan bodybuilders, but I don't think that pertains to this question, maybe a different question or something.

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:43 PM

So this means that these foods are optimal? Couldnt I use a similar argument to say that we evolved over 10k years eating grains so TF grans are good for us now?

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:42 PM

@eddie, oh yes, let's just play straw man with fancy pictures so maybe nobody will realize the fact you didn't answer the question. This is an easy question but nobody is answering it, just attacking credibility...

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:41 PM

Oh yes, let's throw up a straw man instead of answering this man's question.

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:40 PM

When did obesity and CHD really tick upwards? 1980's? The same time we incorporated rancid vegetable oils and hfcs into our diet. Isn't it possible that saturated fats and meat products still lead to CHD, just to a lesser extent than the even more modern greater evils?

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:38 PM

I respect that you found some cornerstone similarities between aha recommendations and paleo dogma. However I feel you are at least n some level turning a blind eye to the fact that the aha does recommend to limit saturated fat to 7% , limit cholesterol rich foods and that these foods are generally responsible for heart disease. How do you reconcile the fact that your beliefs directly contradict the aha on some very important relevant cornerstone issues?

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:31 PM

Thanks guys .

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:31 PM

I'm asking how you reconcile the fact that government guidelines go against your beliefs, this isn't a pissing contest where we compare diets with all due respect.

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:30 PM

Thanks for your answer.

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:27 PM

Every single one of these comments disses me based soley on my username, not answering my question whatsoever. Who's the troll here guys? If my name was paleo4life what kind of responses would I have got? Not these offensive hating comments that's for sure. Grow up and answer my question or buzz off.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 19, 2013
at 03:24 PM

Regarding the AHA certification logo, I found this: "All foods are eligible except those manufactured by a tobacco company or its subsidiaries. This excludes all products from Nabisco (a unit of the RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp.) and Kraft, Post and Jell-O (all owned by Philip Morris). So Post's Raisin Bran cannot carry the heart-check symbol, while Kellogg's Raisin Bran can. And does." If you pay the AHA fee, you get the logo. Raisin Bran was one of my go-to cereals. I thought it was heart-healthy because of all the fiber and added vitamins. I was wrong.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 19, 2013
at 03:14 PM

When I quit eating Kelloggs dry cereal my heart health improved. Lower systolic blood pressure and higher HDL = measurably lower CV risk using the Framingham model. But maybe oats are better than wheat...still not going to risk eating dry cereals again....

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on March 19, 2013
at 01:42 PM

Fortified grains, i.e. grains that were sprayed with "vitamins and minerals"? No Thank you. Menadione, Retinol are just two examples that come to mind. Plus there's my N=1. I took Nature Made Vitamin B Complex, saw no difference. Starting taking Opti-Men and my pee turned bright yellow (with a third the vitamin B2). Fortified grains do not mean they are using good quality, bio-available nutrients.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on March 19, 2013
at 01:41 PM

I propose eating diversely. But comparing Kale to Ground Beef is like Comparing Wayne Gretzky to Kwame Brown. Peer to Peer would be liver to Kale. Outside of Vitamin C and Calcium, there is not really a comparison. Normalized for Calories (1 Cup Kale to 1 ounce Liver) -- Kale 2g Protein, 6% Iron; Liver 6g Protein, 8% Iron. Normalized for weight (100g) -- Kale: 3g Protein, 9% Iron; Liver: 20g Protein, 27% Iron. Which is more nutrient dense?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on March 19, 2013
at 12:18 PM

What nutrient rich versus poor? After all, as Mat Lelonde showed in his presentation, vegans have all sorts of scales that purport that kale is 50 times nutrient dense than ground beef. Fortified grain products are arguably more nutrient dense than a lot of paleo foods too.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on March 19, 2013
at 12:15 PM

LOL, vegan troll...

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on March 19, 2013
at 07:25 AM

The LFHC diet killed my father-in-law & my father as well. I'll take my chances with Primal / Paleo. The "govt"... they're never wrong! ;)

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on March 19, 2013
at 07:22 AM

Hey V4L- How about some personal stats? I'm 6' 192, ~18% body fat (down from 220 in ~6 months) I'm nearly 60 and have a decent amount of muscle mass. I seriously doubt being able to maintain this state on vegan fare. I'll take my chances with 20/35/45.

7cf9f5b08a41ecf2a2d2bc0b31ea6fa0

(4176)

on March 18, 2013
at 09:09 PM

Does the AHA recommend vegan? I think not

A08b210e4da7e69cd792bddc1f4aae4b

(1031)

on March 18, 2013
at 07:19 PM

_Eppur si muove._

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 18, 2013
at 12:54 PM

@eddie, I didn't say eating animals is wrong I said how do you reconcile the fact that your views contradict global health and government stances. My dietary choices that you've inferred through my username are irrelevant to this question. @cd are you assuming I'm vegan from my username? I'm not trying to say paleo is necessarily wrong, I'm asking how do you justify to yourself that what you're doing is right but mainstream medicine, billon dollar non profit organizations, millions of doctors and government stances are all wrong?

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on March 18, 2013
at 10:36 AM

Maybe if you ate some more saturated fat you could figure out how to reply to posts appropriately. You put your faith in a diet built around falsified science that Ancel Keyes himself has admitted were inappropriate conclusions. I will based mine around biology. At the end of the day we are both going to die, I will die happy without stressing the body.

A08b210e4da7e69cd792bddc1f4aae4b

(1031)

on March 18, 2013
at 09:36 AM

Oh FFS, first the AHA and now Taubes and Ornish! If you believe that eating animals is wrong just come out and say it. You're wasting your breath trying to pick a fight about nutrition with Paleo folks.

A08b210e4da7e69cd792bddc1f4aae4b

(1031)

on March 18, 2013
at 08:58 AM

If a meat-based diet is actually the most healthy and nutritious what will veg*ans have left to talk about? Oh I know, ethics. Imagine that, a rational dialogue about personal values rather than the spreading of disinformation to con people into someone else's ideology.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 18, 2013
at 02:50 AM

Err on the side of edible incredible oysters.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 18, 2013
at 02:49 AM

So the point is: AHA's healthy, paleo's healthy, vegan's irrelevant.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 18, 2013
at 02:44 AM

Like, had your seafood today? That would do your vegan heart some good AHA will back me up on that.

D7cc4049bef85d1979efbd853dc07c8e

(4029)

on March 18, 2013
at 02:00 AM

"(I)f you're wrong, you're screwed, right?" Speak for your self. Other than that, why are you so concerned? You having doubts? Maybe if you read out of your niche you'd find the research isn't what you think it is.

Frontpage book

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

17 Answers

13
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on March 18, 2013
at 01:23 AM

Paleo and AHA do not differ very much.

AHA: Eat a variety of nutritious foods from all the food groups. Nutrient-rich foods have vitamins, minerals, fiber and other nutrients but are lower in calories. To get the nutrients you need, choose foods like vegetables, fruits, whole-grain products.

Paleo: Whole-grain may not be nutrient dense, and is better avoided. Otherwise it's the same. Also meat from ruminants is extraordinarily nutrient dense.

AHA: Eat less of the nutrient-poor foods. Limit foods and beverages high in calories but low in nutrients

Paleo: Same.

AHA: As you make daily food choices, base your eating pattern on these recommendations: Cut back on foods containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oils to reduce trans fat in your diet. Cut back on foods high in dietary cholesterol. Cut back on beverages and foods with added sugars. Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt.If you drink alcohol, drink in moderation. That means one drink per day if you???re a woman and two drinks per day if you???re a man. Follow the American Heart Association recommendations when you eat out, and keep an eye on your portion sizes.

Paleo: Basically the same.

Other than the outdated saturated fat and cholesterol claims, Paleo and AHA are pretty much the same. As for those big differences? Ancel Keys says it best, "The evidence???both from experiments and from field surveys???indicates that the cholesterol content, per se, of all natural diets has no significant effect on either the serum cholesterol level or the development of atherosclerosis in man.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 18, 2013
at 02:49 AM

So the point is: AHA's healthy, paleo's healthy, vegan's irrelevant.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on March 19, 2013
at 01:41 PM

I propose eating diversely. But comparing Kale to Ground Beef is like Comparing Wayne Gretzky to Kwame Brown. Peer to Peer would be liver to Kale. Outside of Vitamin C and Calcium, there is not really a comparison. Normalized for Calories (1 Cup Kale to 1 ounce Liver) -- Kale 2g Protein, 6% Iron; Liver 6g Protein, 8% Iron. Normalized for weight (100g) -- Kale: 3g Protein, 9% Iron; Liver: 20g Protein, 27% Iron. Which is more nutrient dense?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on March 19, 2013
at 12:18 PM

What nutrient rich versus poor? After all, as Mat Lelonde showed in his presentation, vegans have all sorts of scales that purport that kale is 50 times nutrient dense than ground beef. Fortified grain products are arguably more nutrient dense than a lot of paleo foods too.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on March 19, 2013
at 01:42 PM

Fortified grains, i.e. grains that were sprayed with "vitamins and minerals"? No Thank you. Menadione, Retinol are just two examples that come to mind. Plus there's my N=1. I took Nature Made Vitamin B Complex, saw no difference. Starting taking Opti-Men and my pee turned bright yellow (with a third the vitamin B2). Fortified grains do not mean they are using good quality, bio-available nutrients.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on March 22, 2013
at 01:20 AM

plus Ribeyes taste amazing!

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on March 21, 2013
at 09:06 PM

I reconcile that all of my markers are better now than they have ever been. Also the recommendation to reduced cholesterol and it's link to heart disease are from Ancel Keyes and "The China Study" which have been thoroughly debunked by modern science.

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:38 PM

I respect that you found some cornerstone similarities between aha recommendations and paleo dogma. However I feel you are at least n some level turning a blind eye to the fact that the aha does recommend to limit saturated fat to 7% , limit cholesterol rich foods and that these foods are generally responsible for heart disease. How do you reconcile the fact that your beliefs directly contradict the aha on some very important relevant cornerstone issues?

9
70c75942b975919dfbed8dddbd767b60

(289)

on April 09, 2013
at 11:00 PM

This is an interesting question, because everyone who decides to eat a lot of meat and saturated fat will have to be able to answer it to their own satisfaction.

(As a sidenote, there's some ambiguity in the name "Vegan4Life". It may mean "I will be a vegan for the rest of my life", or "I am vegan because I believe it will make me the most alive." I hope it's the latter, otherwise you're admitting you're too set in your ways to listen to reason.)

I will give my reasons why I distrust the saturated fat and cholesterol recommendations of the AHA.

  1. The government "experts" have lost huge credibility in my eyes by previously advocating trans fats as being safe, in the face of the evidence brought by Mary Enig. How could so many "experts" be wrong?
  2. When the scientists originally made their claim that saturated fat is bad for you, they did not distinguish between short, medium, and long chain saturated fatty acids (because they were unaware of the distinction). This casts doubt on the usefulness of those old studies. Now conventional science is coming around to say that coconut oil may actually be good for you. The old "science" isn't always as it seems.
  3. Ancel Keys's "seven countries" study was the basis for the AHA's recommendations to limit sat fats in 1956 (see wikipedia). Why did he only include 7 out of 22 countries that had data available? What about France and Belgium for example?
  4. Polyunsaturated fats are most prone to lipid peroxidation (think free radicals and cancer). Extracting the oils makes them even more prone to peroxidation. I don't see how these oils can be recommended without proper cautions. Saturated fats are the most stable and resistant against peroxidation.
  5. If saturated fat in a healthy person will make them develop heart disease, then that means the human body is programmed to destroy itself, because our body synthesizes saturated fat.
  6. Here's an argument from the fathead-movie.com (site seems down currently), related to the previous point. If I'm overweight, and I eat less, my body will eventually break down stored fat and send it through my bloodstream to the tissues that need it (look up lipolysis on wikipedia). If saturated fat traveling through the blood (inside LDL) is so bad, then losing weight is just as bad as eating some fatty meat. Losing weight can kill you, I suppose.
  7. History does not support the hypothesis that saturated fat is harmful (read the diet-heart-timeline link).

Here's one final interesting note. After the Keys study came out, there was a lot of controversy. But in the midst of this:

the British Medical Journal, in its leading article on 13th July, 1957, said: "Until we have more precise information on the relationship, if any, between dietary factors and coronary disease, there is no need for the middle-aged man to forgo his breakfast of egg and bacon in favour of cereal and skim milk, followed by toast and marmalade with a scraping of butter."

(MacKarness, Eat Fat Grow Thin, 1958)

and

The committee's [responsible for Dietary Goals of the United States, 1977] "eat less" recommendations triggered strong negative reactions from the cattle, dairy, egg, and sugar industries, including from McGovern's home state. The American Medical Association protested as well, reflecting its long-espoused belief that people should see their doctor for individual advice rather than follow guidance for the public as a whole.

(United States Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, Wikipedia, emphasis mine)

Perhaps the myth has been going around so much that our skepticism has slowly been eroded. Experimental science is limited. Many false or half-truths can apparently be "proven" by experiment, but no experiment is perfectly generalizable. There are often confounding factors, or the subjects aren't representative (not all meat eaters can be represented by standard-American-diet eaters), or the things ingested aren't representative (an extracted substance is fed rather than actual food; or the food was raised under poor conditions). Sometimes we have to ask ourselves, does this scientific conclusion make sense?

Keep in mind that the science is far from definitive; there's a lot we don't know. It could well be that saturated fat and cholesterol is bad in the context of a damaged metabolism, or that sat fats are bad depending on the source of the fat.

References:

Just found more:

8
A08b210e4da7e69cd792bddc1f4aae4b

(1031)

on March 19, 2013
at 10:11 AM

AHA, that's these guys right?

how-do-you-reconcile-the-fact-that-paleo-views-seem-to-directly-contradict-the-views-of-organizations-like-the-aha?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 19, 2013
at 03:14 PM

When I quit eating Kelloggs dry cereal my heart health improved. Lower systolic blood pressure and higher HDL = measurably lower CV risk using the Framingham model. But maybe oats are better than wheat...still not going to risk eating dry cereals again....

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 19, 2013
at 03:24 PM

Regarding the AHA certification logo, I found this: "All foods are eligible except those manufactured by a tobacco company or its subsidiaries. This excludes all products from Nabisco (a unit of the RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp.) and Kraft, Post and Jell-O (all owned by Philip Morris). So Post's Raisin Bran cannot carry the heart-check symbol, while Kellogg's Raisin Bran can. And does." If you pay the AHA fee, you get the logo. Raisin Bran was one of my go-to cereals. I thought it was heart-healthy because of all the fiber and added vitamins. I was wrong.

A08b210e4da7e69cd792bddc1f4aae4b

(1031)

on March 22, 2013
at 03:08 AM

@Vegan4Life, the irony of an organisation that purports to advocate for the health of Americans while promoting the consumption of foods that elevate blood sugar levels, stimulate systemic inflammation, encourage increased atherosclerosis, are nutritionally deficient or toxic, and contain antinutritional compounds seems to be rather lost on you.

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:42 PM

@eddie, oh yes, let's just play straw man with fancy pictures so maybe nobody will realize the fact you didn't answer the question. This is an easy question but nobody is answering it, just attacking credibility...

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:41 PM

Oh yes, let's throw up a straw man instead of answering this man's question.

6
3491e51730101b18724dc57c86601173

(8395)

on March 18, 2013
at 09:06 PM

There's ample evidence that Americans have been following AHA recommendations in that they have cut back on saturated fat in particular, they exercise more, they eat more "heart healthy grains", take more statins and blood pressure medicines and yet cardiovascular disease is still going UP.

Meanwhile, organizations like AHA, AND, ADA get major funding from agricultural, food, and drug producers and continue to hand out advice that is contrary to the growing body of evidence that grains, whole or not, are not healthy and saturated fat is beneficial, not harmful.

Do I suspect a conspiracy, no, but I do think that money talks and these big industries have huge pockets that control funding and research and public information dollars.

Perhaps it's a gamble but it's one I'm willing to take. Eating the "healthy whole grain, low fat, balanced diet" way put on 100 extra pounds, PCOS, high blood pressure, pre-diabetes, asthma, and sleep apnea. Eating saturated fat real whole foods has lost me 60 pounds, resolved and or greatly improved all those other conditions.

I tried the vegetarian-semi-vegan way too and was always sick as a dog from reactive hypoglycemia. No thanks.

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:40 PM

When did obesity and CHD really tick upwards? 1980's? The same time we incorporated rancid vegetable oils and hfcs into our diet. Isn't it possible that saturated fats and meat products still lead to CHD, just to a lesser extent than the even more modern greater evils?

70c75942b975919dfbed8dddbd767b60

(289)

on April 11, 2013
at 09:59 PM

@Vegan4Life are you actually aware of actual studies that purport to show the link between CHD and saturated fats & meats? You don't sound so sure yourself (by your use of the phrase "Isn't it possible..."). Also, what if reducing sat fat & meats causes other problems like stroke, depression, asthma? We can't look only at CHD. The SAD has broken our lifestyle across the board; it only makes sense that the solution also has to be holistic.

6
028e70a250f38bd61fa81b0e0789bb6e

on March 18, 2013
at 02:14 AM

Lost fat, gained muscle, stopped being gassy, lost acne, never felt better, food tastes delicious. Not to mention obesity and type 2 diabetes is an indicator for CHD later in life anyways.

If we are really wrong, I'm willing to take my chances.

Plus, from CD's answer it looks like we are the people who are truly adherent to AHA general guidelines.

We are getting all those micro-nutrients from whole foods, as the way it should be. Those industrial products are mostly nutritionally empty. If we need industrial low fat products plus fortified nutrition, where did our grandparents get those things?

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:30 PM

Thanks for your answer.

4
7cf9f5b08a41ecf2a2d2bc0b31ea6fa0

on March 18, 2013
at 09:10 PM

Does AHA really endorse veganism? I think not, so why are you bucking the mainstream advice also?

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:31 PM

I'm asking how you reconcile the fact that government guidelines go against your beliefs, this isn't a pissing contest where we compare diets with all due respect.

9215c97e4d3296f0de599ef9292cee15

on March 22, 2013
at 12:51 AM

This is very simple. Government guidelines don't mean jack shit to someone with an independent brain.

7cf9f5b08a41ecf2a2d2bc0b31ea6fa0

(4176)

on March 22, 2013
at 11:15 AM

government guidelines go against veganism also, that was my point, were you born stupid or did your brain shrink from eating vegan?

2
56c28e3654d4dd8a8abdb2c1f525202e

(1822)

on April 11, 2013
at 05:03 PM

I am a professional scientist, and I can tell you that this (say, decades of recommending margarine, followed by another couple of decades of recommending corn oil) and other things happen. But there is a scientific hierarchy: evolution encompasses all of biology, and is at the top. Anthropological studies (themselves a branch of evolution) are the next level. There are your body responses to dietary changes over a reasonable period, say one month. All of these are far more important than what the AHA recommends. AHA members have to maneuver for the next grant, have connections to Big Pharma or Monsanto, and have a mortgage on a McMansion. They don't want to, say, annoy a big shot who built his career on cholesterol or saturated fat. Truly, for the cholesterol hypothesis to be eliminated, the world will have to wait until those barons die.

So, when you really survey the literature, you find easily and repeatedly that anthropologists such as Cohen understand nutrition much better than nutritionists. Medically trained people who have undertaken anthropological studies, such as Weston Price and Staffan Lindenberg, have made important contributions, and are outside or at the outskirts of standard medicine. Also, other countries, with life expectancies exceeding the US, tend to ignore the AHA and other american institutions. They understand it is a local, profit-driven mafia with no connections to or knowledge of ancestral nutrition. In Japan medical insurance will pay for five types of mushrooms, for a variety of ailments. I don't see that happening in the US.

There is much more to be said about this, if a debate develops.

70c75942b975919dfbed8dddbd767b60

(289)

on April 11, 2013
at 09:52 PM

Never knew that about Japanese health insurance. Wikipedia page on "Trametes versicolor" mentions it too.

2
2e3477a85563d4b7159814d5f4ea57d3

(435)

on April 10, 2013
at 12:28 AM

My reconciliation is pretty simple: The government does a shitty job at just about everything. They could be lying and conspiring, and maybe at some level they are, but day to day operations are run by a large number of incompetents.

2
37cc142fbb183f2758ef723a192e7a9d

(1353)

on April 09, 2013
at 11:21 PM

Vegan4Life, how do you reconcile the fact that your views go against said mainstream bodies?

2
9215c97e4d3296f0de599ef9292cee15

on March 18, 2013
at 01:53 AM

Because mainstream views of nutrition make absolutely no sense. Our species evolved in the ice age, a time of rapid climate shifts and scarcity. there were no grains, no dairy, we wouldn't have been able to get enough calories from vegetables, alot of which were poisonous, nor fruit, which had far less sugar and far more seeds than modern fruit. The only diet that made sense and was practical for our species was primarily animal meat and fat, which conventional 'wisdom' says is less healthy than fruits and vegetables cause of the cholesterol and saturated fat.

9215c97e4d3296f0de599ef9292cee15

on March 22, 2013
at 12:50 AM

No, because that's not enough time to adapt to that diet. Our species and the homonids we evolved from were eating mostly cooked and raw meat and fat for millions of years. That's what our bodies and digestive systems are adapted for.

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:43 PM

So this means that these foods are optimal? Couldnt I use a similar argument to say that we evolved over 10k years eating grains so TF grans are good for us now?

1
1a6ad0d62f779ca50babe92d70ea6a0c

(137)

on April 11, 2013
at 04:20 PM

One thing to keep in mind; money tends to be put at the forefront before anything else, including health.

This is evident with cigarettes and alcohol being so readily available to the public and cheap enough that almost anyone can buy. Sure we all know they are absolutely disasterous to health yet the government allows them on the market... why? Money.

When you walk into a grocery store, what do you notice? The bad foods (processed, chips, sweets, and pops are all dirt cheap compared to the healthy choices. Things like wrapped up on-the-go veggies and fruits have an enormous price tag on them. They tell us shelf life, but the only reason they stay on the shelf is most can't be bothered to shell out 5 to 6 bucks for a mere pack of health food and another $2 for water. They'd rather shell out $6 for a sandwich and pop.

Same goes for drugs that get prescribed to us by doctors. Many of those drugs have side effects (sometimes serious). Almost all things we go to the doctor for can be treated naturally and fairly easily, but why do the doctors not direct us towards those methods? Money.

What drives all businesses.. money of course. This includes drug companies and food.

With that said, the paleo way of eating doesn't contradict the AHA or even doctors or nutritionists for that matter. They all tell you moderation on everything, and leave the processed food out. Where it differs is grains I believe. Grains are subjective for people.. some can handle it, some can't.. that's for the individual to decide. For me personally, I can't. After eliminating them from my diet, I've noticed a huge turn around both in health, weight loss, and overall feeling better.

1
24c27817ad9ac518946dda4a131737b5

on March 18, 2013
at 01:46 AM

Personally, I don't overdo the egg yolks and liver. Just to be on the safe side. Until further notice. Otherwise, I keep Paleo.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on March 18, 2013
at 02:50 AM

Err on the side of edible incredible oysters.

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 21, 2013
at 07:31 PM

Thanks guys .

0
56c28e3654d4dd8a8abdb2c1f525202e

(1822)

on April 11, 2013
at 10:40 PM

It is not just saturated fats. Correlation is not causation, but anti-correlation rules out causation. And all the best data are from population studies. Besides the 3 paradoxes (which are not really paradoxes, the science is bad):

1) we are supposed to eat dairy to prevent osteoporosis. Surely enough, populations that do not eat dairy (in China, Japan, Nigeria) have osteoporosis rates far lower than the US.

2) saturated fat intake in the US has DECLINED since 1970, while heart attacks have soared.

There is no way dairy helps osteoporosis, and there is no way heart attacks are brought on by saturated fat intake. It is not possible.

There is also no way that my body is trying to kill me by producing cholesterol in the liver, or sending my own (saturated) fat in circulation when I am low in calories. Likewise, my body is not trying to kill me when I eat half a watermelon by myself in early summer (as some paleos seemto think).

0
57a9566896759c703991afa106c4fe4f

(56)

on April 11, 2013
at 10:24 PM

Because their advance on saturated fat just doesn't make since with the real world.

The Inuit Paradox "How can people who gorge on fat and rarely see a vegetable be healthier than we are?"

Pacific Islander study "Two populations of Polynesians living on atolls near the equator provide an opportunity to investigate the relative effects of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol in determining serum cholesterol levels ... Vascular disease is uncommon is both populations and there is no evidence of the high saturated fat intake having a harmful effect in these populations. "

French Paradox "...observation that French people have a relatively low incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), despite having a diet relatively rich in saturated fats, in apparent contradiction to the widely-held belief that the high consumption of such fats is a risk factor for CHD"

0
56c28e3654d4dd8a8abdb2c1f525202e

(1822)

on April 11, 2013
at 10:21 PM

Paleo and the AHA differ in a number of points: cholesterol, saturated fat, omega 6 intake and total fat intake for specific nutrients, grains, beans, seed oils, and refined sugars for specific foods.

0
Aab2cc329d5b80db27147d321fff1a6f

on April 10, 2013
at 12:48 AM

Judging by what the government puts in public school lunches, I don't think I'll be taking their advice on nutrition any time soon.

0
A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

on March 18, 2013
at 01:50 AM

@cd, no the aha says to keep saturated fats below 7% of daily calories and I've watched the video with Gary taubes, Ornish and the aha. http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyCooking/Smart-Substitutions_UCM_302052_Article.jsp . They say to substitute healthy margarine for unhealthy butter, egg whites for egg yolks and nonfat milk for cream. Paleo would be great but they just eat way too much fat. We need more mono and poly fats. Sat fats and trans fats are the bad guys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6IjrTqRvcE&feature=youtube_gdata_player . You're trying to say that technically you both eat healthy and emphasize whole foods, but you're arguing that it's different foods that are nutrient dense and healthy. There is a clear dichotomy here.

@wheresthebeef, our species may have evolved in the last ice age 10k-100k years ago, but they also evolved in Africa... Ie, not in the freezing cold...

A08b210e4da7e69cd792bddc1f4aae4b

(1031)

on March 18, 2013
at 09:36 AM

Oh FFS, first the AHA and now Taubes and Ornish! If you believe that eating animals is wrong just come out and say it. You're wasting your breath trying to pick a fight about nutrition with Paleo folks.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on March 19, 2013
at 07:25 AM

The LFHC diet killed my father-in-law & my father as well. I'll take my chances with Primal / Paleo. The "govt"... they're never wrong! ;)

A08b210e4da7e69cd792bddc1f4aae4b

(1031)

on March 18, 2013
at 07:19 PM

_Eppur si muove._

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on March 18, 2013
at 10:36 AM

Maybe if you ate some more saturated fat you could figure out how to reply to posts appropriately. You put your faith in a diet built around falsified science that Ancel Keyes himself has admitted were inappropriate conclusions. I will based mine around biology. At the end of the day we are both going to die, I will die happy without stressing the body.

A968017ef27f0a24abf64cc4460463a0

(142)

on March 18, 2013
at 12:54 PM

@eddie, I didn't say eating animals is wrong I said how do you reconcile the fact that your views contradict global health and government stances. My dietary choices that you've inferred through my username are irrelevant to this question. @cd are you assuming I'm vegan from my username? I'm not trying to say paleo is necessarily wrong, I'm asking how do you justify to yourself that what you're doing is right but mainstream medicine, billon dollar non profit organizations, millions of doctors and government stances are all wrong?

9215c97e4d3296f0de599ef9292cee15

on March 22, 2013
at 12:58 AM

Do more research on what the climate was like when our species evolved please. It may have been Africa, it was still a period of radical climate shifts, and our ancestors migrated along the coast lines eating seafood, not hanging around banana trees like deluded 80/10/10-ers fantasize about.

Answer Question


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