1

votes

Paleo Argument: There are people who eat whole grains, legumes and seeds who are healthy.

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created June 07, 2013 at 8:16 AM

No side effects of a typical sad diet... not over-weight, hardly sick, descent muscle... hm.

don't really know how to word my question. I want to know how you would justify the paleo lifestyle for a person like this. :]

as a debater and an aspiring nutritionist, i want to know if it is worth it when advising future clients about their diets in a way like this. to be honest, i know for a fact that there are people out there who are health conscious and eat grains each day and beans a few times a week... and feel just as good as those who are paleo feel.

of course, some people have their intolerances, but then again that isn't disproving the fact that eating this way is bad for you.

how would you fight this arguement? thank you

Baa413654789b57f3579474ca7fa43d7

(2349)

on June 10, 2013
at 01:40 PM

On the other hand, if you you're looking to convince someone who has health problems or weight issues, then you simply need to point out that (1) what they are doing is not working for them, (2) foods affect different people differently, (3) there are many ways that foods that many think are healthy (i.e., grains, beans, veg oils, etc) are in fact harmful, and (4) the only way they will know if those foods are causing problems is to eliminate those foods and see if there is an improvement.

Baa413654789b57f3579474ca7fa43d7

(2349)

on June 10, 2013
at 01:39 PM

On the other hand, if you you're looking to convince someone who has health problems or weight issues, then you simply need to point out that (1) what they are doing is not working for them, (2) foods affect different people differently, (3) there are many ways that foods that many think are healthy (i.e., grains, beans, veg oils, etc) are in fact harmful, and (4) the only way they will know is to eliminate those foods and see if there is an improvement.

Baa413654789b57f3579474ca7fa43d7

(2349)

on June 10, 2013
at 01:35 PM

Sorry, Allison, I got the impression that you wanted arguments on how to convince someone who otherwise eats healthy but also eats grains and beans and feels "just as good as those who are paleo feel". To that I would say, *maybe* you can't. Maybe you can convince them that problems are lurking years down the road. But just maybe this individual is an outlier.

Baa413654789b57f3579474ca7fa43d7

(2349)

on June 10, 2013
at 01:29 PM

I agree jimmy. When you get the individual level there are going to be very specific recommendations to follow. Just because one person can do well with a food doesn't mean someone else can or that they should use that person's diet to justify their own choices!

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:23 AM

Thank you, meaty. :D

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:23 AM

Love this answer! Thank you.

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:22 AM

Thank you for your answer.

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:20 AM

Thank you for your answer. So basically you're saying that overtime... things won't totally work out for them. Ok.

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:19 AM

Awesome argument. :]

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:18 AM

Thank you for your answer. Of course the paleo template is an awesome invention. But the paleo lifestyle is still... paleo and it does not agree with grains and legumes in the diet. So with a person who eats these things and still seems healthy, someone might use a person like this as an example to justify a diet like this against a paleo diet. I just wanted to know how I could disprove the example.. I hope this made sense.

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:10 AM

perfect answer. i was thinking time also.. but hey, some people might swat that arguement like a fly.. thank you

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:09 AM

especially and almost most definitely if eaten in large amounts... right?

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:07 AM

Thank you for your answer. don't mean to demonize legumes and grains as a food lover.. but it still can affect the digestive system in a bad way

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:04 AM

Answered my question perfectly. Thank you.

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:01 AM

Thank you! This helps

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:00 AM

@eddieosh It's no one in particular, I meant in general. I'm basically trying to make sure that I can absolutely "prove" that this lifestyle is necessary,when I am helping others or just simply participating in a conversation/debate. @Michael Thank you Michael. I've been doing that often recently... like justifying in my head why some people eat the way they do.. but I still want to be able to find more pros about the paleo lifestyle. not too hard to do but when you come across those people who are like in my example, it's alittle difficult to debate in my opinion. @Anthony Pierre Same

C5d5cfab77a26fa17a56f2c62b99b879

(542)

on June 07, 2013
at 07:44 PM

Yep-good points all around. To the extent we differ, it's because your focus is general and mine is more limited. You're talking about everybody while I've speaking about the smaller cohort of folks who live (and die) on a crazy volume of sh---y food and can't figure out why nothing is changing for the better. Thanks for the comments.

Baa413654789b57f3579474ca7fa43d7

(2349)

on June 07, 2013
at 06:11 PM

With regard to things like HFCS and artificial sweeteners, I would say that they are generally not good. I would also say that no one would be harmed from eliminating them from their diet. But I don't think that you can unequivocally say that everyone's health would improve by eliminating them. I think there are probably some people that consume a small amount of those substances that are in good health and removal of them will not improve any markers of health or wellness.

Baa413654789b57f3579474ca7fa43d7

(2349)

on June 07, 2013
at 06:08 PM

I agree that some people need a bright line rule to follow or they won't be successful. But what you tell someone they need to do to reach a goal is not always the same as what is scientifically supported. If someone has a tendency to binge and overeat almonds you might advise them that they need to eliminate nuts from their diet as it is a trigger and contributes to their weight problem. But that doesn't mean that almonds per se are bad.

C5d5cfab77a26fa17a56f2c62b99b879

(542)

on June 07, 2013
at 03:33 PM

@Todd B---Good thoughtful post. Thank you. I have just one point. If I were a other person in a position to advise others about their diet, I would classify certain foods as bad without qualifications, that is, unworthy of place on the spectrum you mention. Hydrogenated oils and transfats are just plain bad IMO. Same for HFC syrup and artificial sweeteners. Classifying those foods as "less desirable" gives them entree they don't deserve in a serious discussion of healthful eating. Folks with poor diets usually eat a ton of that stuff and need to know that these foods are the chief culprits.

3d58b5fb4f9780e2f47d4dcc53338a5a

(2771)

on June 07, 2013
at 02:45 PM

Its sad that people put a difference of opinion in the same category as spam and trolls.

Ca2c940a1947e6200883908592956680

(8574)

on June 07, 2013
at 02:27 PM

Hmmm odd yes, I may not be correct but at least qualify where I went wrong. That would be more helpful.

537001f30670e73eb0ac45779af649a5

on June 07, 2013
at 02:10 PM

yep there are, but they arent me

3d58b5fb4f9780e2f47d4dcc53338a5a

(2771)

on June 07, 2013
at 01:10 PM

Wow, who downvoted this?

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f

(2934)

on June 07, 2013
at 11:08 AM

If you have to say anything then why not make a suggestion about considering other viewpoints eg pros/cons of grains while being fully transparent about your own position (ie what seems to amount to a sort of fervently held ideology...). Still though if the person is not soliciting help or doesn't seem unwell I don't know if I would say anything at all. Depends on context of the situation, people (i.e. you adn tehm, me and them) I guess :)

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f

(2934)

on June 07, 2013
at 11:04 AM

ains can fit in some of them. Completely agree that 'paleo' is only one way (many ways) amongst others. I don't think this means that grains aren;t probably harmful to a lot of people in a lot of contemporary world contexts...

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f

(2934)

on June 07, 2013
at 11:01 AM

While I tend to agree that grains and legumes can often be healthy (depends on context), the common flipside to this argument about grains being foods for starving people is also pretty compelling I think. The goodness depends on the results that have been engendered/contributed to over time - and with grains, given that there is some reasonable evidence that gut permeability can be negatively affected, with all the problems that relate to digestive issues as well, it is fair to say grains can't be labelled 'healthy' absolutely. Then again I agree that there are many ways to be healthy, and gr

A08b210e4da7e69cd792bddc1f4aae4b

(1031)

on June 07, 2013
at 10:34 AM

Ummm... I wouldn't. If they are happy and healthy why bother unless requested; why the need to justify anything?

  • 52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

    asked by

    (416)
  • Views
    1.9K
  • Last Activity
    1430D AGO
Frontpage book

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

11 Answers

6
Ca2c940a1947e6200883908592956680

(8574)

on June 07, 2013
at 10:43 AM

I suppose the first thing to ask would be: what is the definition of "healthy".

We could assume health based on:

  • Appearance: skin, hair, eyes, tongue, body-composition.
  • Performance under stress or work: physically, mentally, emotionally.
  • Self-perception: how the person feels in regards to their own health.
  • Other physical signs: temperature, perspiration, smell, stimulus sensitivity and response.
  • Biomarkers: blood work and other samples: i.e. lipid panel, hormone panel, nutritional panel, gut panel, etc.

I just wrote these points quickly so forgive me if it is not exhaustive

The issue is that we probably have a very generalised "template" of what good health actually is, and there is no doubt that someone can be in good health in one area but not the other, and the sum of all areas may be less than one area of another person. I.e. A few people on here may actually be in better overall health than world class athletes.

The other important point is that fewer signs of poor health now does not mean that one would be in good health later. We may be able to say this in regards to low-level inflammation such as The Dietary Intake of Wheat and other Cereal Grains and Their Role in Inflammation.

So of course someone may be in very good health eating the classic whole-foods diet. What is becoming evident though is that perhaps the choices we make in our ingredients may contribute to low level health issues later.

After spending almost two years reading around the subject of nutrition I honestly can not say that eating wheat is any more useful than say eating chocolate. I certainly enjoy and will continue to enjoy eating baked wheat products from time to time; but I see no good reason whatsoever to eat them daily. They simply do not provide the nutritional wealth and low toxicity, and apart from cost, the actual benefits of eating grains and legumes are simply not there in comparison to other whole foods.

So I think if someone (who appeared very healthy) was to ask me to justify why they should remove grains and legumes, I would simply say that it appears from all I have read that they are an unnecessary risk in comparison to other foods, and that it appears that they could very well contribute to future health problems. No matter how we cut it, there are simply better choices out there in terms of nutritional density with lower toxicity, and unless money is a major factor, simply choosing better sources of nutrition would be a safer investment in long-term health.

3d58b5fb4f9780e2f47d4dcc53338a5a

(2771)

on June 07, 2013
at 02:45 PM

Its sad that people put a difference of opinion in the same category as spam and trolls.

Ca2c940a1947e6200883908592956680

(8574)

on June 07, 2013
at 02:27 PM

Hmmm odd yes, I may not be correct but at least qualify where I went wrong. That would be more helpful.

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:04 AM

Answered my question perfectly. Thank you.

3d58b5fb4f9780e2f47d4dcc53338a5a

(2771)

on June 07, 2013
at 01:10 PM

Wow, who downvoted this?

2
6a887d4304bae8d7b8592a77bb49f73a

(110)

on June 07, 2013
at 05:00 PM

Let's look at the Indian culture... they eat beans and rice etc.... they have been eating that way for many generations because they had no other choice....they also eat plenty of vegetables and coconut oils etc, that may counteract some of the negative factors in beans and rice. They appear to be healthy.... how are these things not healthy?

Indian people especially in poor areas, do not consume very much, only what they can afford to eat. It sustains them, but they are "hungry".... those who are not poor in the country, are fat just like us (even though they don't eat meat etc) because of their overconsumption of sugars and fried treats.

So for short.... these items have nutritional values in them, it just doesn't pack the punch that vegetables and a meat based diet to.

Let's face it, we are overweight and eating Lentil's for Iron vs eating Steak for Iron when we have the choice, which one packs more calories?

Also the iron in steak is readily absorble. The Iron in lentils is not, so now you have to make sure to add to the lentils vitamin c - many times in the form of white potatoes...... because once again they are cheap.....

Beans aren't a full protien, so once again you need to add a starch, usually rice to make a complete protien from the bean.... again packing on the calories.

If you have a client who wants to eat these things, they will have to go with the calories in calories out method.... not trust themselves in anything they eat, put in the extra time to food combine and probably end up with an eating disorder by the end of it all.... they may lose weight, but it will be all muscle first before the fat and they will not be providing their body with the proper protein or amino acids to build any more muscle. etc.

Teach people to trust themselves, their body and their hunger signals.... it would be easiest with a protien based diet, otherwise you have hormones and supplements and a whole slew of things that you have to use to help someone be "healtheir"

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:22 AM

Thank you for your answer.

2
Baa413654789b57f3579474ca7fa43d7

(2349)

on June 07, 2013
at 03:14 PM

We need to abandon the idea that there is a list of foods that are "good" and a separate list of foods that are "bad." All foods fall on a spectrum from more healthy to less healthy. Where a food falls on the spectrum is going to be different for each person depending on that persons genetics, epi-genetics, gut health, microbiome, overall health, living conditions, etc. Furthermore, foods may move along the spectrum in either direction depending on changes to the individual. What worked for you at one time, may or may not still work for you now!

What a Paleo or Evolutionary perspective to diet can do is tell you where foods are most likely to fall on the dietary wellness spectrum in general. Excess sugar, seed oils, gluten? Probably going to be closer to the unhealthy side. Meat and veggies? Most likely healthy foods.

But guess what? People are allergic to eggs, shellfish and other staples of the Paleo diet. On their personal dietary spectrum, those foods are not going to be healthy no matter how many websites say those foods are paleo. On the flip side, there is developing research that suggests that certain gut bacteria can cleave gluten and help digest gluten containing foods. Perhaps someone who has a certain microbiome can consume wheat without any deleterious effect.

Now, I think most people would benefit from eliminating wheat. But we can't rule out the possibility that some percentage of the population can consume it without problem. I don't think that invalidates the paleo diet. It is simply a recognition that diet is very personal and individual. That is why Paleo "leaders" like Robb Wolf and Chris Kresser talk more about a Paleo Template that is customized to each individual after experimenting with various foods.

So my advice is don't argue with someone that is doing well with legumes or grains. Present them with evidence of the validity of an ancestral diet, but don't rule out the possibility that they are an outlier.

C5d5cfab77a26fa17a56f2c62b99b879

(542)

on June 07, 2013
at 07:44 PM

Yep-good points all around. To the extent we differ, it's because your focus is general and mine is more limited. You're talking about everybody while I've speaking about the smaller cohort of folks who live (and die) on a crazy volume of sh---y food and can't figure out why nothing is changing for the better. Thanks for the comments.

Baa413654789b57f3579474ca7fa43d7

(2349)

on June 07, 2013
at 06:08 PM

I agree that some people need a bright line rule to follow or they won't be successful. But what you tell someone they need to do to reach a goal is not always the same as what is scientifically supported. If someone has a tendency to binge and overeat almonds you might advise them that they need to eliminate nuts from their diet as it is a trigger and contributes to their weight problem. But that doesn't mean that almonds per se are bad.

Baa413654789b57f3579474ca7fa43d7

(2349)

on June 07, 2013
at 06:11 PM

With regard to things like HFCS and artificial sweeteners, I would say that they are generally not good. I would also say that no one would be harmed from eliminating them from their diet. But I don't think that you can unequivocally say that everyone's health would improve by eliminating them. I think there are probably some people that consume a small amount of those substances that are in good health and removal of them will not improve any markers of health or wellness.

C5d5cfab77a26fa17a56f2c62b99b879

(542)

on June 07, 2013
at 03:33 PM

@Todd B---Good thoughtful post. Thank you. I have just one point. If I were a other person in a position to advise others about their diet, I would classify certain foods as bad without qualifications, that is, unworthy of place on the spectrum you mention. Hydrogenated oils and transfats are just plain bad IMO. Same for HFC syrup and artificial sweeteners. Classifying those foods as "less desirable" gives them entree they don't deserve in a serious discussion of healthful eating. Folks with poor diets usually eat a ton of that stuff and need to know that these foods are the chief culprits.

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:18 AM

Thank you for your answer. Of course the paleo template is an awesome invention. But the paleo lifestyle is still... paleo and it does not agree with grains and legumes in the diet. So with a person who eats these things and still seems healthy, someone might use a person like this as an example to justify a diet like this against a paleo diet. I just wanted to know how I could disprove the example.. I hope this made sense.

Baa413654789b57f3579474ca7fa43d7

(2349)

on June 10, 2013
at 01:29 PM

I agree jimmy. When you get the individual level there are going to be very specific recommendations to follow. Just because one person can do well with a food doesn't mean someone else can or that they should use that person's diet to justify their own choices!

Baa413654789b57f3579474ca7fa43d7

(2349)

on June 10, 2013
at 01:40 PM

On the other hand, if you you're looking to convince someone who has health problems or weight issues, then you simply need to point out that (1) what they are doing is not working for them, (2) foods affect different people differently, (3) there are many ways that foods that many think are healthy (i.e., grains, beans, veg oils, etc) are in fact harmful, and (4) the only way they will know if those foods are causing problems is to eliminate those foods and see if there is an improvement.

Baa413654789b57f3579474ca7fa43d7

(2349)

on June 10, 2013
at 01:39 PM

On the other hand, if you you're looking to convince someone who has health problems or weight issues, then you simply need to point out that (1) what they are doing is not working for them, (2) foods affect different people differently, (3) there are many ways that foods that many think are healthy (i.e., grains, beans, veg oils, etc) are in fact harmful, and (4) the only way they will know is to eliminate those foods and see if there is an improvement.

Baa413654789b57f3579474ca7fa43d7

(2349)

on June 10, 2013
at 01:35 PM

Sorry, Allison, I got the impression that you wanted arguments on how to convince someone who otherwise eats healthy but also eats grains and beans and feels "just as good as those who are paleo feel". To that I would say, *maybe* you can't. Maybe you can convince them that problems are lurking years down the road. But just maybe this individual is an outlier.

2
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on June 07, 2013
at 10:52 AM

Paleo is not the only healthy way to eat. Grains, legumes and seeds have been consumed by humans with good results for billions of person-years.

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:09 AM

especially and almost most definitely if eaten in large amounts... right?

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:07 AM

Thank you for your answer. don't mean to demonize legumes and grains as a food lover.. but it still can affect the digestive system in a bad way

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f

(2934)

on June 07, 2013
at 11:04 AM

ains can fit in some of them. Completely agree that 'paleo' is only one way (many ways) amongst others. I don't think this means that grains aren;t probably harmful to a lot of people in a lot of contemporary world contexts...

Eed7dabde3d61910685845e04605267f

(2934)

on June 07, 2013
at 11:01 AM

While I tend to agree that grains and legumes can often be healthy (depends on context), the common flipside to this argument about grains being foods for starving people is also pretty compelling I think. The goodness depends on the results that have been engendered/contributed to over time - and with grains, given that there is some reasonable evidence that gut permeability can be negatively affected, with all the problems that relate to digestive issues as well, it is fair to say grains can't be labelled 'healthy' absolutely. Then again I agree that there are many ways to be healthy, and gr

1
6864d23c49952605b2a97d6256af804d

(726)

on June 07, 2013
at 09:54 PM

I think you should be prepared to discuss the merits of specific, popular diets, but probably not to evangelize about them (unless you're a true believer and staunchly committed to a paleo-specific practice). I like Berardi's take on this issue:

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/best-diet

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:23 AM

Thank you, meaty. :D

1
78d089bc8d5feaed2710005e4456edbe

on June 07, 2013
at 09:18 PM

Good for them.

Luckily, I don't need to fight the argument that some people fare well on such diets. It can also be turned to the advantage of opponents of conventional diet wisdom, as you can probably find people who fare well eating far too much saturated fat, judging by official recommendations.

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:23 AM

Love this answer! Thank you.

1
96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on June 07, 2013
at 03:25 PM

Some people, whose ancestors ate tons of grains for many generations may well be on the way to develop countermeasures to grains. Certainly the early, non- lot different than the very much harmful varieties available today in the USA, and the soon to arrive GMO versions, which are already cross-pollinating with the non-GMO versions. Some may well have full immunity to the toxins, who knows? Perhaps there are versions of gut flora that can aid us, or even make the toxins in grains far worse.

One thing I can tel you is that when you're younger, you have a better capacity for dealing with toxins and gut lining damage, at least for a while. As you go past your 30's and enter your 40's, whatever bad side effects they have, will start to get more and more pronounced.

As far as doctors who deal with Celiac disease seem to be concerned, grains, especially, modern dwarf wheat, are not fit for human consumption, and are harmful to most of the population. The gluten-free stuff is almost as bad, it just lacks gluten, so it won't provide as large a trigger for leaky gut. But it may still contain other harmful things like WGA, phytates, exorphins, and of course a large, unnecessary source of carbs.

Not all seeds are harmful to us, for example, nuts are a form seed. Even grains are a form of seed, which is infact harmful. In terms of legumes, we know that even things like organically grown, non-GMO soy is harmful, it interferes with our reproductive systems, prevents our absorption of protein, and cause numerous other problems The GMO versions are bathed in glyphosate, so you get extra pesticide residues, and may produce their own novel toxins in addition.

Other beans, such as the castor bean, contain ricin which we know was a favorite of the KGB assassins. When not properly soaked and cooked, can be very toxic and even lethal. We cannnot, for the most part, eat raw grains and legumes. The traditional cultures who ate these things soaked and fermented them before cooking them, which we don't do any longer, and used them in different ways than we do. Even so, they are not the same exact plants anymore, and their harmful effects are a lot more pronounced in modern day than in the past. If you must eat these horrible things, look into traditional ways of cooking them.

By the way, have you had a look at a package of modern day bread? You'll see things like beached flour, the byproducts of chlorine are quite toxic), baking powder complete with aluminum, soy flour, sometimes HFCS, and all sorts of interesting unpronounceable toxic substances, better suited for car engines or machinery, than food. Compare that to the real bread your ancestors ate in the 1800s.

Sure, you can probably tolerate them for quite some time, and be able to survive, but you won't thrive. Remember the evolutionary process: if something doesn't kill you before you get to have and raise offspring, if your own stupidity doesn't win you a Darwin Award, the species continues on. These food like products do not prevent humans from proliferating (except for soy and other estrogenic beans), so there's very little evolutionary pressure to build adaptation to them.

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:20 AM

Thank you for your answer. So basically you're saying that overtime... things won't totally work out for them. Ok.

1
F0a9dea438e7943fa05da318773e785e

on June 07, 2013
at 01:59 PM

I guess my answer would be "time".

Some people have immediate reactions to certain foods (think a person with an allergy to peanuts reacting to eating pb) and others have to ingest things over time to see the full effect (like a person who gets type two diabetes).

You don't get the types of disease our society gets from the typical American diet overnight. the signs and symptoms of heart disease, type two diabetes, and even certain types of cancer don't magically pop up in 24 hours. These are things we do to our body from eating prepackaged, processed and fast foods over weeks, months and years.

I also agree that arguing with people who think their behaviors won't kill them is pointless. My dad swears his two packs of cigarettes a day and case of beer a week aren't the reason he had to have two aneurysms removed. He swears up and down he's healthy as a horse and he eats like s***. Have I tried encouraging him to modify his diet? Sure. But he's content taking his statin pills and blood pressure meds instead. Hasn't exercised in probably 20 years.

I say know your audience. If they are willing to hear the info, then go for it. If not, dial it down. You can't save everyone, just those who want the help.

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:10 AM

perfect answer. i was thinking time also.. but hey, some people might swat that arguement like a fly.. thank you

1
De48a8b7e1cf9a8d6961f78474f477b6

on June 07, 2013
at 10:38 AM

how someone looks doesn't say all.

Some people look healthy but smoke nonstop , have high cholesterol...

Next to that for me it's not completely proven that whole non gluten grains like oatmeal ,rice is bad look at the Asians... Genetics are probably for Germanic ancestry so that carbs should be in low or moderate amounts. No clue about other races.

Bascially don't fight paleo it's def not completely proven just in general lines it's correct. Very sure beans/potatoes/rice etc were eaten just in moderate amounts by most races.

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:01 AM

Thank you! This helps

0
374925bd0c30305e4027c25e8815b298

(113)

on June 07, 2013
at 06:16 PM

On the whole grains thing, eating no grains but whole grains is a pretty effective way of cutting your grain consumption to paleo portions on it's own.

0
Bfddc0ab925c8ea0e0c2e87198514907

on June 07, 2013
at 03:21 PM

Djokovic was a top tennis player before giving up gluten, afterwards he became the top tennis player.

52ad7ee5eef0d7339d0977bd7a2ceb8a

(416)

on June 08, 2013
at 04:19 AM

Awesome argument. :]

Answer Question


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