[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
of people (9 billion on this planet).
[/quote]
What planet are you living on brah
I thought it was 9, not 6 something.
OK, out of the 6 million. 
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I thought it was 9, not 6 something.
OK, out of the 6 million. :([/quote]
6 million? This is getting sad.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
How about the MILLIONS of us who do fine with peanut butter and beans for DECADES? You know, like most of our population!
Where’s the data showing most people “don’t do well” with legumes? Or grains and dairy for that matter? [/quote]
Dude - shut up! This guy Rob has been training for 3 WHOLE FUCKING YEARS - and, he’s a goddamned strength coach! Seriously, why would a board certified professional with a Masters in Nutritional BioChemistry be able to tell this guy ANYTHING?!
I mean, c’mon! ; ) [/quote]
Lol ok skynett ya old fart go ask Charles Poliquin what he thinks…love how your bf % varies on your user info also
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Rob wrote: “… not everyones on steroids and can eat whole wheat bagels and all that other shit that you guys think can be used as ‘energy’”.
I eat whole wheat bagels (had one this past Saturday) and it appears I’m using them for energy because the carbs from it are being used for energy or being stored as fat.
Did it ever occur to you that fat, carbohydrate, and protein (gasp) are all used for energy to varying degrees depending on a person’s nutrition status, diet followed, and activity being performed.
Do us a favor, pick up a nutrition metabolism text.
Oh, I’m also not on steroids.
The whole steroids thing is hysterical (eg, "Not all of us can eat grains because we’re not on roids), as if that’s a prerequisite to eat grains (or anything else) and get away with it.
Wake up call: Did you ever see the menus of drug aided and natural bodybuilders? MOST are on 50% carb diets with most of those carbs coming from anti-Paleo grains, potatoes, sweet potatoes, beans, bread, and dairy products![/quote]
actually sweet potatoes are on the paleo diet. You tell me which one you think is easier to do. Have you ever tried eating paleo? No one should beef with something that they don’t know enough about or have experience with. I understand carbs are essential to the body, but its absolutely ignorant to say that grains are just as healthy as fruits and sweet potatoes or yams. There also is a population of people that can tolerate carbs well. However they are the minority. Try eliminating grains and dairy and see what it does for you. Then add them back in to find the culprit
[quote]Rob4212 wrote:
I understand carbs are essential to the body…[/quote]
Actually, carbs the THE non-essential macro nutrient. You don’t need them.
Also, what one considers “high” is pretty relative. The USDA food pyramid has us getting65-70% of our calories from carbs, yet most people don’t consider that “high carb”, but tell someone they should be getting 40%+ of their diet from protein, and you’re a crazy high-protein freak.
It really goes back to the combination of individual and cultural addiction to cereal grains… I mean, people on this thread are using the argument “most people eat it, so it must be good”. A paleo diet is not low carb. It’s moderate carb. Fruits and vegetables are primarily carbohydrate sources, and they are a big part of a paleo diet. A ketogenic diet is low-carb.
Most people eat this stuff, because it’s cultural food. It’s what the “great” agricultural revolution allowed us to do; domesticate inedible wild plants so we can process and consume their seeds! Cheap food for the peasants that can be horded and stored!
That doesn’t speak to its nutritional value at all. Most people used to smoke too. Doctors went on record saying how great it was. Didn’t change the reality.
Can you do well eating grains? Sure. We have lots of examples of amazing athletes and amazing physiques achieved by people consuming cereal grains in large quantities. Was it optimum? No. Is there any reason, beyond that they just taste to damn good, to eat them? No.
Sweet potatoes aren’t favored by SOME of the Paleo squad if I recall correctly (might be wrong).
I have eaten SORT OF Paleo at times.
Carbs aren’t essential to the body. Fat and protein are. We don’t need carbs to live.
Veggies and fruits are good for people. So are whole grains. This is not a matter of what is healthier.
Right, some people don’t do well (body composition or sense of well being) with a lot of carbs.
I’m on a protein sparing modified fast as we speak. So there are no grains except during a cheat meal and carbup. I’ll be adding grains back soon.
Culprit? What culprit is there to find? I don’t have lactose intolerance nor do I have bad reactions to grains. I also don’t have Chron’s or celiac disease.
Could someone quickly explain the paleo diet? I read the website and it says nothing about macronutrient ratios, which I believe is one of the only parts of a person’s diet which can have a (small) effect on athletic performance. It just talks about only eating food that was availible to hunter gatherers. Beef is okay I guess, even though cows are a modern invention. Hunter gatherers also ate rice. Rice was a staple food for indian tribes and others. Of course that’s wild rice, which is very different than cultivated rice.
What’s the paleo diet, other than shop at trader joes?
The paleo diet seems like a political view point more than a diet. Golden rice could save millions of lives, but whatever.
Also, endurance atheletes carbo load, it’s very important. All professional bodybuilders do everything optimally, it’s impossible to be a professional athelete without everything being optimal. Keto diets can cause liver and kidney damage. If someone can’t eat the right amount without not allowing themselves to eat calorically dense foods, then fine, but there’s no reason to push a hippie agenda.
[quote]Lover95 wrote:
Keto diets can cause liver and kidney damage. [/quote]
Sources?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Lover95 wrote:
Keto diets can cause liver and kidney damage. [/quote]
Sources?[/quote]
x2. As bad as his others comments were, he really shot himself in the balls here.
[quote]Rob4212 wrote:
Lol ok skynett ya old fart go ask Charles Poliquin what he thinks…love how your bf % varies on your user info also
[/quote]
I couldn’t give a shit about your hero Poliquin.
And let’s see the pictures of your superlative physique if you’re going to take shots at others.
[quote]Lover95 wrote:
Could someone quickly explain the paleo diet? I read the website and it says nothing about macronutrient ratios, which I believe is one of the only parts of a person’s diet which can have a (small) effect on athletic performance. It just talks about only eating food that was availible to hunter gatherers. Beef is okay I guess, even though cows are a modern invention. Hunter gatherers also ate rice. Rice was a staple food for indian tribes and others. Of course that’s wild rice, which is very different than cultivated rice.
What’s the paleo diet, other than shop at trader joes?
The paleo diet seems like a political view point more than a diet. Golden rice could save millions of lives, but whatever.
Also, endurance atheletes carbo load, it’s very important. All professional bodybuilders do everything optimally, it’s impossible to be a professional athelete without everything being optimal. Keto diets can cause liver and kidney damage. If someone can’t eat the right amount without not allowing themselves to eat calorically dense foods, then fine, but there’s no reason to push a hippie agenda.[/quote]
Basically its to eat what paleothilic (cave men) ate. According to paleo proponents, we have not evolved to eat various foods that we consume today, which includes (as a general overview): grains, dairy and legumes.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that:
-
We are not cavemen. We live in the NEOthilic age now so there’s no point in eating what cave men ate because well…we’re not cavemen.
-
We HAVE evolved to eat these foods. We have been able to find ways to eat these foods so they are not hard on the digestive system. Is that a bad thing? No, because many foods in their raw natural state are inedible until they have been fully ripened and cooked.
-
To elaborate on point number 2, they believe that since these foods have been in our diet for only 100’000 years more or less, that is a short drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of evolution. However evolution is not a slow process, especially when we are talking about MICRO evolution. 100’000 years is PLENTY of time for our digestive systems to adapt to these foods.
All in all, like I have mentioned before, I don’t think its a bad diet. Its actually a good diet because it promotes healthy eating. But there are many diets that promote healthy eating that are also good, so paleo is not the only way. And if someone does well with grains and dairy, there should be NO reason to eliminate them from a diet.
Lover wrote: “All professional bodybuilders do everything optimally, it’s impossible to be a professional athelete without everything being optimal.”
Oh yeah? LOL!
[quote]Lover95 wrote:
What’s the paleo diet, other than shop at trader joes?
[/quote]
The most basic definition is: if you can’t eat it raw and unprocessed, don’t.
Example:
-
Elk steak: You can eat it raw. It’s totally bio-available and easy to digest.
-
Rice: You cannot eat it raw: it must be cooked or milled in order to become food.
Basically a paleo diet eliminates cereal grains, and some starches (like potatoes, which are toxic raw).
It is not a low carbohydrate diet. People are just used to getting their carbs from cereal grains, so they assume it’s low carb when those are eliminated.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Lover95 wrote:
Could someone quickly explain the paleo diet? I read the website and it says nothing about macronutrient ratios, which I believe is one of the only parts of a person’s diet which can have a (small) effect on athletic performance. It just talks about only eating food that was availible to hunter gatherers. Beef is okay I guess, even though cows are a modern invention. Hunter gatherers also ate rice. Rice was a staple food for indian tribes and others. Of course that’s wild rice, which is very different than cultivated rice.
What’s the paleo diet, other than shop at trader joes?
The paleo diet seems like a political view point more than a diet. Golden rice could save millions of lives, but whatever.
Also, endurance atheletes carbo load, it’s very important. All professional bodybuilders do everything optimally, it’s impossible to be a professional athelete without everything being optimal. Keto diets can cause liver and kidney damage. If someone can’t eat the right amount without not allowing themselves to eat calorically dense foods, then fine, but there’s no reason to push a hippie agenda.[/quote]
Basically its to eat what paleothilic (cave men) ate. According to paleo proponents, we have not evolved to eat various foods that we consume today, which includes (as a general overview): grains, dairy and legumes.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that:
-
We are not cavemen. We live in the NEOthilic age now so there’s no point in eating what cave men ate because well…we’re not cavemen.
-
We HAVE evolved to eat these foods. We have been able to find ways to eat these foods so they are not hard on the digestive system. Is that a bad thing? No, because many foods in their raw natural state are inedible until they have been fully ripened and cooked.
-
To elaborate on point number 2, they believe that since these foods have been in our diet for only 100’000 years more or less, that is a short drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of evolution. However evolution is not a slow process, especially when we are talking about MICRO evolution. 100’000 years is PLENTY of time for our digestive systems to adapt to these foods.
All in all, like I have mentioned before, I don’t think its a bad diet. Its actually a good diet because it promotes healthy eating. But there are many diets that promote healthy eating that are also good, so paleo is not the only way. And if someone does well with grains and dairy, there should be NO reason to eliminate them from a diet. [/quote]
WE have done no such thing.
The absolute majority of human beings cannot digest lactose properly and the later agriculture was introduced in each specfic country the more people have enormous problems digesting gluten.
Futhermore, Inuits, American Indians and Aborigines develop diseases in an astonishing rate when exposed to a modern western diet. True, they are an outlier, but you do not know how far along the curve you are genetically. I know people who eat practically only carbs and tolerate them very well and others who would simply wreck their health doing that.
Also, we are not talking 100000 years here but 6000-10000 years at best, 2000-3000 thousand for some and no time at all for people that lived on the fringe of civilization.
Cliff notes:
Evolution is not uniform, 6000 years of agriculture is not a lot of time for it to work and just because we have lightbulbs does not mean zilch when it comes to our very cavemen like genes.
[quote]Lover95 wrote:
The paleo diet seems like a political view point more than a diet.[/quote]
No, it’s just a diet. In the same way vegetarianism is just a diet. The political arguments people make based on them are non-essential to the diet.
[quote]Lover95 wrote:
Golden rice could save millions of lives, but whatever.[/quote]
See, this is you being political. Mono-cropped cereal grains are one of the worst things for the environment, and one of the least efficient ways of using land possible. They require all other life be eliminated, and petroleum based fertilizer brought in to restore the nitrogen to the soil, crops like rice and other cereal grains leach from it.
[quote]Lover95 wrote:
Also, endurance atheletes carbo load, it’s very important.[/quote]
Only uneducated ones do. Your liver and muscles can only hold so-much glycogen, “loading” beyond that just makes you fat. Endurance sports use anaerobic systems, which preferentially use fat, not carbohydrates as fuel. The only people who carbo-load are granola eating hippies stuck in the 1970s/80s era of sports nutrition.
[quote]Lover95 wrote:
Keto diets can cause liver and kidney damage. [/quote]
Again, I’ll ask for a source too, keto diets, like creatine sups, are on the few aspects of modern sports nutrition that actually have a large number of scientific studies showing they are safe. The fact is, our ancestors would have spent years at a time in a ketogenic state, and groups like the Inuit even today, have a traditional diet that’s ketogenic, and prior to the introduction of cereal grains and other processed carbs into their diet, were some of the healthiest people on earth.
[quote]Lover95 wrote:
If someone can’t eat the right amount without not allowing themselves to eat calorically dense foods, then fine, but there’s no reason to push a hippie agenda.[/quote]
I don’t know what this means…
Who cares about calorie density. Nutritional density should be the goal. Calories should be nutrient dense. Take a wild guess as to the least nutrient dense, most anti-nutrient rich, group of “food products”…
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]Lover95 wrote:
Could someone quickly explain the paleo diet? I read the website and it says nothing about macronutrient ratios, which I believe is one of the only parts of a person’s diet which can have a (small) effect on athletic performance. It just talks about only eating food that was availible to hunter gatherers. Beef is okay I guess, even though cows are a modern invention. Hunter gatherers also ate rice. Rice was a staple food for indian tribes and others. Of course that’s wild rice, which is very different than cultivated rice.
What’s the paleo diet, other than shop at trader joes?
The paleo diet seems like a political view point more than a diet. Golden rice could save millions of lives, but whatever.
Also, endurance atheletes carbo load, it’s very important. All professional bodybuilders do everything optimally, it’s impossible to be a professional athelete without everything being optimal. Keto diets can cause liver and kidney damage. If someone can’t eat the right amount without not allowing themselves to eat calorically dense foods, then fine, but there’s no reason to push a hippie agenda.[/quote]
Basically its to eat what paleothilic (cave men) ate. According to paleo proponents, we have not evolved to eat various foods that we consume today, which includes (as a general overview): grains, dairy and legumes.
The problem with this kind of thinking is that:
-
We are not cavemen. We live in the NEOthilic age now so there’s no point in eating what cave men ate because well…we’re not cavemen.
-
We HAVE evolved to eat these foods. We have been able to find ways to eat these foods so they are not hard on the digestive system. Is that a bad thing? No, because many foods in their raw natural state are inedible until they have been fully ripened and cooked.
-
To elaborate on point number 2, they believe that since these foods have been in our diet for only 100’000 years more or less, that is a short drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of evolution. However evolution is not a slow process, especially when we are talking about MICRO evolution. 100’000 years is PLENTY of time for our digestive systems to adapt to these foods.
All in all, like I have mentioned before, I don’t think its a bad diet. Its actually a good diet because it promotes healthy eating. But there are many diets that promote healthy eating that are also good, so paleo is not the only way. And if someone does well with grains and dairy, there should be NO reason to eliminate them from a diet. [/quote]
WE have done no such thing.
The absolute majority of human beings cannot digest lactose properly and the later agriculture was introduced in each specfic country the more people have enormous problems digesting gluten.
Futhermore, Inuits, American Indians and Aborigines develop diseases in an astonishing rate when exposed to a modern western diet. True, they are an outlier, but you do not know how far along the curve you are genetically. I know people who eat practically only carbs and tolerate them very well and others who would simply wreck their health doing that.
Also, we are not talking 100000 years here but 6000-10000 years at best, 2000-3000 thousand for some and no time at all for people that lived on the fringe of civilization.
Cliff notes:
Evolution is not uniform, 6000 years of agriculture is not a lot of time for it to work and just because we have lightbulbs does not mean zilch when it comes to our very cavemen like genes.
[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
I think the idea is that many people just don’t digest legumes particularly well. I think that some of the guys try to fit that into their Paleo box by saying that legumes are a cultivated crop, Grok didn’t have legumes, whatever. I could care less about that; cavemen also didn’t have toothpaste but I’ll take my Crest thank you very much. Robb Wolf has a very brief section in his book regarding legumes, and basically says, “they are bad,” without too much explanation and says that the references in the back explain it in detail. I haven’t looked through all of the abstracts, but I haven’t seen any that seem to really deal with legumes. To my knowledge, there’s not the same problems with lectins with legumes as with grains and they don’t have the phyates that whole grains do that prevent mineral absorption. So, that doesn’t seem too bad. Then again, I ain’t no scientist so wtf do I know anyway?
With that said, most beans give people some wicked gas. There is some type of sugar that I am too lazy to look up that people are unable to digest, which is the cause of said gas. I would generally say that eating something that doesn’t agree with your digestive system is probably not good on a regular basis. Plus, while I sometimes enjoy ripping a good raunchy fart every now and then, I have no desire to be the smelly guy. So I personally generally avoid beans. In addition, peanuts are one of the most allergenic foods on the planet, and they are a legume. That doesn’t mean everybody needs to avoid peanuts at all costs, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that there is a range of allergenic responses and many people may have mild, but still slightly disruptive, responses to peanuts and/or other legumes.
So, my theory on that stuff is that I buy almond butter instead of peanut butter (because there isn’t much difference in taste and cost) and I never really buy beans at the food store to use when cooking at home. On the other hand, I’ll eat green beans as a side at a restaurant or if somebody else is cooking and I’ve been known to put down a pot of chili or three. From my Paleo-ish perspective, definitely not as “bad” as grains or HFCS, but not something to plan to eat with any regularity. [/quote]
How about the MILLIONS of us who do fine with peanut butter and beans for DECADES? You know, like most of our population!
Where’s the data showing most people “don’t do well” with legumes? Or grains and dairy for that matter? [/quote]
Then by all means eat them. I really don’t care what you eat to be honest with you. Dude asked a question, “why are legumes frowned upon by Paleo,” and I attempted to answer.
You sir are welcome to eat all the beans and peanut butter and grains and dairy you like.
Upon doing a SHIT load of research about the paleo diet.
Ive come to two marvelous epiphanies.
There is no “paleo diet” just a bunch of different versions of it.
Different diets work for different people, what makes one strong, can make another weak. <---- Having to do research to find that out makes me a ruh-tard.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Veggies and fruits are good for people. So are whole grains.
[/quote]
I would debate the second sentence. Sure, they are a source of starch, which, at times, can be useful, particularly for an active person who needs to restore muscle glycogen. However, for the average, not-particularly-active person, what makes whole grains “healthy?” Micronutrients, vitamins and minerals, antioxidants? Sure, they provide some of that, but fall far short of what fruits and vegetables can provide.
Option One: A pound of steamed mixed veggies, 2 apples, and a sweet potato
Option Two: 8 slices of whole wheat bread
The macronutrient content of those two options is pretty similar. But one of them is far more nutritionally dense and satiating.
Tomorrow after I train legs I will make my post-workout meal: 200g carbs, 100g protein, and “minimal” fat. It wouldn’t make sense for me to do that with all vegetables, so I’ll make myself an enormous bowl of chicken and rice and go to town. So, it’s not that I’m totally “anti-grain.” Additionally, it seems that dietary fat is stored much easier then carbohydrate as body fat when in a largencaloric surplus. So it would make sense for somebody in a heavy bulking phase to increase calories via carbohydrate and protein rather then fat.
I would say that whole grains are good… for people who need to consume a greater amount of carbohydrates then they can stomach via vegetables and/or strength-training athletes who need a “faster” source of carbohydrate to help with muscle recovery.
But for the “average” person, I would say there’s never any really “need” for whole grains, other then the fact that they taste good from time to time.