Jiu Jitsu on the Paleo Solution Podcast

[mike sherry]

Fucking cavemen were painting caves while eating Fruity Pebbles and shit.
I mean, we have video fucking proof

All I needed to see

 

[Codger]

No it's not. The caveman image is mostly for simpletons, but the real idea is to view nutrition using evolutionary biology as a starting point. You can say "you need to be physically active, your DNA expects it" or "people working at night have more metabolic problems because humans evolved to be active mostly during the day" and people agree 100%. But mention using this to try to determine what an optimal diet can be and they lose their shit. Somehow discussions about food hit people right in the feelings and they can't use their brain anymore.

You really think there was any science behind the food pyramid? Or the food groups? Try telling most of lactose intolerant Asia that dairy should be a staple. And the whole "it's all about calories, eat less" concept is retarded in so many ways I'd be here until tomorrow explaining why.

You can't use evolutionary biology if you don't know what they ate and cannot get the same foods. They're wrong about grain consumption by millennia and that is a cornerstone of it. Just because some people are not evolved to eat dairy doesn't mean others can't eat it. Legumes are good foods not poisons.

Like I said, its bioscience bs.

We know, from science, that eating lots of veg, a varied diet and not too much processed shit is a good diet. No need to refer to cavemen and incorrect assumptions.

 

[winterbike]

You can't use evolutionary biology if you don't know what they ate and cannot get the same foods. They're wrong about grain consumption by millennia and that is a cornerstone of it. Just because some people are not evolved to eat dairy doesn't mean others can't eat it. Legumes are good foods not poisons.

Like I said, its bioscience bs.

We know, from science, that eating lots of veg, a varied diet and not too much processed shit is a good diet. No need to refer to cavemen and incorrect assumptions.

Go read about the history of modern nutrition, and go read a few studies on nutrition too. You make the assumption that what you know about nutrition is based on actual science. And the term "varied diet" is the same blanket statement as "everything in moderation" when you have no idea where your ideas come from and need a vague argument to justify your feelings about them.

My point about dairy, which you missed, is that national guidelines "based on science" told people to eat it every day because it's essential (dairy has interesting aspects nutritionally, but it's certainly not essential), even if it clearly doesn't apply to many many people. And now they went even further than that with their twisted idea and tell people to consume milk substitutes like almond milk and soy milk if they couldn't consume milk, despite these things having nothing to do at all with dairy except the random use of the word milk in their name.

And your argument about grain consumption doesn't make sense. "They found one example that one group ate some grains earlier than expected, therefore we should stuff our face with it". The fact that they ate it doesn't mean it was a staple, and you'd need data on their overall health to know if it was good or bad addition to their diet. Most groups who switched to grains as a staple in their diet saw their health turn to shit, and that's well documented.

Here's how using evolutionary biology works to help frame things a bit: if we evolved eating something, it's probably safe/healthy for us to eat. If something is novel, it can be bad/neutral/good for us, but it should be held under more scrutiny if health problems arise. And health problems related to lifestyle are stupid high right now, so some novel parts of our diets might deserve some scrutiny. It's done all the fucking time with other aspects of health. "People sitting 8 hours a day have health problems? Well we evolved to be moving for most of the day, so being sedentary makes us sick, it makes sense." No one bats an eye about that one.

 

[Codger]

You keep banging on about the food pyramid like I support it. No idea why. Just a big strawman.

I'm not gonna repeat points you've not countered. The claims they make are wrong.

I'm not continuing an argument about diet in the grappling forum as it's not the right place.

 

[selfcritical]

Also, the interview isn't about diet at all (his training related interviews are the only ones i ever listen to, and they basically never turn into conversations about paleo)

 

[Dayman1984]

Go read about the history of modern nutrition, and go read a few studies on nutrition too. You make the assumption that what you know about nutrition is based on actual science. And the term "varied diet" is the same blanket statement as "everything in moderation" when you have no idea where your ideas come from and need a vague argument to justify your feelings about them.

My point about dairy, which you missed, is that national guidelines "based on science" told people to eat it every day because it's essential (dairy has interesting aspects nutritionally, but it's certainly not essential), even if it clearly doesn't apply to many many people. And now they went even further than that with their twisted idea and tell people to consume milk substitutes like almond milk and soy milk if they couldn't consume milk, despite these things having nothing to do at all with dairy except the random use of the word milk in their name.

And your argument about grain consumption doesn't make sense. "They found one example that one group ate some grains earlier than expected, therefore we should stuff our face with it". The fact that they ate it doesn't mean it was a staple, and you'd need data on their overall health to know if it was good or bad addition to their diet. Most groups who switched to grains as a staple in their diet saw their health turn to shit, and that's well documented.

Here's how using evolutionary biology works to help frame things a bit: if we evolved eating something, it's probably safe/healthy for us to eat. If something is novel, it can be bad/neutral/good for us, but it should be held under more scrutiny if health problems arise. And health problems related to lifestyle are stupid high right now, so some novel parts of our diets might deserve some scrutiny. It's done all the fucking time with other aspects of health. "People sitting 8 hours a day have health problems? Well we evolved to be moving for most of the day, so being sedentary makes us sick, it makes sense." No one bats an eye about that one.

How does the paleo diet explain the relative healthy weights and longevity of people in other countries that eat plenty of grains (i.e. Italians, various Asian countries)? Grains (and beans) are a staple in diets of various cultures that have a lot less heart disease and obesity than we do. Japanese people eat rice and rice/buckwheat noodles as a staple in their diet. The area in Sardinia where there are a shocking number of people over the age of 95 eats lima beans as a staple in their diet, and people living in the Mediterranean countries certainly don't shy away from carbs. What gives?