who doesnt eat grains, carb questions

Seems to me you are going the same route as the "paleo" crowd you are talking about.

"Epidemiology
The general population prevalence of celiac disease in the United States is approximately 1:100 (1%), with a reasonable range of 1:80 to 1:140 (1.25% to 0.71%). Most cases remain undiagnosed until later in life. Clinicians should have a height- ened suspicion that celiac disease may be present at any age in both sexes and in a wide variety of clinical circumstances."
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0016-5085/PIIS0016508506022268.pdf

I have read several articles that suggest that gluten intolerance is estimated at 1:15 people.

MDA has some good articles backed up by good research, he also has editorials that are just his opinion. I haven't gotten confused which is which. I really liked his article on cholesterol, but his ideas on over drinking of water and acid reflux was not researched and was to my eyes, just talk.

Cheers

Bry
 
I don't really need to go round and round about this. My position is pretty clear and was summed up in those 3 points. Your point is that the diet "can be better" from a pure health perspective. Honestly, I don't give a shit as long as I am generally healthy.

And I don't have a problem with that perspective at all.

I do have a problem with wholesale, vehement bashing of the Paleo crowd, bashing that isn't even grounded in health concerns. The Paleo people are not attacking you on the basis of your food choices. They merely possess a different perspective on nutrition, a perspective which, I might add, no one has effectively argued against on pure health grounds. When you rip on them as "nerdy douchebag salesmen" and the like, it just strikes me as a unfair low blow. What did they ever do to you? :icon_conf

If you want to argue against their perspective on health grounds, fine, but don't personally attack them because their diet is not the easiest/most convenient/cheapest/whatever--they never claimed it was.
 
Seems to me you are going the same route as the "paleo" crowd you are talking about.

"Epidemiology
The general population prevalence of celiac disease in the United States is approximately 1:100 (1%), with a reasonable range of 1:80 to 1:140 (1.25% to 0.71%). Most cases remain undiagnosed until later in life. Clinicians should have a height- ened suspicion that celiac disease may be present at any age in both sexes and in a wide variety of clinical circumstances."
http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0016-5085/PIIS0016508506022268.pdf

I have read several articles that suggest that gluten intolerance is estimated at 1:15 people.

MDA has some good articles backed up by good research, he also has editorials that are just his opinion. I haven't gotten confused which is which. I really liked his article on cholesterol, but his ideas on over drinking of water and acid reflux was not researched and was to my eyes, just talk.

Cheers

Bry

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here and why you posted that study.
 
And I don't have a problem with that perspective at all.

I do have a problem with wholesale, vehement bashing of the Paleo crowd, bashing that isn't even grounded in health concerns. The Paleo people are not attacking you on the basis of your food choices. They merely possess a different perspective on nutrition, a perspective which, I might add, no one has effectively argued against on pure health grounds. When you rip on them as "nerdy douchebag salesmen" and the like, it just strikes me as a unfair low blow. What did they ever do to you? :icon_conf

If you want to argue against their perspective on health grounds, fine, but don't personally attack them because their diet is not the easiest/most convenient/cheapest/whatever--they never claimed it was.

Let's look at clips from his article:

I find that grain bashing makes for a tasty, but ultimately unsatisfying meal. You all know how much I love doing it, though

I don’t ever want to have to look at another anti-grain argument again (yeah, right). If things get a little disjointed, or if I descend into bullet points and sentence fragments, it’s only because the hunger has taken over and I’ve decided to dispense with the pleasantries in order to lay it all out at once.

Above is enough to call him a nerdy douchebag. It is then followed by a bunch of reasons he lists while sounding like a condescending douchebag who just won the champion of the internet award. He then states:

There’s a reason grains are first and foremost on the list of foods to avoid when following the Primal Blueprint

How did I know his sales pitch was bound to come, with a link of course. Now comes the hyperbole to really drive his sales pitch home.

In fact, if your average unhealthy person were to ask for the top three things to avoid in order to get healthy, I would tell them to stop smoking, to stop drinking their calories (as soda or juice), and to stop eating grains. Period. Full stop. They really are that bad.

I’ve mentioned this time and again, but the fundamental problem with grains is that they are a distinctly Neolithic food that the human animal has yet to adapt to consuming.

I think any name calling towards him is well warranted. He has no business telling EVERY HUMAN THAT THEY SHOULD AVOID GRAINS.
 
His obviously tongue-in-comments (which I find funny) aside, he states his case and supports it, and, oh yeah, he's selling a book (just like everyone else these days). Of course, his book is probably decent, and might actually help people, which is a nice change of pace.

What's the problem with that? I don't see it.

I mean, he says what he would tell someone who solicited his advice, and his answer is based on the reasoning found earlier in the post...I can't bring myself to point at that and say "evil."

(BTW, this is a blog post after all...if there is a single study or ounce of reason put forth, that puts it light years beyond the rest of the medium...my point is, if you want to criticize Paleo, or anything else, for that matter, it's always going to be easy to criticize stuff found in the highly accessible but "quick and dirty" format that is the blog.)
 
Honestly, I don't really care. There will always be people pushing their magnifying glass looking for a magic solution. They may think they have found it by eating like cavemen, similar to the people who think they found a magic solution with "muscle confusion" of P90x. My advice to people on here would be to keep it simple - calories in vs. calories out, eating your veggies, getting enough protein, etc. It's similar to what's advised in the S+C forum - keep it simple and work hard.

I know that probably won't happen though. This subforum will be full of people talking about how much healthier people could be and how much better someone could perform if they tweaked some minor detail in their diet. People will debate all day long about what elite athletes are doing wrong without seeing the irony. Can anyone say eating disorder?
 
Honestly, I don't really care. There will always be people pushing their magnifying glass looking for a magic solution. They may think they have found it by eating like cavemen, similar to the people who think they found a magic solution with "muscle confusion" of P90x. My advice to people on here would be to keep it simple - calories in vs. calories out, eating your veggies, getting enough protein, etc. It's similar to what's advised in the S+C forum - keep it simple and work hard.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Moreover, I think there's an awful lot right with that. But, I think it is unfair to criticize people who want to go above and beyond. If they are willing to put in the time, effort, money, and willpower to do it, more power to them, and they have just as much right to express their ideas about nutrition as anyone else. Their positions should be subjected to the same scrutiny as those of anyone else, and they should have to defend their positions. But, they should not be subjected to ridicule because their approach seems too different/difficult/extreme--ridicule like that is just mean-spirited BS that has nothing to do with nutrition or health.

Can we agree on this? :D
 
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Moreover, I think there's an awful lot right with that. But, I think it is unfair to criticize people who want to go above and beyond. If they are willing to put in the time, effort, money, and willpower to do it, more power to them, and they have just as much right to express their ideas about nutrition as anyone else. Their positions should be subjected to the same scrutiny as those of anyone else, and they should have to defend their positions. But, they should not be subjected to ridicule because their approach seems too different/difficult/extreme--ridicule like that is just mean-spirited BS that has nothing to do with nutrition or health.

Can we agree on this? :D

I do agree with that. I have said that I have no problem with someone eating paleo. My only gripe is when someone states that everyone should avoid grains. When someone says that, they are open to criticism and opposing opinions.
 
I do agree with that. I have said that I have no problem with someone eating paleo. My only gripe is when someone states that everyone should avoid grains. When someone says that, they are open to criticism and opposing opinions.

Good, I'm glad we finished this discussion :D Except, all perspectives should be subject to scrutiny and questioning, not just the perspectives of people making Paleo recommendations.

Agreed? :D
 
Couple posts back you said the most people don't have negative issues with eating grains, I posted a study that stated 1% of population in US is believed to have Celiac disease (gluten) and it is expected that 15% of the population is gluten intolerant.

So that was why I posted the statistics.

Bry
 
Couple posts back you said the most people don't have negative issues with eating grains, I posted a study that stated 1% of population in US is believed to have Celiac disease (gluten) and it is expected that 15% of the population is gluten intolerant.

So that was why I posted the statistics.

Bry

1% is a rather small number, no? Actually, isn't it more like .5% to 1%? I'm not sure where that 15% came from, but I admit that I didn't read the entire study.
 
Everything is kinda ass-backwards, IMO. The only thing wrong with paleo is the fact that they don't eat grains. Unless you are worried about caloric surplus or have Celiac disease there is really no legitimate reason to not eat grains.

Yes, grains are relatively nutritionally void and a high carb diet could be bad for diabetes or possibly high cholesterol levels, but those negative health effects come from them being carbohydrates, not from them being grains. One who eats a comparable amount of calories from fruit or simple sugars will notice the same negative health defects.

I'm not saying you HAVE to eat grains. But I am saying there is no legitimate reason for your average non-lazy fuck to give up eating grains.
 
Last edited:
This thread has more useful info than any I've read since my account has started. Props to Xtrainer for the knowledge.
 
^I don't know about that, but my hope in discussing this to death is that people will look at and evaluate Paleo just like any other diet, rather than simply make snide comments that don't improve anyone's understanding.
 
Back
Top