.

[Felix]

Whole grains contain more gluten than refined grains. If it's the gluten, I'd guess whole wheat should be worse. Whole wheat itself seems like an unlikely culprit, being eaten as a staple by a blue zone group and routinely associated with less risk of diabetes and heart disease.

One idea I find more interesting is the idea of the sugar+fat+salt combo as addictive. If you consider a food that you can easily overeat, you will find they are processed foods that follow that formula.

It's probably more likely things like donuts, pizza, burgers, cookies, chocolate, ice cream, cheesecake, etc. that do the trick. Can you really overeat on plain pasta like you can on pizza and ice cream? Do people crave plain bread? Cooked wheat? Is anyone at risk of overeating these things?

You don't get supersized whole grain pasta at McDonalds because nobody craves it.

I think one thing all the diverse diet camps have in common is that they advocate an increase in the consumption of whole foods over processed foods.

[brighteye]

Like others mentioned, it's mainly about eating real food and avoiding processed junk. Plant foods, animal products, (good) fats. Avoid vegetable oils and sugar. From there, it's about what you can tolerate. I don't eat wheat because I feel so much better in many ways. I think it is not only the modern wheat (which has a much higher gluten content) but also the way it is processed. Grains used to be fermented/soaked/sprouted before consumption.
Paleo is NOT no carbs and no nuts, you got that one wrong.

[Ego]

I look forward to the day when we could set up a reality show where two groups of people that swear by their opposing diet views would be kept isolated and under controlled diets. One month at one diet, one month at another. And then a bunch of before-and-after tests, both chemical tests but also the much more fun performance tests, like physical exercises, cognitive tests, logic tests and so on. Some comparison of the evolution before and after the diets could provide some interesting clues.

In my mind this is the exact problem we have today. People are judging success on very short-term markers. George went from bench-pressing 165 to 205 in three months on the X diet. Harriet dropped 75 pounds and 50 LDL cholesterol points on the Y diet. The ultimate measure of success would be something like, Fred ate a consistent Z diet his entire life, he was incredibly active until he died at age 95 in a freak accident doing the exactly thing he loved to do.

[slimicy]

@bigato The answer to your question is hands-down #4. As more people do research into genetics they find that there's a lot to do with your DNA in how you react to food. That, along with the adaptability of our species through millennia of evolutionary omnivorism, can explain why there's no 1 answer. I think there's a big misconception that everyone in the Paleo movement wants you to eat nothing but steak and butter. While some people can get away with that (I know one guy who eats nothing but raw read meat) it's not a requirement. The only real thing the movement "preaches" is the elimination of grains, vegetable oils, sugars, and processed foods.

[Joggernot]

I've been on Atkins (high protein) for about 10 years. Before I had trouble with reflux, heartburn, and all that. Apparently I have trouble digesting gluten/starch/etc. Anything with wheat meant I'd be up all night. Give Paleo or Atkins a try. After 10 years, my wife finally tried it and has lost 70 lbs, so it might have some merit. Everything I say is anecdotal, but enough science is out there on Atkins if you want to look for it.

[slimicy]

At least one of us, most likely both of us is missing parts of the theoretical "truth"..

I disagree with your basic assumption that there is only one correct answer. There isn't one set "truth", and while I'm advocating for Paleo, and that grains are bad for a vast majority of the population, that doesn't mean that someone can't be healthy while eating them.

Re: Genetics

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/are-huma ... z2v0Zw9BnZ

[Dragline]

Or it could be that theory A is correct under certain conditions or assumptions, theory B is correct under another set of conditions or assumptions, and there simply is no theory C. Not everything is subject to some master explanation, as intellectually comforting as master theories may be. Most complex systems are highly dependent on initial conditions and random factors.

I find this guy, strange as he is, has great practical advice and experiences, although I don't think I would agree with his master theories. He is well-read on nutrition, though and puts a lots of current things in their proper historical perspectives, as well as taking up Ego's point that the best thing to eat for a person may change over time depending on environmental factors and goals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ4cRRrAqEM

[Chad]

Or it could be that theory A is correct under certain conditions or assumptions, theory B is correct under another set of conditions or assumptions, and there simply is no theory C. Not everything is subject to some master explanation, as intellectually comforting as master theories may be. Most complex systems are highly dependent on initial conditions and random factors.

I think this is very true in our current understanding of a lot of complex systems. I'm currently listening to a book called "The Age of the Unthinkable." It has a lot of crossover with "Anti-Fragile." Anyway, it uses an example of how a certain wildlife/fish management theory in the 1950's was supposed to be able to predict how many we could harvest without damaging the base population. This was based on the big variables such as food, environment, etc. Unfortunately, it failed miserably, as these complex systems can change drastically even from small variables or variables inside of variables.

I do think we will eventually figure out our complex bodies and be able to determine exactly what each of us needs (probably varies from day to day based on environment and activity), but from my point of view we are just scratching the surface of this knowledge.

Basically, we know not to eat Doritos and to eat minimally processed food for certain. All the other information could be true or could be true just for some people, but the research doesn't seem definitive yet.

[unknown_nobody]

I came across this site and found it interesting:

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional ... paleo-diet

Here is a link to the book upon which these nutritional views are based:
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html

This man (W.A. Price) conducted a comparative study of many cultures, both isolated and modernized, with regard to nutrition. I've only begun to study this, but I've come across some really interesting stories about indigenous peoples who virtually never experience tooth decay or brush their teeth. When exposed to modern "Western" foods, tooth decay rapidly sets in. Has to do with the calcium-phosphorus ratio in the bloodstream apparently.

[jacob]

Or it could be that theory A is correct under certain conditions or assumptions, theory B is correct under another set of conditions or assumptions, and there simply is no theory C. Not everything is subject to some master explanation, as intellectually comforting as master theories may be. Most complex systems are highly dependent on initial conditions and random factors.

Nope! If your master explanation captures the key structure [of the feedback loops] of the complex system, the stability is, in fact, very robust to whatever parameters and starting conditions you use. If this wasn't the case it would be impossible to drive a car through traffic.

Example: Thermostat that measures the temperature of the radiator and controls the radiator's on/off switch.

This would be theory A.

On the other hand, if your explanation misses key parts of the complex system, it does indeed become very sensitive to the parameters and optimization becomes almost futile.

Example: Thermostat that measures ambient light in the room (instead of the temperature) and controls the radiator's on-time.

This would be theory B.

Now, you can combine these two (you can ALWAYS combine theories even if the result looks ugly) and get a more accurate theory C, but pragmatically speaking theory A would often be enough. In addition, due to human limitations it is often better to go with a simpler and less accurate theory if it's easier to understand. Machines don't have this limitation and there are standard ways to build big theories out of "sub-theories". This is how expert systems are made.

[theanimal]

I came across this site and found it interesting:

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional ... paleo-diet

Here is a link to the book upon which these nutritional views are based:
http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html

This man (W.A. Price) conducted a comparative study of many cultures, both isolated and modernized, with regard to nutrition. I've only begun to study this, but I've come across some really interesting stories about indigenous peoples who virtually never experience tooth decay or brush their teeth. When exposed to modern "Western" foods, tooth decay rapidly sets in. Has to do with the calcium-phosphorus ratio in the bloodstream apparently.

The actual Weston A Price had views that are much different than the foundation's today. He did not emphasize the consumption of meat at all and considered many native groups who had vegetarian diets to be some of the most physically healthy people he had ever seen. There is quite a large disconnect.

[unknown_nobody]

The actual Weston A Price had views that are much different than the foundation's today. He did not emphasize the consumption of meat at all and considered many native groups who had vegetarian diets to be some of the most physically healthy people he had ever seen. There is quite a large disconnect.

According to my reading so far, that is not at all the case.
Check this out:
"Out of Africa: What Dr. Price and Burkitt Discovered in their Studies of Sub-Saharan Tribes: These researchers noted the greater strength and health of the meat-eating tribes vs. the vegetarian tribes they examined" :
http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional ... -of-africa

[theanimal]

I don't have the desire to search through the material.

Anyways I've realized, like stated above, there is no point in making claims like, "this diet is the best!" You can find countless examples for multiple diets of people who exemplify high marks of health. It all depends or nobody is completely right.

[7Wannabe5]

I think even processed foods could be healthy IF you processed them yourself. For instance, if I want to eat a shortbread butter cookie but I have to care for the cow, milk it, churn the butter, grow the wheat, harvest the wheat, grind the wheat, tap the maple tree, cook down the sugar, mix the ingredients, gather the firewood, forge the metal for my baking sheet, etc. etc. Well, I would likely choose to just go fishing with a net (or use some of the invasive species of European earthworms that have taken over most backyards in America over the last 100 years for bait) and bake up some of the delicious giant chemically induced tetraploid mutant squash some previous human did me the favor of breeding for my calorie-acquisition needs over 100 years ago.

OTOH, if I drive my car over to the Whole Foods prepared bar and have virtually unlimited funds to spend then I have to otherwise limit my choices. (I once put myself on a diet that I had to walk the 2 miles to my local Whole Foods and could only spend $2 on prepared food. I think I lost 5 lbs. in 3 days.)

[Chad]

Except for the fact that the cookie would still have boatloads of sugar, which is terrible for you no matter how little or how much it is processed.

[7Wannabe5]

Human breast milk has a much higher sugar content and lower protein content than cow's milk. I fed both my kids to 30 lbs at a year on nothing but me and generic Cheerios (I think baby food is a total rip-off scam) but occasionally I would give them a bottle of plain yogurt mixed with sugar and hot water. I'd say breast milk is about as sweet as your average latte but less sweet than your average mocha cappuccino. Pretty much the case that natural tendency towards having a sugar tooth in mammals is directly correlated to relative brain size vs. muscle mass. It has something to do with only sugar molecules being able to pass through the barrier and feed brain growth and development.OTOH, people with bi-polar disease during manic episodes often consume large quantities of sugar to fuel their hyper-high level of brain activity and obvious contributor to diabetic disease and variety of other inflammatory illnesses when used in excess and people often choose to abuse alcohol because it's happy-then-soporific effect is very much like that of breast milk (which is where the phrase "nurse a glass of alcohol" likely originated.)

Anyways, what's good for a baby human isn't necessarily good for an adult human but I would be hesitant to completely cut sugar out of my diet if I hoped to maintain some level of brain growth/maintenance into old age, especially since neurological diseases are so devastating. Of course, if you are more concerned with being as muscular as a lion rather than more clever than a monkey than maybe a meat only diet would serve.

[Chad]

My point wasn't that we should eat zero sugar, but that the processing isn't the culprit that produces the negative effects for sugar.

[7Wannabe5]

Right. I guess I was making the fairly trivial point that if you actually do the work of processing your food yourself, your daily caloric intake needs would go up and, therefore, also your daily caloric "safe" intake level of sugar. But, I was also making the more important point that there's still a whole lot of unknown gray when answering the question "Is it healthy for a human to ingest?" between the emphatic "Yes!" for breast milk and the emphatic "No!" for cigarettes.

[IlliniDave]

I use a similar nutrition regimen, but not quite so restrictive as paleo. I encountered a lot of paleo enthusiasts in the Crossfit community. I basically follow something close to the Zone diet with some sensitivity to paleo principles I guess is the way to say it.

I am not 100% strict in this, but I try to stick to it 80-90%

I avoid refined/processed carbohydrates. I try to get 2/3 or more of my carbohydrates from colorful and/or leafy green vegetables, and one third from select fruit (grapefruit, berries, apples, occasional oranges, etc.). Relatively little from legumes or starchy vegetables. I go out of my way to consume "healthy" fats (nuts, olive oil, fish oil, avocados, etc.), and I go for moderately lean animal protein (although with the way the cost has spiked lately, this is a shrinking facet of my diet, and I'm relying more on turkey and eggs). I don't avoid dairy, but I wouldn't call it a staple either. So it winds up being similar in marco- and micro-nutrients to paleo. I'm not real precise with quantities but it's probably pretty close to an even split between calories from protein, carbs, and fat, but the carb calories are probably lower than the others.

I've been doing this for 4 years. It allowed me to get off statins, lose/maintain weight, cured acid reflux, and greatly reduced the effects of seasonal allergies.

Every now and again I still break down and get a pizza or a cheesecake or a blueberry pie.

[Dragline]

On this topic, just read this recently: http://www.amazon.com/Wahls-Protocol-Pr ... s+protocol

It's really directed primarily at MS sufferers, but there's also a lot of other interesting information for the casual eater trying to reduce inflammation, and she talks about some studies that are being done. Worth borrowing, not buying, unless you have MS.

I also agree that the average person's goal is probably "live a long time in very good health and then die quickly" -- and that that's extremely difficult to test in anything that resembles a controlled manner. And may have little to do with short-term absolute performance or appearance metrics.