Deleted double post
Running the numbers on Food Costs...
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
@jeffb
There are a lot of conflicting reports about what is and isn't healthy for us, even in the scientific literature. Surprisingly even the scientific community, with all of its rigor and dedication to discovering the truth, still has to bow to economics and the people who sign their paycheck, which in this case are usually large food corporations promoting expensive meat and dairy products. The facts, beliefs, and opinions about health are so skewed that even reasonably intelligent people often can't agree on what is and isn't healthy for them, which this thread is a shining example of.
Following what our ancestors ate is a good rule of thumb, but I think you might have been misled as to what our ancestors actually ate. See: http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm for further reading.
There are a lot of conflicting reports about what is and isn't healthy for us, even in the scientific literature. Surprisingly even the scientific community, with all of its rigor and dedication to discovering the truth, still has to bow to economics and the people who sign their paycheck, which in this case are usually large food corporations promoting expensive meat and dairy products. The facts, beliefs, and opinions about health are so skewed that even reasonably intelligent people often can't agree on what is and isn't healthy for them, which this thread is a shining example of.
Following what our ancestors ate is a good rule of thumb, but I think you might have been misled as to what our ancestors actually ate. See: http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm for further reading.
You are correct that modern man appeared about 200,000 years ago, but The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines, from which the genus Homo had diverged by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.[2][3] Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees about 5–7 million years ago. Several species and subspecies of Homo evolved and are now extinct. These include Homo erectus, which inhabited Asia, and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, which inhabited Europe. Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.
The dominant view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the "Out of Africa" or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6][7] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Homo neanderthalensis in Europe. Scientists supporting the alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago.
From Wikipedia.
Homo erectus lived some 2 million years ago and is believed to be the first human to live in a hunter gatherer society.
The dominant view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the "Out of Africa" or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6][7] which argues that Homo sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50,000 to 100,000 years ago, replacing populations of Homo erectus in Asia and Homo neanderthalensis in Europe. Scientists supporting the alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that Homo sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of Homo erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago.
From Wikipedia.
Homo erectus lived some 2 million years ago and is believed to be the first human to live in a hunter gatherer society.
Wow, this is quickly evolving into another paleo thread.
Eating meat for 200,000 years?! Try 2.5 million, a very key development as well.
Skepticism is good. But when exactly did skeptics start assuming everything was safe, unless evidence suggests otherwise? Seems like a dangerous outlook.
I'm going to assume if it didn't exist in some close approximation for the bulk of human evolution, then it's potentially not safe. And yes, there is huge variation, so experiment and observe your reactions.
I trust a couple million years of evolution over the assurances of the FDA or some BS food chemist working for Kraft (owns FDA).
I respect the early man. They only worked 20 hours a week, they were physically badass, masters of their environment and likely sexually active until their death... Sign me up!
EDIT: Anyone else remember reading a recent article about only a small handful of cancer have ever been found in all the thousands of cases of remains? I gotta run now, but will try to find it later.
Eating meat for 200,000 years?! Try 2.5 million, a very key development as well.
Skepticism is good. But when exactly did skeptics start assuming everything was safe, unless evidence suggests otherwise? Seems like a dangerous outlook.
I'm going to assume if it didn't exist in some close approximation for the bulk of human evolution, then it's potentially not safe. And yes, there is huge variation, so experiment and observe your reactions.
I trust a couple million years of evolution over the assurances of the FDA or some BS food chemist working for Kraft (owns FDA).
I respect the early man. They only worked 20 hours a week, they were physically badass, masters of their environment and likely sexually active until their death... Sign me up!
EDIT: Anyone else remember reading a recent article about only a small handful of cancer have ever been found in all the thousands of cases of remains? I gotta run now, but will try to find it later.
-
AlexOliver
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:25 pm
-
masalawoman
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:02 pm
Regarding Chad's comments about questioning diets that people push through passion rather than a rational approach -
I agree that it behooves us to question idealogies, products, services, and the like that are marketed through the use of passion, fear tactics, etc. I also question a lot of marketing that touts "scientific research." It is always enlightening to follow the money trail behind those "scientific" studies and to look at the original research design and the resulting analysis with a critical eye. And even then, as others have pointed out, expert opinion varies widely. Determining the best diet for me was done through personal experimentation and data collection. After years on the low fat/whole grain approach espoused by the American Diabetes Association, along with lots of exercise, I was still very overweight and on increasing amounts of expensive meds for Type 2 diabetes. When a friend suggested a low carb approach, I reluctantly gave up my daily oatmeal, rice, and whole wheat crackers and within 48 hours my blood sugar was perfectly normal - with no meds. This way of eating has been sustainable for over 2 years now, and my blood glucose level continues to be in a very healthy range with no medication whatsoever. It is hard NOT to be passionate about what was for me a life-transforming experience, but the passion arises from looking at hard data - blood glucose meter readings and A1C testing. I don't believe that grains and starches have the impact on everyone that they do on me (those of you lucky enough to thrive on a beans and rice diet without gaining weight or developing diabetes would obviously dispel such a claim), but given the parallel rises in the rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes in this country, I don't believe that I am alone, either.
I agree that it behooves us to question idealogies, products, services, and the like that are marketed through the use of passion, fear tactics, etc. I also question a lot of marketing that touts "scientific research." It is always enlightening to follow the money trail behind those "scientific" studies and to look at the original research design and the resulting analysis with a critical eye. And even then, as others have pointed out, expert opinion varies widely. Determining the best diet for me was done through personal experimentation and data collection. After years on the low fat/whole grain approach espoused by the American Diabetes Association, along with lots of exercise, I was still very overweight and on increasing amounts of expensive meds for Type 2 diabetes. When a friend suggested a low carb approach, I reluctantly gave up my daily oatmeal, rice, and whole wheat crackers and within 48 hours my blood sugar was perfectly normal - with no meds. This way of eating has been sustainable for over 2 years now, and my blood glucose level continues to be in a very healthy range with no medication whatsoever. It is hard NOT to be passionate about what was for me a life-transforming experience, but the passion arises from looking at hard data - blood glucose meter readings and A1C testing. I don't believe that grains and starches have the impact on everyone that they do on me (those of you lucky enough to thrive on a beans and rice diet without gaining weight or developing diabetes would obviously dispel such a claim), but given the parallel rises in the rates of obesity and Type 2 diabetes in this country, I don't believe that I am alone, either.
@jeff @alex @dragon et al: Man did not eat only meat in paleolithic times; he prized meat, especially the organs, but between successful hunts ate a fair amount of root vegetables and some moderate amounts of nuts, fruit and veggies. A large segment of the modern-day paleo community, including myself, has steered away from "low-carb" paleo--I just had a delicious late lunch of grass-fed ground beef, an apple, a banana and a bunch of thinly sliced sweet potatoes and regular potatoes sautéed in butter and coconut oil. Mmmm.
Dragon is totally right about processed meat and meat being carcinogenic when cooked at too high of a heat; these are also incorporated into most modern-day paleos' diets; we tend to be pretty scientific and open to new findings. I don't eat much bacon or sausage at all anymore, and I keep the burner on low, or I braise instead.
I disagree about the "gimmick" comment, and I do see it as kind of an insult, but since it wasn't meant as one, I guess enough said.
Dragon is totally right about processed meat and meat being carcinogenic when cooked at too high of a heat; these are also incorporated into most modern-day paleos' diets; we tend to be pretty scientific and open to new findings. I don't eat much bacon or sausage at all anymore, and I keep the burner on low, or I braise instead.
I disagree about the "gimmick" comment, and I do see it as kind of an insult, but since it wasn't meant as one, I guess enough said.
-
jeremymday
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:06 am
- Contact:
@ dragon - I dont eat a lot of fish, maybe once a week if that...
@ jeff - I dont eat a lot of soy products. I get a lot of my protein from plant sources too. I just thought it was funny how both you and dragon said not to eat too much of the two things I mentioned. I eat in moderation...
Also, Jeff if you want to make a second post listing what you buy in a given month and let us analyze it I think you will get a lot more from all of us then just me by myself. But I am very willing to continue the discussion with you about food costs over email. Let me know. You can contact me through http://www.insightwriter.com
@ M - Actually meat and dairy products are relatively cheap from an economic standpoint. They should actually be a lot more expensive then they really are. This is an argument often posed by vegetarians and vegans.
@ everyone - Two things. One, there is plenty of information out there about health, and if one reads enough, you can start seeing the patterns, as to what is truly healthy, and what isn't. It is false to say the evidence isn't conclusive. Evidence is pretty conclusive on a wide range of health issues. This is why many "studies" are conducted at high levels and try to make overarching statements of fact when they really can't do that. Read deeper into the journals of medicine and you will see all the evidence you need to eat best for your health. Unfortunately a lot of these studies don't get the media exposure the fantastic studies get. (i.e. Twinkie diet)
Two, I think we can pretty much all agree that we need to experiment and see what works for us. Im passionate about Paleo because of a notable difference in my life. Not just because I feel better. I've seen drastic changes in not falling asleep at 3pm and a shrunken waistline.
I really like what masalawoman said. She has proven it for herself by experimenting with it. And has hard data to back it up. And her final statement is key. Diabetes and Obesity are epidemics. They are affecting a lot of people. If the only way to educate people is under the banner of Paleo then so be it. People have to get it in their heads some way....
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -Albert Einstein
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. - Rita Mae Brown
@ jeff - I dont eat a lot of soy products. I get a lot of my protein from plant sources too. I just thought it was funny how both you and dragon said not to eat too much of the two things I mentioned. I eat in moderation...
Also, Jeff if you want to make a second post listing what you buy in a given month and let us analyze it I think you will get a lot more from all of us then just me by myself. But I am very willing to continue the discussion with you about food costs over email. Let me know. You can contact me through http://www.insightwriter.com
@ M - Actually meat and dairy products are relatively cheap from an economic standpoint. They should actually be a lot more expensive then they really are. This is an argument often posed by vegetarians and vegans.
@ everyone - Two things. One, there is plenty of information out there about health, and if one reads enough, you can start seeing the patterns, as to what is truly healthy, and what isn't. It is false to say the evidence isn't conclusive. Evidence is pretty conclusive on a wide range of health issues. This is why many "studies" are conducted at high levels and try to make overarching statements of fact when they really can't do that. Read deeper into the journals of medicine and you will see all the evidence you need to eat best for your health. Unfortunately a lot of these studies don't get the media exposure the fantastic studies get. (i.e. Twinkie diet)
Two, I think we can pretty much all agree that we need to experiment and see what works for us. Im passionate about Paleo because of a notable difference in my life. Not just because I feel better. I've seen drastic changes in not falling asleep at 3pm and a shrunken waistline.
I really like what masalawoman said. She has proven it for herself by experimenting with it. And has hard data to back it up. And her final statement is key. Diabetes and Obesity are epidemics. They are affecting a lot of people. If the only way to educate people is under the banner of Paleo then so be it. People have to get it in their heads some way....
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be. -Albert Einstein
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. - Rita Mae Brown
"It is false to say the evidence isn't conclusive. Evidence is pretty conclusive on a wide range of health issues."
I think for many issues there will be no conclusive findings for a long time (like the tofu studies). The reason being that health issues from diet may take years to manifest themselves and the only way to be truly certain is through randomized trials (the only surefire way to prove causality) which won't be done on humans.
I think for many issues there will be no conclusive findings for a long time (like the tofu studies). The reason being that health issues from diet may take years to manifest themselves and the only way to be truly certain is through randomized trials (the only surefire way to prove causality) which won't be done on humans.
I don't think it's false to say the evidence isn't conclusive. Basically, the researcher in the linked article found that the majority of medical studies have errors.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ence/8269/
Do we have a better idea of what is healthy now than 40 years ago? Yes, but I don't see the level of information necessary to conclude that we are close to identifying the ideal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ence/8269/
Do we have a better idea of what is healthy now than 40 years ago? Yes, but I don't see the level of information necessary to conclude that we are close to identifying the ideal.
@jeremey
The true cost for something isn't always reflected in what you pay for it at the super market.
My point is simply that a lot of the current research on nutrition is actually funded by organizations that will financially gain as a result of said research. The outcome of the research is, surprise surprise, always in favor of the organization(s) that sponsored the research to begin with.
This results in a great deal of disillusionment and disagreement on the subject. Health and nutrition have almost become a taboo subject, kind of like religion, sex, and politics. Which tells me that a lot of people are probably getting screwed, and a select few are making out like bandits, probably in the form of dividends, capitals gains ... Wait a second.
*starts whistling while slowly walking away*
The true cost for something isn't always reflected in what you pay for it at the super market.
My point is simply that a lot of the current research on nutrition is actually funded by organizations that will financially gain as a result of said research. The outcome of the research is, surprise surprise, always in favor of the organization(s) that sponsored the research to begin with.
This results in a great deal of disillusionment and disagreement on the subject. Health and nutrition have almost become a taboo subject, kind of like religion, sex, and politics. Which tells me that a lot of people are probably getting screwed, and a select few are making out like bandits, probably in the form of dividends, capitals gains ... Wait a second.
*starts whistling while slowly walking away*
-
InterfaceLeader
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:38 am
A healthy diet should contain lots of veg, especially leafy greens, and a decent amount of varied fruits. After that, you can make up your protein, fibre and calories in almost any combination you want as long as you stay away from processed 'non' foods, refined sugar, high fructose corn syrup and other factory created flavours, and still get enough protein and complex B vitamins.
You can be a healthy vegan, healthy raw foodist, healthy paleo eater, healthy whole-foods eater. As long as you eat your greens and avoid sugar and HFCS, and pay attention to your body.
You can be a healthy vegan, healthy raw foodist, healthy paleo eater, healthy whole-foods eater. As long as you eat your greens and avoid sugar and HFCS, and pay attention to your body.