This article from the New Yorker details a writer's one-week experiment feeding her family a version of the Paleo diet.
I hasten to say that I never even HEARD of said diet until recent postings on this NG, so am in no position to take a position pro or con, even if I wanted to, so PLEASE let's not go there!!!
So many things askew with the writer's observations, it would take a book, so just mentioning it for entertainment value.
Fun article. She left out the discovery of beer and its
affect on the development of agriculture.
She also did not mention that your body has an adjustment
period to switch back from carbs to fats. She did point
out the T2 crisis.
On the "Child Abuse" front (relax, I know you were kidding),
one of my customer's had her teen age son diagnosed with
attention deficit disorder (ADD). Knowing that the drugs prescribed
for ADD would leave him hopelessly addicted to cocaine the
rest of his life, she refused treatment and put him on Paleo.
And guess what happened? No ADD after about one week.
It was a wonderful gift she gave her son.
We had a wonderful time comparing our diets. By the way,
they (whole family went Paleo) had about a one week
adjustment period from carbs to fat too.
And, if you still are hungry, eat another piece of meat,
eat a piece of cheese, drink some (real) broth ...
Thank you for sharing.
"There must be some reason that the U.S. government has kept the dark
truth about spelt and tofu hidden from us. Durant blames 'the vegetarian
lobby.' Teicholz suspects 'olive oil money.'"
LOL Olive oil money! Thanks for the link.
And, sorry, I can't resist:
Weird how thousands of years of eating grains caused T2 diabetes
to explode *recently* in modern societies (the exception being some
groups like the Inuit, who never had agriculture, and Pacific Islanders,
who did not have grain crops, thus never went through an adaptive
Which timing suggests to me that other factors are involved. One
possibility, known to promote obesity, is antibiotics (introduced in the late
1940s). Processing corn into high fructose corn syrup might be another
(HFCS was first introduced in 1957).
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 8:07:51 AM UTC-7, Pat Kiewicz wrote:
Pat, re: high fructose, I immediately joined the "holier-than-thou" crowd b
y intensifying my already intense label reading to detect HF. But recently
I saw a respectable article (meaning not planted) re-examining this. Dammi
t, wish I had kept it. If I find, will post. Meantime, still avoiding. I
t's such a plain economic decision...
For starters, it is not the same grain they ate back then.
And, it is not even the same grain you ate 20 years ago.
(A farmer customer of mine told me about hybridizing
the stocks so they don't fall over from the weight of
the kernel. He claims that all their hybridizing is
the cause of all the allergic reactions to it.)
Ancient humans ate seeds. As grains had not yet
been hybridized, the quantity they could get a hold
of was far, far less. Two heads of wheat was probably
more seeds than they could pick in a day. And the
seeds they did find, were not unnaturally hybridized
What "adaptive period"? That is not how evolution works.
T2 maims and kills you *after* you reproduce. No
natural selection involved. Darwin would be turning
in his grave.
Antibiotics have been linked to all kinds of nasty after
effects: rashes, asthma, yada, yada. Antibiotics can
save you life, but you must manage the after effects.
A good probiotic can help. (I like Primal Flora,
seems to be the only one I have come across that
I think what you don't want to consider is that the
quantity of carbs consumed has been going up and up
and up, especially with the lack of or poor home
cooking. Kind of like the elephant in the living
room no one wants to acknowledge.
HFCS is truly nasty. Bear in mind that their effect is
the same as any other grain. To your body, it is like
eating a bag of sugar. So, eating HFCS, or a plate of
spaghetti, or (ha ha) health carbs, has the same effect.
High carb diets are not natural to humans. If you are
not the one out of six that will get T2 from it, then,
by all means enjoy yourself. Pretty bad odds I would
say, but, to each his own. Backfired on me for sure.
I believed all the s*** about healthy carbs.
Here is another factor you are not considering:
those of us that have injured ourselves (carbohydrate
poisoning or T2 Diabetes) GET BETTER when we go Paleo
and/or low carb. We lead normal lives. Some T1's
too. Our feet don't fall off. We don't lose
our eyesight or have heart attacks. We are
not on the kidney transplant list.
What concerns me about your point of view is that
people will continue to get maimed and killed
while you continue to look for reasons why
a unnatural diet high in carbohydrates is not
And these high carb diets are so addictive that I
know of one man would killed himself and one
who is falling apart on the installment plan
because they refuse to give them up.
Eat what you want to eat. I really don't care.
You have been warned. And no one is trying to
rip your carbs out of your mouth.
Oh, like he'd know. He's a farmer, not a physician.
Humankind has been selecting and hybridizing plants since the
invention of agriculture. That's what agriculture is all about.
Two heads of wheat was probably
The plants they grew were selected and sometimes hybridized to
increase yield, meaning increased carbohydrates.
There's one factor that is simple, obvious, and unnoticed: our eating
patterns have changed. Metabolic disease and obesity are both
influenced not only by what we eat, and how much we eat, but also by
how often we eat. People traditionally had to work hard and didn't
have much time to spend preparing and eating food. Thus they would
typically eat somewhere between 1-3 times per day. Nowadays, people
are eating all the time. We're doing to ourselves what we do to
animals in feedlots, and the end result is the same - we gain weight.
Worse, we're screwing with our metabolism by keeping our bodies
constantly busy digesting food.
Research has shown that the liver is always busy doing one of two
things: it is either secreting enzymes to help digest the food you
recently ate, or it is secreting different enzymes to help break down
stored body fat. If you're snacking all the time, even if you're
eating lower-calories foods, your liver has no time to work on body
fat. Better to cut out snacking. Best of all for weight loss, as
learned by testing on mice and humans, is to limit oneself to two
daily meals within an eight hour window, thus giving the liver a whole
sixteen hours to work on body fat. Not everyone can do that, but at
least stop nibbling between meals. Don't stress your metabolic system
by keeping it constantly busy working on the food you just ate.
Agreed. Plus we are eating too many carbs in amounts that
do not occur naturally in nature. And all kinds of
food like substances that even our grandparents did
not eat (not invented yet!).
Mark's Daily Apple's web site is giving me fits. If you
look at his Primal Blueprint, you will notice that is
has a lot to do with exercise and some on fasting.
And on tribe/family/loved ones.
I think it is this link, but I can not verify it at
On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 6:49:52 AM UTC-7, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
I am agnostic on the subject of meal frequency, due to vast ignorance. But
the received wisdom for past decades has been small, frequent meals rather
than a few big ones. Supposed to be easier to digest. How does that fit
with your reporting? Straight question.
This from a Diabetic and Paleo perspective.
Your body will tell you when to eat. You get hungry.
All the metering and monitoring are already build in by the
This can be messed up when you eat unnatural amounts
of carbohydrates (fuel outside the specifications of
the design). Your blood sugar will spike and then
plummet. We call it a "hypo" for Hypoglycemia.
In the worst case, you first will get crazed with
hunger, then you will pass out. Typically, you will
get weird hungry when you shouldn't (eventually you
Low blood sugar is not an issue with me and my Diabetes,
as I am drug free and can not get a hypo. My overly helpful
liver will provide me with all the stinkin' glucose I
ever will need, whether I want it or not. Diabetics
that use insulin have all kinds of issues with hypos.
And, Paleo diabetics don't need any stinkin' drugs.
So basically, make sure you feed yourself the proper
fuel (stay in spec for the design) and your body will
tell you when to eat.
Random periodic tiny fasts won't hurt either. Grok
had to "catch" his food before he could actually eat
it. Probably munched all the time on various bugs and
plants during the process. Yum. Snack Food for the hunt.
If he was like me when I am fishing, he was probably
to busy having fun to eat.
And, remember that Grok chased and ate his food with his
family/friends/tribe. So, remember to eat with your
loved ones, not by yourself.
On Thursday, July 24, 2014 2:05:37 PM UTC-7, Todd wrote:
But the received wisdom for past decades has been small, frequent meals ra
ther than a few big ones. Supposed to be easier to digest. How does that
fit with your reporting? Straight question.
This from a Diabetic and Paleo perspective.
Any comments from other perspective/s? This claim -- about multiple small
meals rather than several huge ones being better because easier to digest -
has been around so long that I would value other members' input. In gener
al, I tend to re-examine "received wisdom". Sometimes it pans out, sometime
s not. Waddyathink?
People traditionally had to work hard and didn't have much time to
Actually they spent huge amounts of time preparing food. These days
most food is too conveniently available. In the days when whole animals
had to be eaten and vegetable had to be grown and not just bought, food
preparation was a skill. These days few people know how to cook from
scratch or would even know what some vegetables are (just front up to
some checkout staffed by a pimply faced youth with a veg without a bar
code or shrink wrap).
True. I think you would be hard pressed to find a
edible plant that was not hybridized. The purslane (salad)
I am eating on right now adores "disturbed" soil, meaning,
that, even though it comes from wild seeds, it was hybridized
at one time.
I am not against hybridizing. I am against hybridizing
for unnatural levels of carbohydrates. I think we should try
to hybridize the carbs down and the fats up in grains to
help stop the tidal wave of carbohydrate poisoning (T2 Diabetes)
1 cup = 1 gram carbohydrates.
Now we are talking!
If you believe Purslane's proponents, it is the most nutritious
plant on the planet. Yummy too. Love it with my home make
ranch dressing. Very easy to grow too. You just have to
walk on the ground to disturb the soil. I almost never water
Take a look at the nutrition numbers on the above link. It
will blow your mind.
I am also against grafting genes from a chicken on to
a weasel, but that is not hybridizing, thank you so much
I think there may be more layers to this onion than is
apparent. Here is a fun article that flies in the
face of conventional wisdom:
Obesity Theories Challenged By Hunter-Gatherer Study
A new study comparing the lifestyle of Westerners
with that of hunter-gatherers challenges the idea
that the current obesity crisis is due to lack of
physical activity. The researchers suggest the
more likely explanation is over-consumption of
calories, particularly due to the presence of
energy-dense foods in the Western diet.
"energy-dense foods". Read: artificially hybridized
for high carbohydrates.
By the way, the original exercise was called "work".
:-)) Yes, it is very weird indeed. It's a hoot of an article.
I think if you do a google you will find that the use of HFCS is pretty
much a North American thing. Here in Aus (and in NZ where they
mentioned high diabetes levels in the New Yorker article), the sweetener
of choice would be sugar cane based.
If you consider age (we are living long enough to get more old-age diseases
showing themselves), genetic predisposition, obesity and lack of exercise
you don't need to go looking for a "magic" solution to T2D. There is no
particular food that causes it. But the way reporting of health issues go
these days, regardless of the problem, there must always be some wonder food
you must eat or some terror you must never eat. Bollocks.
Darwin is not the be-all and end-all of evolutionary biology.
Lots of science happened after Darwin. And human evolution
never stopped happening.
The decrease in height and health when agriculture was first
adapted was followed by a return to previous norms after
The ability to digest lactose spreadingas a trait through populations.
The grandmother effect.
selective advantage (even a small one) + time = evolution
Todd, I'm a science geek who graduated with honors from Lyman Briggs
College at MSU. My daughter is a zoologist. We live and breathe this
stuff at home.
It was clearly his opinion. It is up to you to evaluate it.
I think he has a point.
Has Darwin's natural selection theory been revised?
Can you tell me what it has been revised to?
You don't think sanitation and medicine had anything to do
I am not seeing that. Do you have a study showing people
adapting to lactose? As far as I can tell, you stop drinking
milk and then go back to it and you become very antisocial.
And, the inability to digest cows milk sometimes has to
do with the fats and not the lactose, which is why switching
to goat's milk can help some.
Lastly, lactose intolerance is traced to your ancestry:
No mention of any improvement, based on time.
No Natural Selection, no evolution. Random changes get
"diluted". This is standard Darwin again. What do you
think has replaced Darwin's Natural Selection theory?
This is all classic Darwin. There is Natural Selection involved.
Wonderful article. But I don't see how it applies? Yes,
Grandmothers can be special people, but Menopause, which the
article is about, happen well after reproduction (natural
selection). Are they trying to state that Granny helping around
the house helped in natural selection? I don't get it.
I graduated with honors too. With an engineering degree. I too
am a science geek. What was you degree in?-T
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.