

 How to Keep Feces Out of Your Bloodstream (or Lose 10 Pounds in 14 Days)  - ericb
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/09/19/paleo-diet-solution/

======
annajohnson
Do a search on the Internet and you'll find more arguments - from highly
credentialed doctors and nutritionists along with plenty of unqualified 'diet
fundamentalists' - for and against the idea that gluten is the culprit behind
so many health issues. Personally, I really DO feel fine on a largely
Mediterranean diet complete with plenty of bread and pasta. I'm also fit and
actually underweight (according to BMI calculators). I feel great health-wise
and am a positive, up-beat, happy person. So I certainly see no need to stop
eating gluten. And here's what I don't get about the idea that a paleo diet is
the key to a long life and overcoming the obesity crisis: why did the obesity
crisis only come about in the last part of 20th century, hundreds of years
after most people (in developed nations at least) had abandoned paleo diets?

~~~
chipsy
The real choice here is whether to live with an "average diet" and thus face
average risk rates, or experiment on yourself and try to improve your chances.

Paleo targets overall health, not specifically fat reduction or cardiovascular
health. That means that one of its goals is to reduce or eliminate things like
long-term degenerative diseases or psychological problems, things which we
decided, a long, long time ago, to accept as "natural occurrences" that are
manageable only with medication, and not issues of dietary intake. This is a
bold goal, of course, so it's right to be skeptical. If it really works, it
can be tested. Our bias against the radical ideas comes from only being able
to look backwards a few generations of people, all of whom have had largely
the same diet. It is only fairly recently that we've gotten this explosion of
experimental diet strategies, aided by new research and more diverse food
availability. I'm into trying them as a kind of hobby and form of general
life-improvement, myself, and for people who suffer from diseases with no
known medicinal cure, it offers a lot of hope.

If we are looking only for a culprit for late-twentieth-century obesity,
gluten doesn't enter into it. Instead we should look towards the changes in
average diet over that time - i.e. increased intake of carbs,
refined(fiberless) carbs, and carbs from sugar, and a shift away from animal
fats and pressed crude vegetable oils towards solvent-extracted and refined
vegetable oils. To explain a broad effect in the population, one has to look
towards broad changes, and those are the main things that have changed.

Side note: The popular tendency to emphasize vegetables and/or fruits in diet
holds a lot of commercial appeal(since fresh plant foods have difficult,
expensive storage logistics, making them more prestigious, and fruits can have
their sugar concentrated with drying or juicing, turning them into easily-
saleable vice goods) but it's a form of feel-good bikeshedding. The "80% of
the problem" issues are different, broader, and harder to completely solve:
ideal fats/carbs/protein balance, recognition of allergies, intolerances, and
toxicity, and price/time/quality/sustainability ratios. A real solution to
those things needs both top-down cooperation and bottom-up education.

I personally haven't seen a huge difference in trying gluten/caesin-free,
except possibly for withdrawal symptoms that cumulate in the devouring of
multiple bowls of milk and cereal. I may try it again in the future, but while
I can usually avoid gluten, I find it particularly hard to get rid of dairy;
it helps calm down coffee's acidity, and cheese is one of my preferred snacks
when out of the house.

~~~
techiferous
"The popular tendency to emphasize vegetables and/or fruits in diet holds a
lot of commercial appeal...but it's a form of feel-good bikeshedding."

As I understand it, there is a good bit of science supporting the
healthfulness of fresh fruits and vegetables (but not necessarily the
processed fruits you referred to).

For example, the Healthy Eating Pyramid recommends a diet based on the latest
scientific research and notice how fruits and vegetables are emphasized:
[http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-
you-...](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-
eat/pyramid/)

Also the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute of Cancer
Research published _Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: a global
perspective_ which found much evidence in favor of fruits and vegetables for
the prevention of cancer.

------
InfinityX0
Here's the problem with diet studies in general - they take ages to pan out.
Because of that, there's varying degrees of belief in whether or not something
is correct or incorrect, and even in cases where some breakthrough has been
made, it takes ages to determine whether or not the choice was a correct one
or not.

This is the same reason why certain food products sales largely come down to
packaging - how can I really know the effect a protein supplement is making on
my muscle growth due to the many other HUGE factors that come into play? Could
I have done better without it? Same with insurance plans, investments, etc -
at the end of the day many of these products end up getting bought and sold
due more to the marketing savvy of their business departments more than the
efficacy of the products themselves.

I'm slightly ranting but I think, food wise, the best way to judge whether or
not something is good for you is quite simply, how it makes you feel
immediately afterwards. If I eat too many carbs, I feel like crap. If I eat a
Carl's Jr burger, I feel like crap. If I eat lean meat and fruits, I feel
great. If I go overboard, I can hardly feel it. If I drink soda, I feel like
crap. And so it goes.

I really think it's that simple - don't pollute your head with varying degrees
of this stuff - if it makes you feel good, and that feeling STAYS even if you
don't eat/drink it (see: withdrawals) it's probably damn good for you and you
should keep consuming it. Similarly, reverse the points to decide what you
SHOULDN'T be consuming.

~~~
ohmygodel
"I'm slightly ranting but I think, food wise, the best way to judge whether or
not something is good for you is quite simply, how it makes you feel
immediately afterwards... I really think it's that simple."

Sorry, this really doesn't make sense to me. Do you think people eat fatty,
sugary, salty foods because it makes them feel bad? No, it makes them feel
great.

But, you may say, that is only temporary pleasure. They won't feel great a few
hours later when their blood sugar crashes. One should, you could argue, look
at how you feel all day.

But then why stop at one day? Why not look at your happiness over years. Maybe
that diet that makes you feel good during the day slowly causes a disease,
such as cancer, that REALLY makes you feel bad later. This could, for example,
be the effect of eating a lot of red meat.

"Eat what makes you feel good" is simple and appealing advice. Like most
complex issues, however, a simple and appealing solution is not likely to be
the best.

~~~
InfinityX0
Fatty, sugary, and salty foods do not make you feel good shortly afterwards.
They make you feel bad. If there is any sort of bad sensation at any point,
you shouldn't be consuming that food.

There's something to the cancer argument but like I said previously, the
determinates behind that stuff are so hard to figure out - and I would say
that likely, the foods that keep us feeling good day to day - ALL DAY - are
not the ones causing us to have cancer - but I'm no scientist.

~~~
ohmygodel
First, I dispute that good-tasting foods all make you feel bad shortly
afterwards. Just as one example, sugary foods make you release all kinds of
happy chemicals as you eat it, and that high alone lasts for a while.

Second, simply eating any food AT ALL that keeps you feeling good all day
probably increases your risk of cancer. Calorie restriction looks like it does
increase our longevity in part due to a decreased risk of cancer.

~~~
InfinityX0
Sugary foods cause a crash after consuming them. So yes, there is a negative
fall associated with it.

The thing with calorie restriction is if you eat all good foods that make you
feel good, likely your "calorie restriction" situation occurs anyways. If you
have enough of the good-feeling foods to not be in a state where calorie
restriction is actually happening, you begin to feel bad (full/bloated). And
thus, fulfill the scenario where "feeling bad" actually is again bad for your
long-term health.

~~~
hugh3
The two of you seem to be using different definitions of "shortly afterward".
Two seconds after chocolate cake you feel better, two hours after chocolate
cake you'll probably feel worse. Sugar affects different people in different
ways, though.

------
hugh3
The paleo diet is, I think, 99% bullshit combined with 1% right-for-the-wrong-
reasons. That 1% does make it worth a look, though, and I personally have lost
about 15 lb in the last twelve weeks by (more or less) following it. My BMI is
down from 27.4 to 25.7, and I fully expect to get back into ideal weight range
within another month or so.

I went into it extremely skeptical of almost all the claims, but what I _did_
buy was the claim that you feel a lot more full after eating a meal of meat
and vegetables than you do after a meal rich in grains and potatoes. So I
tried it, and lo and behold I find it quite easy to eat as much as I feel like
of all the allowed foods and still consume only ~2000 calories a day.

I also find that I no longer have any craving for anything sweeter than fruit,
whereas I used to be able to talk myself into milkshakes and brownies with
excessive frequency. I think it's a blood sugar effect -- all the food I eat
is low in GI so I'm not getting the blood sugar spikes I used to. This effect
might be specific to me personally, though.

The fact that the diet supposedly replicates what our distant ancestors ate is
important only in that it at least guarantees that you're eating a subset of
foods that are nutritionally sufficient.

Other side effects? None that I've noticed, neither good nor bad. It's
possible I've felt a little bit more tired, but I can't be sure... and in any
case that's not unexpected if you're maintaining a 500-calorie-a-day deficit.

I should also mention that I'm not quite strict paleo because I eat moderate
amounts of dairy -- I'll be damned if I'm giving up milk in my coffee.
Speaking of which, I'll be damned if I'm gonna give up coffee, which is also
non-paleo. And I'm not one to panic if a salad happens to have croutons, or my
fish happens to be crumbed. But breads, potatoes, sugar and beans/legumes are
out (I don't buy the logic behind exclusion of beans, but I never really liked
beans anyway).

In conclusion, it's not a miracle and it's not nearly as amazing as its most
far-out proponents claim, but if you need to lose some weight it's worth
trying out for a couple of weeks to see what happens (maybe your body
chemistry is different to mine, so it might not work for you). If you don't
need to lose weight I wouldn't recommend it, because frankly it's hard to eat
enough paleo food to maintain weight while physically active. When I've lost
enough I think I'll reintroduce grains at breakfast and maybe lunch but keep
the paleo dinners.

~~~
commandar
You might be interested in looking into the PaNu approach to paleo.[1] The
author of that blog puts a lot of emphasis on focusing on metabolism rather
than, as he puts it, food reenactment. e.g., dairy isn't strictly paleo, but
he acknowledges that it's an easy way to up fat intake without the type of ill
effects that you're more likely to see from glutens.

Worth checking out anyway. It's certainly changed the way I approach
nutrition, even if I haven't bought into the paleo thing wholesale.

>I think it's a blood sugar effect -- all the food I eat is low in GI so I'm
not getting the blood sugar spikes I used to.

Definitely agree here. I've noticed a definite shift in appetite since I've
made a point of limiting my intake of high GI foods.

[1] - <http://www.paleonu.com/>

~~~
logic
Harris' blog is entertaining to read, in my mind, because he's one of the few
folks writing about this stuff that doesn't have a book and/or methodology
he's trying to sell you. His "getting started" page is a refreshingly
pragmatic list of ideas sorted by payoff potential for the reader, rather than
for him or anything he has a vested interest in.

<http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/>

------
robchez
I started the paleo diet about 6 months ago. In that time I lost about 18kg of
fat easier than any other diet I have ever been on. My blood lipids (I was
about to start statins for cholesterol) have all improved dramatically in this
time, to the point where my doctor is now incredibly interested in the topic.
My psoriasis and eczema have all cleaned up dramatically. The crossfit gym I
go to has seen massive improvements in lifting etc once people went paleo. And
I am finally off the Prozac for anxiety. Needless to say, for the population
of n=1, this experiment worked wonders. I know a lot of people won’t take this
anecdotal evidence, but if you jump into any of the many paleo forums, you
will hear stories like this all the time. If you want a serious easy to
follow, health improvement, I highly suggest this diet.

For more resources on the topic I suggest a few books.

<http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/> \- Primal Body Primal Mind by Nora
Gedgaudas – Lots of science.

<http://www.marksdailyapple.com/> \- Primal Blueprint by Mark Sisson – Lot
more accessible. Give it to your parents etc.

[http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-
Taubes/dp/14000...](http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Gary-
Taubes/dp/1400040787) \- Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes – Very
long, but explains where the American Dietary guidelines came from and why
they are wrong. (Cliffs notes: [http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-
good-calories-ba...](http://higher-thought.net/complete-notes-to-good-
calories-bad-calories/) )

Some excellent blogs/websites:

<http://www.paleonu.com/>

<http://freetheanimal.com/>

<http://www.westonaprice.org/>

<http://www.paleoz.com/>

~~~
ohmygodel
I think it's irresponsible to recommend a diet to people that has little to no
scientific support for the kinds of effects that you promise or imply: weight
loss, improved physical and mental health, and longevity. In fact, some
possible instantiations of the paleo diet are, I believe, currently considered
unhealthy by the medical establishment, such as a diet high in saturated fats,
cholesterol, and/or red meats.

I notice that none of your references have any serious qualifications to be
giving nutritional advice. The most rigorously argued of your sources - "Good
Calories, Bad Calories" - is written by a science journalist. The scientific
establishment has spend decades and billions of dollars trying to understand
nutrition, and these people think they can figure it out by thinking hard and
reading some papers?

Morover, you can find equally convincing arguments, anecdotes, and "experts"
for any of: vegetarianism, raw foodism, veganism, low-carb, etc. What makes
the paleo diet different?

You can experiment with your own body all you want, but giving drastic dietary
advice on such flimsy evidence seems pretty reckless.

~~~
robchez
Sorry I don't have time to find all my links as I am at work on my lunchbreak
but here are a few.

Weight Loss As the Paleo diet is by nature pretty low-carbohydrate:

<http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681>

Longevity:

Cancer Patterns in Inuits - <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18760245>

This William Lands paper - <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/83/6/S1483.pdf>

Medical Establishment:

Good Calories, Bad Calories goes deep into the reasons why the medical
establishment considers saturdated fat, cholesterol, red meat unhealthy. Have
a quick skim of the cliffs notes.

Dr Barry Groves - Cholesterol Myth - <http://www.second-
opinions.co.uk/cholesterol_myth_1.html>

More Sources:

Stephan Guyenet - B. Bio Chemistry - <http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/>

Dr Michael Eades - <http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/>

Dr William Davis - Cardiologist - <http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/>

Robb Wolf - Research Biochemist - <http://robbwolf.com/>

Prof. Loren Cordain - <http://www.thepaleodiet.com/>

edit: formatting

~~~
ohmygodel
Thanks for the effort, but seems to be a pretty rough link blast. Maybe there
are some diamonds in here, but many certainly miss the point.

"Weight Loss As the Paleo diet is by nature pretty low-carbohydrate": Paleo is
not necessarily low-carb. You could eat squash, root vegetables, and fruit all
day for nearly all your calories. I actually don't doubt that you can lose
weight on the paleo diet, though. You can lose weight on almost any vaguely
healthy diet.

"Cancer Patterns in Inuits" : Cancer has many other causes than diet, and this
study in no way isolates diet as the factor in disease-patterns in Inuits.

"This William Lands paper": This solely studies omega-3/6 intake and health.
Not the overall health effects of the paleo diet.

"Good Calories, Bad Calories" does have an explanation of why the medical
establishment has made its recommendations. Still, it is written by one non-
expert. Hardly enough to make radical lifestyle changes for.

"Dr Barry Groves" OK, this looks possibly legit.

I'm not going to try to figure out the rest, given the poor quality of the
preceding.

------
ohmygodel
I follow a paleo diet strictly on weekdays, and for probably 75% of my
calories on weekends. I've been doing this for a few months. I'm basically
doing this as an experiment - the argument that we should eat what we evolved
eating is compelling as a general principle.

I haven't lost or gained weight. My workouts haven't been much worse or much
better. I don't notice a difference in energy levels, although I find it
harder to ignore hunger now. My major impressions are that a paleo diet is
expensive and inconvenient.

This is just my experience. The scientific arguments that I've seen made
follow the general pattern of this article: neolithic foods contain chemicals
(e.g. lectins, phytates, etc.) that are bad for our bodies.

These kinds of arguments are extremely unconvincing. Digestion and metabolism
involves thousands of chemicals and reactions. Trying to piece together how it
works is important, but a couple isolated components are not nearly enough
with which to make judgements for your health.

Arguments from personal experience are even worse. If you "feel better" on the
diet, are you sure it's the diet? Is it the placebo effect? Is it the fact
that you are likely eating more fiber and nutrients? Is it a difference in
blood sugar levels that you notice? Even worse, is the advice to cut out
foods, and then test how those foods make you feel when reintroduced. Any
change can easily be interpreted negatively. Also, your body has adjusted to
the new foods (which quite likely caused their own painful adjustment period).

Good arguments would make actual health claims, such as 1\. The chance that
you develop heart disease will fall. 2\. The chance that you develop cancer
will fall. 3\. The diet will prevent some other diseases (e.g. diabetes). 4\.
Some specific symptoms from some specific diseases will lessen.

Currently, this whole fad seems like a big echo chamber of people seeing
exactly what they want to see.

~~~
wvl
From the article:

 _Now there is a caveat to this. You only need to be exposed to things like
gluten once every ten to fifteen days to keep the gut damaged. This can
bedevil people as they “cut back on gluten” but do not notice an improvement
in their overall health. I’m sorry but there is not a pink “participant”
ribbon given out for doing this “almost correctly.” You need to be 100 percent
compliant for thirty days, then see how you do with reintroduction._

As for: _Is it the fact that you are likely eating more fiber and nutrients?
Is it a difference in blood sugar levels that you notice?_

Those are both directly related to what you are eating. I feel better when my
blood sugar levels don't spike -- which is why I'm eating paleo.

Also, you didn't really put for an argument as to why the advice to cut out
foods then add them back in is bad. If your body has healed itself and is
functioning great without grains, then you eat a big pizza -- you will almost
surely see how it affects your system.

~~~
ohmygodel
If you consume something out of the ordinary, your body is not used to
digesting it. For example, the necessary enzymes and bacteria are not likely
to be in large supply. Also, you may be hyper- or hypo- sensitive to
neurotransmitters (like dopamine) that are released in reponse to the
chemicals that are unusually present in the foreign food.

Cut out vegetables from your diet, for example, and you will experience
serious intestinal distress when you reintroduce them.

~~~
wvl
> _Cut out vegetables from your diet, for example, and you will experience
> serious intestinal distress when you reintroduce them._

I've actually done that[1], and experienced the complete opposite. I found
myself _dreaming_ about eating broccoli, and absolutely craving all kinds of
vegetables. When the diet ended I ate lots of vegetables -- and certainly no
intestinal distress when eating them.

[1] - "Velocity Diet": the very definition of fad diet, which basically
consists of drinking a protein shake 5 times a day for 4 weeks, with 1 solid
meal per week. It worked, but I'd never ever do it again, nor recommend anyone
ever do it.

~~~
ohmygodel
OK, that is a valid data point. In my own experience, when I increased the
amount of vegetables (mostly green vegetables) I was eating, I felt bad for
weeks until I adjusted.

------
ericb
I submitted this because I have no idea what to make of it and no real idea if
it is credible. I am so tired of adapting to what is "good" only to have that
change. So my oatmeal breakfast is bad now and I should go back to bacon and
eggs? _sigh._ Has anyone tried this paleo business, and to what effect?

edit: and more importantly, I should have added, is there science behind it?
Shame on me.

~~~
cperciva
_I have no idea what to make of it and no real idea if it is credible_

It isn't credible.

The article claims that removing grains from your diet will prevent
"Infertility, Type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis,
lupus, vitiligo, narcolepsy, schizophrenia, autism, depression, huntington's,
non-hodgkin's lymphoma, hypothyrodism, and porphyria". This would be pretty
astonishing if it were true... especially given that two of these conditions
(type 1 diabetes and autism) often develop before children start eating
grains.

Astonishing claims require astonishing evidence -- and the article provides
absolutely no evidence at all.

~~~
ericb
What I was more wondering if there is credible info elsewhere, like the book
(I've never read it). Agreed the claims seem far fetched.

~~~
robchez
Check out the success stories at the <http://www.marksdailyapple.com> forums .
The site also has hundreds of articles on everything about the diet and
lifestyle.

------
TGJ
Call me crazy but the book linked at the end of the article was published
September 14th and there are already 40 five star reviews posted. Which given
the idea that it's 'diet' lifestyle change would mean time would be needed to
actually see if the content pans out. I start feeling iffy any time another
'this food is bad' book comes along and with those reviews, that puts it into
the questionable category.

~~~
wvl
Robb Wolf has been writing about nutrition and doing nutrition seminars for
many years now. Many people have recommended and advocated for the high
quality articles and podcasts he has written and put out there. So, it is
completely understandable that anyone who has preordered the book (myself
included, should get it tomorrow) will read and review it to help boost sales
of the book (and the message it contains).

Besides, this is not a "this food is bad" diet scheme at all. This book is
just the first, updated, all in one place, quality description of what paleo
means.

~~~
TGJ
And you sound just like the followup to a forum question on amazon by a person
asking the same question that I was.

------
araneae
The idea that a paleo diet will make you healthier because it's what we
evolved to eat is bullshit.

Firstly, it assumes that we haven't evolved since modern agriculture, which of
course we have; people with ancestors from areas with grain harvesting have
_more_ copies of the amylase gene, which produce enzymes that help us to
_better_ digest calories.

Secondly, it assumes that the "priority" of evolution in paleo times was to
optimize our health in our current environment. It wasn't. Our hunter and
gatherer ancestors were _starving_ ; we were optimized to extract every last
calorie from our food. So when simple starches like wheat came around, we
evolved to have _more_ copies of the amylase gene - something that does not
help us today.

The paleo diet works precisely for the opposite of the stated reason. These
are foods that our bodies are _not_ evolved to perfectly digest. Uncooked
foods are far enough in our evolutionary past that people on raw-only diets
consistently lose weight, even if they eat a lot. If they were on the savannah
they would die.

I'm not saying the diet itself can't be great, just that the entire article
could be fodder for Penn & Teller.

~~~
tfinster
> it assumes that we haven't evolved since modern agriculture

No one is arguing that we haven't evolved at all. But humanoids have been
around for millions of years, and the 10,000 years since the advent of
agriculture is a very small evolutionary time step. So the reasoning is more
that we haven't evolved enough to fully digest grains without damage to our
gut lining.

> Our hunter and gatherer ancestors were starving

You'd be surprised that a lot of hunter gatherers (HGs) were doing a lot
better than that, according to anthropologists. One number cited in Robb
Wolf's book is that HGs on average only worked on procuring food 10-15 hours a
week, with the rest spent socializing, resting, etc.

> people on raw-only diets consistently lose weight, even if they eat a lot

Do you have any supporting evidence for this statement? Virtually all foods on
the Paleo diet can be eaten raw (meat, seafood, fruits, vegetables, nuts), and
are cooked more for taste than digestibility.

~~~
ohmygodel
"the 10,000 years since the advent of agriculture is a very small evolutionary
time step"

True, although those 10,000 (I've actually heard 20-40K) years are the most
recent ones in our evolution and therefore have more direct bearing on our
current state. In addition, humans experienced a population bottleneck around
60,000 that brought us down to 10-20K individuals. Since then, there have been
repeated agricultural famines. These stresses should have favored people able
to eat the grains that formed the basis of our diet.

------
runT1ME
I'm curious if there are societies or cultures that eat significantly less
grain than others. Surely looking at a large population's diet and finding a
correlation to the diseases mentioned could shed some light into his claims...

~~~
tfinster
The Kitavans are an isolated tribe that eat almost no grains (though lots of
carbs - fruits & vegetables) and are virtually free of cardiovascular disease.
All while smoking excessively.

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/cardiovascular...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/08/cardiovascular-
risk-factors-on-kitava.html)

------
rmason
I had a well meaning physician suggest a glutten free diet and I tried it for
a month. There was absolutely no benefit for me.

A very small percentage of the population is affected by this problem. I don't
know if there's a way to screen people first for susceptibility but I would
think that would be much better advice than a blanket recommendation. But it
wouldn't sell as many books would it?

------
santry
> DINNER: Grilled salmon, roasted green beans, side salad

Aren't green beans legumes?

~~~
tomhoward
It's not black/white but they're generally classed as vegetables, and they
don't have the nutritional problems of bona fide legumes.

