Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Nutrition > Paleo Diet

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-20-2008, 02:44 PM   #21
Liam Dougherty Springer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 338
Default

Thanx Steve.
Liam Dougherty Springer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 06:13 AM   #22
Darryl Shaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 706
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike ODonnell View Post
So curious....how does a moderate carb (plant based, not grain) like 30%, moderate protein of 20% and higher fat diet of 50%+ not balance ph out levels? Fat like you said is neutral and you are eating more alkaline sources of food than acidic.
I'm not really quallified to explain the chemistry required to answer this question but luckily for me a quick search found some articles that explain it all for me.

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/nutritio...ols/acid.shtml

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/5/1255

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/4/802

(wfs)

To be honest despite eating a paleo diet for the past twenty years and knowing that paleolithic humans ate an enormous volume of plant foods relative to animal foods I didn't realize why it's so important until my mother was diagnosed with osteoporosis and I started looking into diets that might help her.
I actually had my EUREKA! moment on the plant/animal foods ratio while reading Understanding, Preventing and Overcoming Osteoporosis by Jane Plant and Gill Tidey because it contains a two page chart giving the PRAL values of a variety of foods and most plants foods having an average PRAL value of around -2 (minus two) were on the left hand page whereas most animal foods having a PRAL of +8 or 9 (plus eight/nine) were on the right. Put the two together and basic math proves that to create the slightly alkaline diet we need we have to eat at least three or four times as much plant foods than animal foods.
The important thing here though is this data shows that to keep our bones healthy while maintaining a blood/tissue ph of 7.4 we need to eat exactly the same plant to animal food ratio that we know from studying skeletal remains and coprolites that our ancestors ate during the hundred million plus years we were scavenger-gatherers.

Quote:
That and you have such things as the Inuit paradox, a tribe surviving on fat and protein (high fat) with no high levels of heart disease or cancers. Only when processed foods/sugar/grains were introduced did their health go down very quickly....as inflammation is the real issue spured on by high insulin.
There is no Inuit paradox as far as the ratio of plant/animal is concerned - osteoporosis rates are extremely high amongst Inuits.

Quote:
I understand the concerns for optimal pH (but the body can regulate and balance as well as an overly alkaline pH is not good either)....but if one's carb sources are only plant based....eat as much veggies and fruit as you like...well assuming that one is active and doesn't have weight issues...which is not the lifestyle or condition of people today. The diets of a tribe that was active all day, hunted for food and didn't have obesity as an issue is going to have to be modified for the non-active person of today that already suffers from insulin resistance.

Telling the general public that has no nutritional clue (think a V8 is a vegetable, Cheerios are good for the heart, and Wheat bread should be served with every meal.....which means most of their carbs come from acidic grain sources and worsen the ph equation) to eat most of their diet from carbs is like giving the keys to your new porsche to a 16 yr old....a disaster waiting to happen. Isn't that how we got in the mess we are in today with the advice of more carbs (because who would want to burn fat for energy) and low fat eating?
Actually I don't feel that the advice to eat a paleo diet needs to be modified for todays couch potato because the whole diet/exercise thing is really pretty simple - replace some of the meat, dairy, grains and processed foods you eat with some fruit and vegetables and do some exercise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike ODonnell View Post
So when overweight nutritionists and doctors come to me for advice on how to eat to lose weight....seems a little silly I would want to listen to anything they have to say on what they learned about nutrition.
Agreed; I've yet to meet a doctor who has a clue about nutrition.

Quote:
That and %s are useless without the majority of attention focused on total calories.
Agreed; percentages are useless but I thought I should use them as that's what the OP used. I prefer to think of food in terms of volume rather than calories as it's almost impossible to overeat on a paleo diet due the high fibre content of most paleo foods.
Darryl Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 06:28 AM   #23
Darryl Shaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 706
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arien Malec View Post
Darryl, if you look back at this thread, you'll realize that the original instructors are arguing for a grain-based high carbohydrate diet. If you want to argue that point, go for it, but you'll be wrong. I think you are arguing for a high paleo carbohydrate diet -- I'm not sure if you are arguing for high paleo carbs by volume or by calories -- there's a huge difference since paleo carbs tend not to be nutrient dense.

As I'm sure you also know, our paleolithic ancestors subsisted on a wide range of foods, from the Inuit who ate a high fat very low carbohydrate diet, and did quite well, to the pacific islanders who ate mostly coconuts and fish, to the !Kung San who eat 60% (by volume) mongongo nuts and meat, 40% plants, and by calories, eat 60% fat, to Native Americans, who ate anywhere between high fat and protein diets supplemented by plants, to California Natives, who ate 50% acorns, by volume.

You aren't going to find paleolithic evidence for high grain or sugar-based carbohydrate diets, which is what the dietary reference in the original post was advocating.

Again, if you want to argue for a diet that is high in greens, tubers such as turnips and sweet potatoes, and fermented corn, you can find some justification in our nutritional past and in the nutritional present in longer lived communities. But that's not what's being argued by the nutritionists, and there's equal evidence for a high fat moderate protein diet supplemented by plant material.
You're right; I forgot about the mongongo nuts so I was a little out on the !Kung Sans macronutrient ratios but this would vary with the seasons anyway so it's not that important. What I was trying to do was explain to the OP how the macronutrient ratios he's being taught might fit in with a paleo diet so I wasn't trying to suggest that he follow their advice re. grains and dairy and if you go back to my first post in this thread you'll find that I specifically advised against the consumption of grains.

As for the confusion re. volume vs calories I think I confused myself a little on that one. I usually advise people interested in eating a paleo diet to forget about calories and just make sure that the bulk of the food they eat, at least 60 - 70% by volume, comes from plants with the rest coming from meat, fish, eggs etc.
Darryl Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 08:47 AM   #24
Mike ODonnell
Senior Member
 
Mike ODonnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,596
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Shaw View Post
To be honest despite eating a paleo diet for the past twenty years and knowing that paleolithic humans ate an enormous volume of plant foods relative to animal foods I didn't realize why it's so important until my mother was diagnosed with osteoporosis and I started looking into diets that might help her. I actually had my EUREKA! moment on the plant/animal foods ratio while reading Understanding, Preventing and Overcoming Osteoporosis by Jane Plant and Gill Tidey because it contains a two page chart giving the PRAL values of a variety of foods and most plants foods having an average PRAL value of around -2 (minus two) were on the left hand page whereas most animal foods having a PRAL of +8 or 9 (plus eight/nine) were on the right. Put the two together and basic math proves that to create the slightly alkaline diet we need we have to eat at least three or four times as much plant foods than animal foods. The important thing here though is this data shows that to keep our bones healthy while maintaining a blood/tissue ph of 7.4 we need to eat exactly the same plant to animal food ratio that we know from studying skeletal remains and coprolites that our ancestors ate during the hundred million plus years we were scavenger-gatherers.


There is no Inuit paradox as far as the ratio of plant/animal is concerned - osteoporosis rates are extremely high amongst Inuits.
While I agree trying to get a pH balance to prevent osteoporsis is ideal.....it's hardly the only factor. In fact lack of Vit D (sunshine vitamin) plays a bigger role IMO. That and also considering most people with osteoporsis do not lift heavy weights to stimulate stronger bone growth. Loss of calcium as an alkaline mineral is just one part of the equation.

Also less acidic choices like fish can be an alternative to red meat. Honestly meat is the least of most people's concerns regarding pH....seeing how much coffee, soda, grains, sugar, dairy and cheese people eat/drink. (highly acidic)
__________________
Fitness Spotlight
The IF Life

Last edited by Mike ODonnell; 07-21-2008 at 03:20 PM.
Mike ODonnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 10:43 AM   #25
Arien Malec
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Shaw View Post
There is no Inuit paradox as far as the ratio of plant/animal is concerned - osteoporosis rates are extremely high amongst Inuits.
Lack of sun is a more likely cause than plant deficiency.
Arien Malec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2008, 03:12 PM   #26
Mike ODonnell
Senior Member
 
Mike ODonnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,596
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arien Malec View Post
Lack of sun is a more likely cause than plant deficiency.
My money is on the study of bone loss comes far after the Inuit got away from their original primal diet of meat/fat and the influx of processed foods and sugar came into their society and took the toll on them....along with the lack of sunshine exposure and alcohol consumption.

Here's an interesting article (worth reading) with some highlights below.
http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtbones.html

Quote:
The authors of the study attribute the decline in bone mass to the high protein diet of the Eskimos, especially its high meat content. Some studies with animals, as well as further studies with humans, given diets high in protein also indicate a greater loss of calcium and thinner bones than controls on low protein regimes.

Although he did not directly study bone density in these peoples, he did study their teeth. He found that groups on high meat diets--including Alaskan Eskimos--had a high immunity to tooth decay, were sturdy and strong, and virtually free from degenerative disease. Groups subsisting mainly on plant foods were less robust and had more tooth decay. Pre-Columbian skeletons of American Indians whose diets consisted largely of meat show no osteoporosis, while those of Indians on largely vegetarian diets indicate a high incidence of osteoporosis and other types of bone degeneration. The implication of Dr. Price's research and other anthropoligical studies is that high meat diets protect against osteoporosis.

The "acid-ash" of meat is given as the reason high meat diets cause bone loss. But meats also supply phosphorus, which counteracts this acidity. Phosphorus is needed for the phosphate component of bone matter. Meats are also excellent sources of vitamin B12, which plays a recently discovered but little understood role in maintaining the integrity of the bones.

But sodium fluoride added to drinking water is one of a number of substances that is harmful to our bones. It causes an apparent increase in bone mass, but the bone structure is abnormal and weak.18 Recent studies indicate that hip fractures are more common in areas where water is fluoridated.

Osteoporosis is often associated with excess consumption of alcohol.23 This is the likely explanation of bone loss in Eskimos, who are highly prone to alcoholism.

Even small changes in the native diet of carnivorous populations render them vulnerable to degenerative disease like osteoporosis and alcoholism. A recent article on the Canadian Inuits indicates that commercial foods like jam, white bread and peanut butter have replaced some of the meat in their diet, even while they continue to maintain a traditional lifestyle.

Individuals who find they do better on high meat diets need not, therefore, worry about osteoporosis, as long as their diet includes complementary animal fats, plenty of calcium and a variety of other properly prepared whole foods.
To think red meat or high protein is the culprit....would mean that by now I should be about as brittle as Samuel L. Jackson playing Mr Glass in the movie Unbreakable....but so far so good as I continue to crash into hockey boards and flip over the handlebars of my mountain bike.....although need to work on that.
__________________
Fitness Spotlight
The IF Life

Last edited by Mike ODonnell; 07-21-2008 at 03:24 PM.
Mike ODonnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2008, 05:44 AM   #27
Darryl Shaw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 706
Default

Arien & Mike,

Sorry, but you're both wrong. Using rates of hip fracture incidence (HFI) in 50 year old women per 100,000 person-years as an indication of overall bone health amongst the population there is no correlation between exposure to sunlight or vitamin D levels and bone health.

HFI rates per 100,000 50 Year Old Women in 33 Countries*
Nigeria 0.8
China 2.9
New Guinea 3.1
Thailand 5.0
South Africa 7.7
Korea 11.5
Singapore 21.6
Malaysia 26.6
Yugoslavia 33.5
Saudi Arabia 47.3
Chile 56.8
Italy 57.2
Holland 60.7
Spain 65.1
Japan 67.3
Hong Kong 69.2
Isreal 75.5
Ireland 76.0
France 77.0
Finland 93.5
Canada 110.3
Crete 113.0
United Kingdom 116.5
Portugal 119.8
USA 120.3
Australia 124.8
Switzerland 129.4
New Zealand 139.0
Argentina 147.8
Denmark 165.1
Sweden 172.0
Norway 186.7
Germany 199.3

The point I'm trying to make here is the ratio of acid to alkaline forming foods that maintains your blood and tissues at ph7.4 without your body having to use your skeleton to balance things out is almost exactly the same ratio of plant to animal foods that our earliest ancestors ate ie. 70 - 80% gathered foods (fruit, berries, roots, tubers, nuts, seeds etc) and 20 - 30% scavenged/hunted foods (meat, fish, eggs, insects etc).

*Source: Understanding, Preventing and Overcoming Osteoporosis by Professor Jane Plant and Gill Tidy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike ODonnell
My money is on the study of bone loss comes far after the Inuit got away from their original primal diet of meat/fat and the influx of processed foods and sugar came into their society and took the toll on them....along with the lack of sunshine exposure and alcohol consumption.
People have only been living as far north as the Inuits for about 1000 years so how can their diet be considered primal or in any way representative of the diet we ate during the 250,000 or so years homo sapiens spent as gatherer/scavengers and then hunter/gatherers in Africa?
Darryl Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2008, 08:54 AM   #28
Garrett Smith
Senior Member
 
Garrett Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 4,368
Default

As a licensed naturopathic physician, I can prescribe nutrition programs. We refer to nutrition prescribed to treat specific conditions as "clinical nutrition".

I got my undergrad degree in physiology with a split minor in nutrition and chemistry. ND school was four more years past undergrad. Note that not all the US states license NDs.

For more info on accredited (note--not home/correspondence unaccredited/unlicensable schools) naturopathic colleges, see the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges.
__________________
Garrett Smith NMD CSCS BS, aka "Dr. G"
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Blood, Saliva, and Stool Testing
My radio show - The Path to Strength and Health
Garrett Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2008, 08:54 AM   #29
Mike ODonnell
Senior Member
 
Mike ODonnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,596
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Shaw View Post
Sorry, but you're both wrong. Using rates of hip fracture incidence (HFI) in 50 year old women per 100,000 person-years as an indication of overall bone health amongst the population there is no correlation between exposure to sunlight or vitamin D levels and bone health.
The fact that you are using women as your example, doesn't that point to something else being a larger factor in osteoporosis....like Estrogen and it's role with Calcium/Vit D utilization? Considering men eat way more meat than women too.

Quote:
The point I'm trying to make here is the ratio of acid to alkaline forming foods that maintains your blood and tissues at ph7.4 without your body having to use your skeleton to balance things out is almost exactly the same ratio of plant to animal foods that our earliest ancestors ate ie. 70 - 80% gathered foods (fruit, berries, roots, tubers, nuts, seeds etc) and 20 - 30% scavenged/hunted foods (meat, fish, eggs, insects etc).
Honestly I don't care if someone wants to eat 70% veggies, I am sure they will be healthier for it, maybe...or maybe not...as a fat vegetarian eating tons of calories from carbs like carrot sticks all day...will still be overweight with increased risk of diabetes. (BUT in actuality the % is not going to matter as much as the total calories, which will have a greater health impact altogether, positive or negative) The point that I was trying to make since this thread started....is that when dealing with real people in today's world....they will not easily drop their grains and sugars to eat Paleo. So telling them to eat 65% carbs (which was the recommendation of the course outline with no specification to what kind of foods) is possibly the dumbest thing you can do with the general public when you know they will continue with grains/breads or other high calorie substitutions (as that is what they think carbs are) and decrease their health. Not too mention if you are dealing with an obese person with onset of diabetes/insulin resistance/fatty liver.....carbs should be restricted as much as they can be for optimal healing. (You can eat a lb of celery...but that isn't going to amount to that many carbs anyways) Could always bring up every low carb study ever done and how it reverses most all ill-health parameters. That and could you please tell me one "essential" sugar the body needs?

Honestly...the whole Paleo argument becomes irrational and impractical if you don't apply it to the conditions of people and food availability of today (or better words may be "people's food choices"). Not too mention how do the ratios of high carb intake for a tribe of people highly active, already lean, lower overall calorie intake, with low fasting insulin levels relate to overweight, non-active, overeating, high fasting insulin levels people of today? It doesn't! The greatest factor on % of carbs is going to be the person's starting insulin resistance factor and activity level...that should be the determining factor.

In the end I think we can agree...meat/fish, veggies, some fruit, healthy fats, be active, get some sun, sleep and don't overeat....that's 95% of results and health. The other 5% aren't worth arguing over.
__________________
Fitness Spotlight
The IF Life

Last edited by Mike ODonnell; 07-22-2008 at 10:32 AM.
Mike ODonnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2008, 11:25 AM   #30
Kevin Perry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,672
Default

This tuned out to be a good thread, but yes the original recommendation was on a high carb diet that ranged upwards of 60 - 65 % carbs for regular people and as much as 70% carbs for athletes or highly active individuals and of course the guideline was the food pyramid which obviously is biased towards high calorie carbs especially grains, pastas, ect. Personally, I strive for a 40/30/30 split and I think the basic CF prescription is a excellent base to work from. Whole foods make better than processed foods. I can't comment on ph balance and bone loss since I don't know much about that yet.

P.S. not related but I turned down a job offer by a commercal gym today because of a comment made by the manager about nutrition not being as important. I think it was a petty typical gym commet.

"We are not one of thos bodybuilding nutrition pushing places, we are more of the get in your cardiovascular exercise and eat what you wish type of place".

He said this with a big cake placed on the table for someone's birthday as overweight clients were walking by.

DId'nt know whether to laugh or if i should have been shocked.
Kevin Perry is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.