Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Triskjavikson

Uh Oh for Paleo

Recommended Posts

If it's so good he shouldn't have much of a issue getting his findings tested and published in actual scientific journals as scientific papers. Oh wait, a group he helped fund did do studies and they don't support his hypothesis.

 

Also, a calorie is a calorie. Where's my cheque?

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the low carb diets have a lot of benefits to a number of people, but they aren't the panacea to everyone. My mother in law was diabetic and has gone to a severely restrictive low-carb diet where she can't even have fruit. much less grains - but the results are that she is essentially not remotely diabetic in any measurable way.

Paleo adherents need to follow their terminology and eat way more bugs. 

And yeah, the idea that carbs are the devil when at least half the planet eats rice with basically everything and isn't particularly obese seems to be ludicrous. I'd love to hear an explanation about how China maintains reasonable body weights relative to the US. 

Somewhat related to all this, talking with dieticians and doctors more I'm becoming more and more convinced that inflammation is one of, if not the biggest cause of obesity in the US. Rice doesn't cause inflammation - but sugar can, and processed foods often do (including breads), and certain flavorings such as garlic or onions or tomatoes (depending on who you are). There's a lot of good studies on this so far that look promising. I know for myself eating fewer inflammatory foods helps tremendously in mood, energy and weight loss without changing a whole lot of other things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stego said:

Calorie = calorie people are ALWAYS paid for by Coca Cola.

Well, that or; and I know this is a bit radical, but hang with me; or... They actually understand Biology.

 

I know, I know is, knowledge is so pre-2016, whilst hyperbolic lying is very much in vogue right now, but still...

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to put fresh garlic in everything I cooked, just about. Until I realized just how much it made me fart. I’ve dialed it way back and don’t really miss it now.

iirc, in the why we get fat book taubes says that rice eating cultures have less obesity, and no connection between consumption of carbs from rice and rates of obesity and that when the cultures begin consuming more sugar, their rates of obesity go up in direct proportion to the increases in the amount of sugar per person being consumed.

as I recall that book was about the role of added sugar in weight gain, more or less.

the first book, good calorie bad calorie was mostly about shredding the “science” behind most of the official dietary recommendations. While taubes conclusions lead inevitably to low carb and his advocacy there, a good 350 pages are mostly just ripping away the idea that any previous diet advice was based on reasonable scientific study, evidence or reasonable interpretation of the evidence. Most of it has all just been garbage.

still I imagine taubes is ecstatic if this study indicates that obesity is caused by shitty food, not Carby food, that insulin response may be a downstream effect from food quality, that’s hugely important to know.

I’m sure he’ll say that insulin is still important. I would guess he’d say something like: If we discover that a persistent shitty food diet break or short circuit the insulin response (which the leads to obesity) that’s important to discover. And would explain why some people get obese and some don’t from our shitty food culture, because not everyone’s insulin response is going to be broken, just some people who for whatever reason were more vulnerable to their insulin system being broken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stego said:

...

Calorie = calorie people are ALWAYS paid for by Coca Cola. 

...

I'm due money? Nice.

Eh, which one do we mean though? Energy in needs to be equal to energy out? Or all food joules are equal?

Joule = joule is a very crude approach, which actually won't hold up in any closer examination. But it still a good basis. But depends too much on the exact metabolic pathways and efficiencies.

What does seem to be the case time in time is that food that releases energy relatively slowly makes it easier to control intake. Which is where fresh food preparation helps a lot. Which this study again seems to support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

I’m sure he’ll say that insulin is still important. I would guess he’d say something like: If we discover that a persistent shitty food diet break or short circuit the insulin response (which the leads to obesity) that’s important to discover. And would explain why some people get obese and some don’t from our shitty food culture, because not everyone’s insulin response is going to be broken, just some people who for whatever reason were more vulnerable to their insulin system being broken. 

But this most recent study specifically grouped participants by their evaluated insulin response type and still saw no difference.  I'm not saying Taubes is wrong, and I follow his low-sugar advice, but the first really well designed study to address his thesis came up empty.

Diet and health/wellness generally has become an almost religious topic, with
- selection and segregation into distinct tribes of like-minded people (or experimenting constantly looking for a personal fit), 
- a source of tribal identity and virtue signalling, with accepted dogma and sacred texts
- sin and shame attached to "bad" foods that must be restricted, censured and even purged/cleansed
- purity praised and converted into smug piety, vegans especially
- belief taking priority over science (how you feel about your diet trumps all data)

Taubes' great success is challenging us all to have a more scientific and data-driven approach.  That doesn't mean that his personal hypothesis is necessarily right.

As to rice, white rice has a glycemic impact close to sugar.  It's hard to claim insulin response from junk food as a source of obesity but say that white rice doesn't cause the same.  But most of the developing world consuming white rice as a daily staple don't consume enough overall calories to get really obese, at least not until they get western junk food.  Even in Nigeria (west Africa uses a starchy staple called manioc, with a high glycemic impact), obesity is now increasing because western fast food is becoming popular.  But high carb, low calorie diets -- like rice eaters in developing countries -- can still have poor nutrition and carry fat over thin frames with little muscle.  East and south Asian countries sometimes call the phenomenon "skinny fat".  So the absence of serious obesity in the rice-eating developing world doesn't mean that the insulin response isn't a problem, just that it's not aggravated by total calorie load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of bad science in nutrition and health, another author on my shelf: ladies and gentlemen, Brian Wansink!

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/2/28/17061828/joy-of-cooking-brian-wansink-cornell-p-hacking

 

tldr he cherry picked data and selectively filtered it (p hacking) to extreme degrees and is in general going down the tubes right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stego said:

Utter garbage. Embarrassing, really.

This comparison is about weight loss, not health improvement. The scale number doesn't tell us anything useful. 

Calorie = calorie people are ALWAYS paid for by Coca Cola. 

 

Furthermore, Gary Taubes has written the best books on nutrition ever concocted, and you ignore him at your peril. (Literal peril.)

I wasn't going to go that far. But if I was peer reviewing this study for publication I'd have some reservations

 

7 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Same for me.  Cutting back significantly on sugar and high glycemic carbs like rice, potato, bread (I still eat lots of whole fruit of many varieties, even relatively sugary ones) has helped me lose weight and reduce blood sugar, although not by huge amounts because they never got all that high in the first place. But it reversed a trend that would have eventually led to being overweight and pre-diabetic.

Now I find that if I do occasionally indulge in junk food like a large dessert, then it leaves me with real digestive discomfort for several hours.  It helps renew my resolve to steer clear or at least keep the portion size small.  I assume it’s because my gut flora got used to less sugar in my diet and now gets distorted by any large influx. A banana and scoop of almond butter will satisfy a dessert craving without similar problems. 

I get that too, especially if consumed in the evening, which will cause problems when I'm trying to go to sleep (which is hard enough at the best of times). If I consume the same thing earlier in the day then I seem not to suffer to the same extent, and it doesn't disrupt my sleep. I also have a wheat intolerance of some sort, nothing close to coeliacs, but bloat and discomfort with substantial portions of wheat, like a couple of slices of bread, that are worse than with a similar portion of rice, or corn or potatoes. Level of discomfort seems to descend in that order. So something about starchy grains, vs starchy root vegetables as I rarely have any discomfort with potatoes and sweet potatoes even when consumed in the evening, and when I do it's pretty mild, and that includes junk food like potato chips. Bananas are actually not that agreeable to me though I do like them, but most other fruits are easily tolerated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I think it's important to note that the overall protein levels in both cases were controlled and reasonably high. Seems like whatever you choose, as long as it's high in protein you're going to be much better off. 

AND EAT MORE BUGS THEY HAVE OMEGA 3 WE EVOLVED ON BUG EATING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Stego said:

Calorie = calorie people are ALWAYS paid for by Coca Cola. 

Except in this case where they were paid by Gary Taubes. 

I read two of his three books too, and I loved them.  I couldn't believe how much research there was and how much sense the argument seemed to make.  But I do not think that you can say with the confidence that you do that he's so spot on.

Great point upthread about how the low carb group in this study was not in sustained ketosis.  So there's low carb and there's freaking ketosis, and in this study they looked at the former but not the latter.  Still the low carb group in the study ate far fewer carbs than the low fat group with nigh-identical results.  I cannot believe that the insulin hypothesis predicted this.  

@Kalbear You beat me to bringing up inflammation.  I am trying to learn more about this but also think its suspicious.  We've speculated a lot about how much added sugar there is in everything, and there is, but there's also a ton of added vegetable oils that might also be a big culprit.  I hope someone goes Taubesian on that topic to investigate.  

ETA:  Also, per Kallhus' comment on diabetes...this study did show some significant individual variability which the Examine article went into.  I am definitely convinced that for diabetics the insulin thing is huge if not definitional (i want this to be a word).  So it's fascinating that it may be possible there's something close to a line where one crosses over into a diabetic state (syndrome X per Taubes) where the insulin thing really kicks into effect.  Unless I missed something, this study did point out that they didn't see the insulin response many expected as @Iskaral Pust pointed out, but they also weren't using any control groups of diabetics.  

And also, to reiterate for the @Stego fanatics of the world, where Taubes really got his start was with the argument that dietary fat and cholesterol had been majorly unfairly vilified.  i think this study does nothing to refute that and I think that Taubes still looks pretty good on that front.  

Edited by Triskele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Triskele. this is a decent meta-article on inflammation and what it does - and its association with a number of ailments, including diabetes. Pertaining to this discussion, this is interesting: 

Quote

Gastrointestinal tract–microbiota interactions influence host health, and in particular immune function, by promoting the development and maintenance of the mucosal immune system, protecting against pathogen invasion and maintaining gastrointestinal tract barrier integrity( 20 ). Gut permeability to bacterial lipopolysaccharides (LPS), a potent inflammatory stimulant, appears to be an important trigger for low-grade systemic inflammation. LPS are found on the outer membrane of Gram-negative bacteria such as Proteobacteria (e.g. Escherichia coli), and serve as an endotoxin. In the elderly, a higher count of LPS-producing bacteria in the colon, along with a lower abundance of bifidobacteria( 21 , 22 ), a combination which is thought to promote increased gut permeability( 21 ), is likely to lead to higher plasma levels of LPS (termed metabolic endotoxaemia). Through the interaction with Toll-like receptor 4 on mononuclear cells, microbiota-derived LPS may be an important trigger in the development of inflammation and metabolic diseases( 23 ). In a recent dietary intervention study in male C57Bl/6 mice, the alteration in microbiota profiles as a result of a high-fat diet was strongly associated with gut permeability, endotoxaemia and adipose tissue inflammation( 24 ).

Quote

In addition to its role in low-grade inflammatory cardiometabolic conditions, emerging evidence is suggesting that the gut microbiota can influence the risk of high-grade autoimmune inflammatory conditions such as type 1 diabetes mellitus, coeliac disease, inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis( 25  27 ), the incidence of which has risen dramatically since the 1940s.

That being said, the notion that food can be 'anti-inflammatory' is probably not a reasonable idea; it's more likely the case that eating foods which aren't inflammatory in the first place (processed foods, lots of red meat, high trans fats,etc) is a better solution. 

Another interesting study was that having extra fiber at all - no matter what the kind - helps gut bacteria improve tremendously, which is yet another issue for inflammation - but varying it up is the best, so you have a lot of different kinds of dietary fibers - because different dietary fibers affect your gut flora differently. Early to tell on this one, but it looks promising. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding “added sugar in everything”: I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this study seems to show that most of the sugar we eat come from completely predictable sources: 1 (full text pg 29, fig 3.6).

It’s soda, sports drinks, sugary cereal, juice, ice cream, candy... less than 15% of the added sugar comes from regular food. We get fat from eating stuff that we know are bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

Another interesting study was that having extra fiber at all - no matter what the kind - helps gut bacteria improve tremendously, which is yet another issue for inflammation - but varying it up is the best, so you have a lot of different kinds of dietary fibers - because different dietary fibers affect your gut flora differently. Early to tell on this one, but it looks promising. 

I’ve realized over the last year or so that even with a healthier diet, I could still use more dietary fiber than I get from fruit and vegetables.  So I switched to an even higher fiber breakfast cereal, starting taking a pro-biotic supplement that includes inulin, and now I’m taking psyllium husk too.  It’s one of the most effective ways to reduce insulin response, decrease inflammation response and reduce cholesterol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Triskele said:

Except in this case where they were paid by Gary Taubes. 

Great point upthread about how the low carb group in this study was not in sustained ketosis.  So there's low carb and there's freaking ketosis, and in this study they looked at the former but not the latter.  Still the low carb group in the study ate far fewer carbs than the low fat group with nigh-identical results.  I cannot believe that the insulin hypothesis predicted this.  

 

What's interesting is that the low carb people were basically on a maintenance (no weight loss, no weight gain) diet within the low-carb regime, lost statistically the same amount of weight as the low fat people. If you are a tub-o-lard like me and you want to lose a decent amount of weight on low carbs you HAVE follow a sustained ketosis plan until you have lost a substantial amount of the weight you want to lose, then move to the sort of maintenance that this low carb diet group was on.

But when it comes down to it there are two things that seal the low carb option for me. One starts with "c" and ends with "e", the other starts with "b" and ends with "n". 

Also, to throw another bit of recent research out there, on the psychology side there's emerging views that focussing on weight (and body shape / size) is detrimental to efforts to deal with obesity. People should be focussed on figuring out healthy long term nutrition and exercise, and the weight thing will take care of itself. And if you still carry some flab with a good diet and decent exercise regime then that is totally fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

@Triskele. this is a decent meta-article on inflammation and what it does - and its association with a number of ailments, including diabetes. Pertaining to this discussion, this is interesting: 

That being said, the notion that food can be 'anti-inflammatory' is probably not a reasonable idea; it's more likely the case that eating foods which aren't inflammatory in the first place (processed foods, lots of red meat, high trans fats,etc) is a better solution. 

Another interesting study was that having extra fiber at all - no matter what the kind - helps gut bacteria improve tremendously, which is yet another issue for inflammation - but varying it up is the best, so you have a lot of different kinds of dietary fibers - because different dietary fibers affect your gut flora differently. Early to tell on this one, but it looks promising. 

It's wrong to say foods are inflammatory (perhaps some additives and preservatives are, I'm not sure) but the information you quoted only talks about LPS which are inflammatory bits of bacteria. If you have a healthy gut flora, then regardless of diet you won't have a high rate of LPS in the blood stream. If you want to control inflammation you have to take care of the bugs that live inside your gut, that may not necessarily be able to be managed through diet and lots of fibre alone. Some people eat any old shit and they have a great gut microflora. Some people are very health conscious and have a poor gut microflora.

It's early days in this line of research and I suspect the relationship of diet and gut microflora is more complex than just more fibre in the diet and dosing up on pro-biotics and acidophillus on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's wrong to say foods are inflammatory (perhaps some additives and preservatives are, I'm not sure)

No, it doesn't appear to be wrong at all, especially for various types of people who have adverse reactions to specific foods. The study on FODMAP made this pretty clear. 

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

but the information you quoted only talks about LPS which are inflammatory bits of bacteria. If you have a healthy gut flora, then regardless of diet you won't have a high rate of LPS in the blood stream. If you want to control inflammation you have to take care of the bugs that live inside your gut, that may not necessarily be able to be managed through diet and lots of fibre alone. Some people eat any old shit and they have a great gut microflora. Some people are very health conscious and have a poor gut microflora.

It's early days in this line of research and I suspect the relationship of diet and gut microflora is more complex than just more fibre in the diet and dosing up on pro-biotics and acidophillus on a regular basis.

I'm skeptical of probiotics; most studies have shown them to do basically fuckall. But fiber appears to be helpful, especially in restoring ruined gut biomes, largely because many gut flora eat the fiber directly and live on it.

I'm also becoming more convinced that things like diet sweetener kills gut flora, though I've not found a conclusive study for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

Regarding “added sugar in everything”: I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this study seems to show that most of the sugar we eat come from completely predictable sources: 1 (full text pg 29, fig 3.6).

It’s soda, sports drinks, sugary cereal, juice, ice cream, candy... less than 15% of the added sugar comes from regular food. We get fat from eating stuff that we know are bad.

This last point may be accurate, but I think it's still worth pointing out that there is added sugar in so many things from salad dressing to anything in a box.  Maybe that doesn't add up to a significant increase in overall sugar consumption.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

No, it doesn't appear to be wrong at all, especially for various types of people who have adverse reactions to specific foods. The study on FODMAP made this pretty clear. 

 

What you are talking about there is specific intolerances and allergies for individuals, that are immune responses, mostly to proteins. And that can arise in many foods. That doesn't mean a given food is inflammatory.

Are you taking about the association of FODMAP with IBS symptoms? The mechanism of action of FODMAP to induce IBS symptoms isn't inflammation caused by FODMAP. It's the fermentation in the large bowel of those carbohydrates. People already with IBS should avoid FODMAP because they exacerbates the symptoms. They are not a cause of the primary inflammation, however.

There are specific nutrients (such as fatty acids), that can modulate the inflammatory response (mentioned in the paper you linked) either increasing or decreasing inflammation. But if there is no primary inflammation going on those nutrients don't create an inflammatory response. It does seem that eating certain foods when you do have inflammatory processes going on can increase inflammation, and other foods can decrease inflammation, so there do seem to be anti-inflammatory foods (or nutrients), like flavinoids in many fruits and vegetables, and DHA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

No, it doesn't appear to be wrong at all, especially for various types of people who have adverse reactions to specific foods. The study on FODMAP made this pretty clear. 

I'm skeptical of probiotics; most studies have shown them to do basically fuckall. But fiber appears to be helpful, especially in restoring ruined gut biomes, largely because many gut flora eat the fiber directly and live on it.

I'm also becoming more convinced that things like diet sweetener kills gut flora, though I've not found a conclusive study for it. 

The effects of FODMAP oligosaccharides are mainly osmotic and get fermented in the colon and have nothing to do inflammation, inasmuch as many people here are talking about "inflammation" in some nonspecific way. The quoted parts of that article are referring to exposures to very specific proteins on certain bacteria and the associated host response. It's true enough that things like type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid, IBD, and celiac disease have autoimmune bases, but the causes of each involve an interaction between environment and genetic predisposition (especially for IBD and celiac where specific HLA types are implicated). None of this specifically relates to type 2 diabetes which is initially a condition of impaired glucose tolerance, itself something with a hereditary or familial basis. 

Diet sweetener does not kill gut flora inasmuch as things like sorbitol and xylitol are not bactericidal. Antibiotics kill gut flora. Stuff like sorbitol and maltitol don't get absorbed though causing all those wonderful symptoms of bloating, gas, and osmotic diarrhea. 

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

What you are talking about there is specific intolerances and allergies for individuals, that are immune responses, mostly to proteins. And that can arise in many foods. That doesn't mean a given food is inflammatory.

Are you taking about the association of FODMAP with IBS symptoms? The mechanism of action of FODMAP to induce IBS symptoms isn't inflammation caused by FODMAP. It's the fermentation in the large bowel of those carbohydrates. People already with IBS should avoid FODMAP because they exacerbates the symptoms. They are not a cause of the primary inflammation, however.

There are specific nutrients (such as fatty acids), that can modulate the inflammatory response (mentioned in the paper you linked) either increasing or decreasing inflammation. But if there is no primary inflammation going on those nutrients don't create an inflammatory response. It does seem that eating certain foods when you do have inflammatory processes going on can increase inflammation, and other foods can decrease inflammation, so there do seem to be anti-inflammatory foods (or nutrients), like flavinoids in many fruits and vegetables, and DHA.

 

I don't know what's meant by "inflammation" concerning some of these diets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×