Palaeolithic/Paleolithic / Caveman / Paleo Diet / Paleodiet

[webslave]

It sounds like you're not eating enough in general. Also, while you're eating gluten-free you're still eating foods that have the same effects as gluten in your body. There are proteins found in dairy products, legumes, and ALL grains (including rice) called lectins that act very similarly to gluten in the body, although gluten is more noxious in general. Not to mention that your diet in general is just not healthy. Potato chips are fried in vegetable oils that are loaded with omega-6 fats which promote inflammation. Consuming milk is almost as bad as consuming gluten. Beans are a no-no on a gluten-free diet because the lectins in them have the same effect on your digestive tract and are nearly as neurotoxic. I healthy diet is one that eliminate all grains, beans, dairy, and processed foods (or at least greatly reduces there intake to occasional treats) and focuses on fresh meats, fish, eggs (be careful here though, eggs are highly allergenic for some people), nuts and seeds, fruits, vegetables, and tubers and healthy fats from pastured animal products and acceptable vegetable oils like olive oil and coconut oil. Google "paleo diet" for more info. As for gaining weight, I'd say get healthy first, then focus on gaining weight. But if you insist on it there are a few strategies.

Please provide a scientific source for this. I have celiac disease but I eat a lot of beans.

[painman]

No problem webslave.

Here are a few, although there are more that I'd have to dig to find:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0000687

http://journals.cambridge.org/download. ... f617ba24df

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47893661/9/In ... -in-Humans

There is also a good text book called Lectins and Pathology that can be found on amazon.com, although it quite pricey (I think close to $100), but it goes into great detail explaining the effects lectins have on human health.

Webslave, have you tried a paleo-type diet? Basically you eat no legumes, dairy, or grains. It's the same as the diet I described above. Many have found great benefit with this diet with all sorts of health conditions. Terry Wahls, a sufferer of MS who was wheel chair bound was able to get out of her wheel chair and resume an active life (even riding her bike to work everyday) with a paleo diet. Here's the link to that video (very inspirational and provides hope for people like us): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc

[webslave]

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0000687

That is a study about improperly cooked legumes, so not really relevant to the legumes we all eat, which are properly cooked.

http://journals.cambridge.org/download. ... f617ba24df

"File not available".

http://www.scribd.com/doc/47893661/9/In ... -in-Humans

That link goes to a long paper called "Potential Therapeutic Characteristics of Pre-agricultural Diets in the Prevention and Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis". This paper is not published, as far as I can tell by checking Medline (Pubmed). Please in future use Pubmed to refer to papers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

As least that way we are talking about peer-reviewed published science and not merely someone's self-published pet theory.

There is also a good text book called Lectins and Pathology that can be found on amazon.com,

"Lectins" do not = legumes. Lectins are made inside the human body. Indeed they occur ubiquitously in nature, in plants and animals.

Of course, legumes do contain lectins. What does wikipedia say about the toxicity of lectins?

Foods with high concentrations of lectins, such as beans, cereal grains, seeds, and nuts, may be harmful if consumed in excess in uncooked or improperly cooked form. Adverse effects may include nutritional deficiencies, and immune (allergic) reactions. Possibly, most effects of lectins are due to gastrointestinal distress through interaction of the lectins with the gut epithelial cells. A recent in vitro study has suggested that the mechanism of lectin damage may occur by interfering with the repair of already-damaged epithelial cells.

Webslave, have you tried a paleo-type diet? Basically you eat no legumes, dairy, or grains.

Here is a 2010 outline by Cordain et al of a paleo diet



This diet eliminates many allergens, specifically those that cause gluten-related pathologies. I avoid gluten grains, as well as corn and oats (both affect me badly in different ways), and I avoid milk (I am lactose intolerant). However, I am quite well on a diet that includes legumes (but not soybeans, peanuts or red kidney beans) and a significant amount of sugar and rice, so I'll pass on the paleo diet. My food choices are already restricted enough

[painman]

I agree that lectins do not = legumes, I should have been more clear on my point. But to use the argument that since lectins occur naturally in the body is equivocal to suggesting that since beneficial bacteria exist in our intestines consuming E. coli contaminated meat is completely harmless. The lectins that are involved in our cellular function are there for a purpose and we've evolved with them. Lectins from post-agricultural foods like grains, beans, and dairy have been found to be potentially pathogenic. You state that in the first study the lectins present were a result of improper preparation, but the way most Americans prepare their legumes is not proper.

Take a look at this abstract: http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21374488

From the abstract text:

Therefore, before they can be used safely, legume-based food/ feeds usually require thorough and expensive heat processing to inactivate antinutritive components. Indeed, dry or moist heating of seeds at 70°C for several h has little or no effect on their lectin activity (Fig. 1) and treatment at much higher temperatures is needed to inactivate the biological and antinutritional effects of legume lectins (1, 2). The safety aspect is even more serious with some monocot lectins, such as wheatgerm agglutinin or a number of oilseed lectins, such as peanut agglutinin and many others because they are extremely heat stable and normal cooking or other conventional heat treatments may fail to inactivate them (3) Thus, the best way to avoid potential harmful effects of these heat-resistant lectins is to limit their dietary intake to a minimum.

Also take a look at this one : http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21374486

Note that this text is from 1998. Studies have since demonstrated that lectins do indeed enter peripheral circulation after ingestion.

Also, the wikipedia text that you quote actually supports my point. Lectins prevent the repair of damaged epithelial cells in the gut, which is exactly what happens in celiac disease.

I'm not necessarily saying that legumes are terrible and that they will destroy everyone's health, but there is reason to be concerned about their consumption, especially is you already have compromised intestinal permeability (ie celiac). In my personal experience most people do much better once they eliminate legumes and find that they react poorly to them when they reintroduce them to the diet, especially celiacs. In fact I've never come across a single celiac who was able to consume legumes without having digestive symptoms (and in many cases other issues like joint pain). I'd be very curious to see how you fair on a paleo die (in fact I'd be amazed if you didn't feel better, but I don't think I'll have much luck convincing you to try

In any case, you have stated that you recovered from CFS and chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome while on your current diet so you must be doing something right.

[webslave]

In support of your position I found this 1999 paper by a known paleo diet proponent Do dietary lectins cause disease? (BMJ. 1999 April 17; 318(7190): 1023–1024.)

On the other hand, there are literally hundreds of studies (example) averring that grain and legume intake is very healthy.

What to do?

Non-partisan studies on palaeolithic diets are sometimes somewhat equivocal, eg Paleolithic diets as a model for prevention and treatment of Western disease that states:

Available evidence lends weak support in favor and little against the notion that lean meat, fish, vegetables, tubers, and fruit can be effective in the prevention and treatment of common Western diseases. There are no obvious risks with avoiding dairy products, margarine, oils, refined sugar, and cereal grains, which provide 70% or more of the dietary intake in northern European populations. If stroke, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer are preventable by dietary changes, an ancestral-like diet may provide an appropriate template

Another recent study finds that "the historical narratives and scientific arguments presented in the low-carbohydrate literature are beset with generalisations, inconsistencies and errors." Not encouraging, is it?

Yet another finds that although twentieth century hunter-gathers are generally free of cardiovascular disease, that could be because the diet operated synergistically with lifestyle characteristics (more exercise, less stress and no smoking) to lower incidence of cardiovascular disease. Certainly a non-smoking, high exercise, stress free lifestyle has proved to be healthy in many studies, with or without a paleo-diet.

Having read about 20 study abstracts promoting paleo diets, I note that not all of them mention legumes. They do all mention grains. I do accept, however, that paleo diets probably did not contain many legumes because most legumes require extensive soaking and cooking. But then who has not picked and eaten delicious, sweet young peas growing on the vine, raw? I'm sure ancient populations did likewise. Which brings up another thought: beans ain't beans. Every legume is slightly different. Some are difficult to digest (e.g. red kidney beans), others easy (pinto, butter, etc). Moreover, the study you cited mentioned that lectins are not inactivated at 70°C. But in fact they are inactivated at 100°C, as shown in this study, that says lectin inactivation occurred at 100°C and that "more than 90% of all the original antinutrient level in the raw meal were destroyed when meals were heated at 100 degrees C for 5 min." Considering that commercially cooked beans are prepared at 120°C in a pressure cooker for longer than 5 minutes, and that home-cooked beans are presoaked and then prepared in a pressure cooker for up to 25 minutes, one wonders if any lectins remain!

A final caution about deciding what a paleo diet should be comes from this 2009 study:

...the diet composition of the individual hunter-gatherer groups varied considerably and ranged from a nearly pure animal-based diet to a diet dominated by plants. All in all the eating behaviour of prehistoric humans was, like that of their pleistocene ancestors, very flexible. Except for focussing on an energy and nutrient-rich diet there was neither specialization in certain foods, nor a typical plant-animal ratio nor a defined macronutrient distribution. Correspondingly, it is impossible to justify details given by representatives of evolutionary medicine on "the Paleolithic diet" empirically.

[painman]

In support of your position I found this 1999 paper by a known paleo diet proponent Do dietary lectins cause disease? (BMJ. 1999 April 17; 318(7190): 1023–1024.)

Thanks for posting. I've read this before.

On the other hand, there are literally hundreds of studies (example) averring that grain and legume intake is very healthy.

True, but virtually all of those studies are epidemiological. Clinical trials are the gold standard in scientific research and the clinical trials comparing a paleo-style diet to conventional "healthy" diets that contain grains and beans have found the paleo diet to be far superior. Have a look:

Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.

A Palaeolithic diet improves glucose tolerance more than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischaemic heart disease.

Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study.

Effects of a short-term intervention with a paleolithic diet in healthy volunteers

What to do?

Non-partisan studies on palaeolithic diets are sometimes somewhat equivocal, eg Paleolithic diets as a model for prevention and treatment of Western disease that states:

Available evidence lends weak support in favor and little against the notion that lean meat, fish, vegetables, tubers, and fruit can be effective in the prevention and treatment of common Western diseases. There are no obvious risks with avoiding dairy products, margarine, oils, refined sugar, and cereal grains, which provide 70% or more of the dietary intake in northern European populations. If stroke, coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer are preventable by dietary changes, an ancestral-like diet may provide an appropriate template

Another recent study finds that "the historical narratives and scientific arguments presented in the low-carbohydrate literature are beset with generalisations, inconsistencies and errors." Not encouraging, is it?

This is nothing more than a person's opinion. The reference that the author makes to a paleolithic diet as "low-carbohydrate" demonstrates his lack of understanding of what comprises a paleolithic diet. It's true that many faddish paleo diet "gurus" promote a low-cabohydrate version of a paleo diet, but this does not reflect on the validity of the clinical trials that prove the effectiveness of a paleolithic diet. A true paleolithic diet (like the kind used in studies) is moderate in carbohydrate and allows for ad libitum consumption of fruits and vegetables.

Yet another finds that although twentieth century hunter-gathers are generally free of cardiovascular disease, that could be because the diet operated synergistically with lifestyle characteristics (more exercise, less stress and no smoking) to lower incidence of cardiovascular disease. Certainly a non-smoking, high exercise, stress free lifestyle has proved to be healthy in many studies, with or without a paleo-diet.

No argument here at all. Other factors definitely come into play. However, considering the above clinical trials, it's quite clear that nutrition plays a key role in disease processes.

Having read about 20 study abstracts promoting paleo diets, I note that not all of them mention legumes. They do all mention grains. I do accept, however, that paleo diets probably did not contain many legumes because most legumes require extensive soaking and cooking. But then who has not picked and eaten delicious, sweet young peas growing on the vine, raw? I'm sure ancient populations did likewise. Which brings up another thought: beans ain't beans. Every legume is slightly different. Some are difficult to digest (e.g. red kidney beans), others easy (pinto, butter, etc). Moreover, the study you cited mentioned that lectins are not inactivated at 70°C. But in fact they are inactivated at 100°C, as shown in this study, that says lectin inactivation occurred at 100°C and that "more than 90% of all the original antinutrient level in the raw meal were destroyed when meals were heated at 100 degrees C for 5 min." Considering that commercially cooked beans are prepared at 120°C in a pressure cooker for longer than 5 minutes, and that home-cooked beans are presoaked and then prepared in a pressure cooker for up to 25 minutes, one wonders if any lectins remain!

Thanks for the link to that study. No arguments there, although I'd mention that lectins are not the only antinutritive component of legumes (and grains). Other antinutritive substances such as saponins, phytates, tannins, pyroxidine glucoside, trypsin inhibitors.....the list goes on. Additionally, considering that many people (myself included) develop digestive symptoms and other signs of increased intestinal permeability after consuming legumes I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some lectins (or some other antinutrient) remain even after adequate cooking.

A final caution about deciding what a paleo diet should be comes from this 2009 study:

...the diet composition of the individual hunter-gatherer groups varied considerably and ranged from a nearly pure animal-based diet to a diet dominated by plants. All in all the eating behaviour of prehistoric humans was, like that of their pleistocene ancestors, very flexible. Except for focussing on an energy and nutrient-rich diet there was neither specialization in certain foods, nor a typical plant-animal ratio nor a defined macronutrient distribution. Correspondingly, it is impossible to justify details given by representatives of evolutionary medicine on "the Paleolithic diet" empirically.

Again, no argument here. The goal of a paleolithic diet is not eat exactly like our ancestors, but rather to mimic it to a large enough degree to obtain health benefits. The key characteristic that delineates a paleolithic diet from another diet is what it lacks: Grain, legume, and dairy items.

In any case, I say do what works for you, but I will say that I'd be absolutely astonished if you didn't see health improvements by switching to a paleolithic diet, especially considering your celiac disease and allergy issues. Thanks for a good discussion, I enjoy bouncing these ideas around.

[webslave]

On the other hand, there are literally hundreds of studies (example) averring that grain and legume intake is very healthy.

True, but virtually all of those studies are epidemiological. Clinical trials are the gold standard in scientific research and the clinical trials comparing a paleo-style diet to conventional "healthy" diets that contain grains and beans have found the paleo diet to be far superior. Have a look:

Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.

Your linked study had only 9 patients (low powered), no control group, & very short duration. Just sayin' ... not gold standard science. (and BTW, it has no mention of legumes)

A Palaeolithic diet improves glucose tolerance more than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischaemic heart disease.

Multivariate analysis made the results of this one iffy. But it is suggestive of better glucose tolerance in people who avoid grains. (and BTW, it has no mention of legumes)

Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study.

This study proves that a diet that is "mainly lower in cereals and dairy products" is good for diabetics. Seems sensible. (and BTW, it has no mention of legumes)

Effects of a short-term intervention with a paleolithic diet in healthy volunteers

A pilot study, not a clinical trial, with inconclusive but suggestive results.

In actual fact, the science behind the paleo diet movement is unfortunately a little weak. And it would be a mistake to say that all the science supporting the consumption of a full diet, including grains and legumes, is epidemiological in nature. It's not. There are numerous clinical trials.

No arguments there, although I'd mention that lectins are not the only antinutritive component of legumes (and grains). Other antinutritive substances such as saponins, phytates, tannins, pyroxidine glucoside, trypsin inhibitors.....the list goes on. Additionally, considering that many people (myself included) develop digestive symptoms and other signs of increased intestinal permeability after consuming legumes I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some lectins (or some other antinutrient) remain even after adequate cooking.

I contend that proper cooking will remove the vast majority of antinutritives. Try it. Get some beans, presoak them in water for a day or so (changing the water frequently), and pressure cook until tender. Millions of people eat beans without sequelae, for example in hummus.

This is not the only example of a food that requires extensive preparation. For instance, look at cassava, the staple of Africa, that is full of anti-nutrition factors and toxins, yet it's a staple for around 500 million people.

You may want to scan this article: Paleo Diet is incompetent to a new level: legumes are not antinutrients. The author (a Stanford Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry) makes a few trenchant points about how proper preparation removes antinutrients. More or less what I've been saying, except he's an expert.

Lastly, let me revisit some of the things you said in your original post:

Also, while you're eating gluten-free you're still eating foods that have the same effects as gluten in your body. There are proteins found in dairy products, legumes, and ALL grains (including rice) called lectins that act very similarly to gluten in the body, although gluten is more noxious in general.

That is simply not true. Gluten has very distinct activity in the human body, and especially in celiacs, that are not "the same" as other grains, or proteins in milk, or lectins in legumes. That is established medical science.

Potato chips are fried in vegetable oils that are loaded with omega-6 fats which promote inflammation.

Omega-6 oils are in fact essential for health, but it's true that their intake should be balanced with omega-3 oils, and it's also true we eat too many omega-6 oils in the modern diet.

Consuming milk is almost as bad as consuming gluten.

Er, no. If you are a celiac or have gluten allergy or intolerance, this statement is nonsense. Ruminant milk is best consumed by ruminant calves, and not humans, but to claim it is as bad as gluten (which causes autoimmunity disease in celiacs) is absurd. A good reason to avoid milk is that it is full of cow hormones. There is a Harvard study that links natural hormones in milk from conventionally raised cows to cancer. Listen to a talk about it here: http://media.blubrry.com/diet/content.b ... 022012.mp3 Dairy products are also associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer.

A healthy diet is one that eliminates ... processed foods ... and focuses on ... nuts and seeds ... healthy fats from pastured animal products and acceptable vegetable oils like olive oil and coconut oil

Disagree with a lot here too:

1. "Processed foods" is such a wide term. Cassava is processed, as I pointed out above. Almost all foods are processed in some way or another. Processing beans effectively makes them fully digestible (even the gaseous effects are eliminated as the bowel adjusts). Cooking is processing. It's a meaningless statement.
2. "Nuts and seeds" — nuts are one of the most allergenic of all foods, full of lectins and substances to irritate the digestive tracts of animals that consume them. Legumes are seeds. Sunflower seeds are full of omega-6, which you regard as pro-inflammatory. Your position is not coherent.
3. "Healthy fats from pastured animal products" — not sure what this means. Lard? What healthy fats can you get from pastured animals?

[painman]

Your linked study had only 9 patients (low powered), no control group, & very short duration. Just sayin' ... not gold standard science. (and BTW, it has no mention of legumes)

The very definition of a paleolithic diet exludes legumes. If you are able to get a copy of the full text you'll see that the paleolithic group in all of the studies I posted avoided legumes for the duration of the study.

Multivariate analysis made the results of this one iffy. But it is suggestive of better glucose tolerance in people who avoid grains. (and BTW, it has no mention of legumes)

Participants with diabetes no longer had diabetes after 3 months on a paleolithic diet. This is a profound finding considering the health, financial, and emotional consequences of a condition like diabetes. More research is obviously needed, but this is highly compelling. Subjects in the paleo group did not eat legumes during the study. Read the full text if possible.

This study proves that a diet that is "mainly lower in cereals and dairy products" is good for diabetics. Seems sensible. (and BTW, it has no mention of legumes)

Again, no legumes in paleo group, read the full text.

In actual fact, the science behind the paleo diet movement is unfortunately a little weak. And it would be a mistake to say that all the science supporting the consumption of a full diet, including grains and legumes, is epidemiological in nature. It's not. There are numerous clinical trials.

Can you provide a link to a study that demonstrates the superiority of a diet incluing grains and legume to a paleolithic diet? No doubt there are studies showing that a diet containing grains a legumes as a part of a whole foods diet is healthier than a standard American diet, but this does not mean that a grain/legume containing diet is ideal.

I contend that proper cooking will remove the vast majority of antinutritives. Try it. Get some beans, presoak them in water for a day or so (changing the water frequently), and pressure cook until tender. Millions of people eat beans without sequelae, for example in hummus.

I have tried it. Many times. I've also tried sprouted and fermented frms of several varieties of legumes and have still reacted poorly.

That is simply not true. Gluten has very distinct activity in the human body, and especially in celiacs, that are not "the same" as other grains, or proteins in milk, or lectins in legumes. That is established medical science.

I never said they were the same. I said that they can act similarly in the body. They can. See the research on lectins and epithelial cells that we've already discussed.

Omega-6 oils are in fact essential for health, but it's true that their intake should be balanced with omega-3 oils, and it's also true we eat too many omega-6 oils in the modern diet.

I never said they were not essential. The American diet is far to high in omega-6 fats. Mostly from processed vegetable oils and foods that contain them like potato chips (hence my statement that they are unhealthy). Animal fats from conventionally raised animals are also a contributing factor to high omega-6 consumptions and pastured animal products are a healthy alternative due to their more balanced omega-6/omega-3 ratio. Most people will benefit from reducing their omega-6 intake.

Consuming milk is almost as bad as consuming gluten.

"Er, no. If you are a celiac or have gluten allergy or intolerance, this statement is nonsense.

I wasn't suggesting that they operate the same in the body, but that they simply have detrimental effects on health. This is a good review of the research on milks pathogenicity: http://thepaleodiet.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... -milk.html

Disagree with a lot here too:

1. "Processed foods" is such a wide term. Cassava is processed, as I pointed out above. Almost all foods are processed in some way or another. Processing beans effectively makes them fully digestible (even the gaseous effects are eliminated as the bowel adjusts). Cooking is processing. It's a meaningless statement.
2. "Nuts and seeds" — nuts are one of the most allergenic of all foods, full of lectins and substances to irritate the digestive tracts of animals that consume them. Legumes are seeds. Sunflower seeds are full of omega-6, which you regard as pro-inflammatory. Your position is not coherent.
3. "Healthy fats from pastured animal products" — not sure what this means. Lard? What healthy fats can you get from pastured animals?"

I should have said industrially processed. Things like refined grains, sugar, hydrogenated oils,, vegetable oils and really any other item that can't be prepared using the tools that you find in an average kitchen. I make an exception with olive oil and coconut oil because they have been shown to have health benefits (unlike most other vegetable oils) and are good for use in cooking.

You acknowledge that nuts contain lectins and can irritate the gut, but you say that legumes are completely harmless even though they too contain lectins. If eaten in large quantities nuts should be prepared to eliminate antinutrients, but they are not a major component of a paleolithic diet due to their high omega-6 content, and are eliminated in situations of autoimmunity.

Yes, animal fats are a healthy component of a diet if they are pastured due to a much better omega-6/omega-3 ratio when compared with conventional meats. The main argument against animal fats is that they are high in saturated fat, which raises cholesterol, which theoretically raises the risk of artherosclerosis. This theory has been largely refuted. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/

Additionally, you state that evidence for a paleolithic diet is weak. I could just as easily make the same argument against your theory of pelvic myoneuropathy. There is some scientific evidence in support of it, but it is not proven. Does this mean that I should not try internal trigger point therapy? You also have stated that stress can be a trigger of CPPS. As far as I know there is no published evidence of this whatsoever. The point I'm trying to make here is that in real world application we must consider the research but also realize that real-life experience factors in as well. You have recovered from chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome using internal trigger point therapy and have helped many others to do the same, noting that many people develop chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome after severe stress/anxiety. You know from your experience that it's highly useful. I have helped many people using a paleo approach to reclaim their health, even in situations that seemed hopeless. On that note, I'll make a deal with you. I'll add legumes back to my diet for 30 days using proper cooking methods (you can even choose the legumes I eat) if you try the paleo diet for 30 days. We'll report our results at the end of 30 days. I'm not offering this challange to prove you wrong, but because I believe you will benefit immensely from a paleo approach.

[webslave]

The very definition of a paleolithic diet excludes legumes.

Arguable. There seems to be different definitions of what a paleo diet is. The fact is that there really is no such thing as a paleo diet, since Man is an opportunistic omnivore who has always eaten whatever he could from his local environment. Primitive diets range from almost 100% carnivore (Inuit) to 100% vegetarian (some jungle tribes), and everything in between. You only have to watch children snacking happily on raw peas from the vine to know ancient man did this too, so excluding legumes from a paleo diet is silly.

rawpeas.jpg (12.4 KiB) Viewed 542 times

If you are able to get a copy of the full text you'll see that the paleolithic group in all of the studies I posted avoided legumes for the duration of the study.

You say this as if it's a fact, but unless you have access yourself to these studies, how can you know? I go by what the abstracts say. None of them mention legumes. I'm open to correction if you can link to the full texts or post photos of the passages in the text that mention legumes (should be easy for you if you have access to the studies).

Participants with diabetes no longer had diabetes after 3 months on a paleolithic diet. This is a profound finding considering the health, financial, and emotional consequences of a condition like diabetes. More research is obviously needed, but this is highly compelling.

Paleo diets, by excluding sugar and the most common starches (grains), are in effect low carbohydrate diets. Yes, you could live off fruits, but that's not very palatable or satisfying. Without the concentrated processed starches, it becomes a low carb diet. Numerous such diets (and their physical equivalents, eg stomach banding and stapling) have shown similar effects with diabetics. There is no paleo magic here, it's simple caloric and high glycemic index food restriction.

Can you provide a link to a study that demonstrates the superiority of a diet including grains and legume to a paleolithic diet?

• Superior in what way?
• Considering that paleo diets are fringe medicine at this point, it's unlikely that mainstream research would be bothered with refutations.

No doubt there are studies showing that a diet containing grains a legumes as a part of a whole foods diet is healthier than a standard American diet, but this does not mean that a grain/legume containing diet is ideal.

I doubt whether there is an "ideal" diet for everyone. For instance, paleo diets allow a single concentrated sugar, honey, on the basis that cavemen ate honey from beehives. Now I get absolutely ill (violent diarrhea and stomach pain actually) if I eat any honey. But I feel fine on (gasp!) white sugar.

I have tried it. Many times. I've also tried sprouted and fermented several varieties of legumes and have still reacted poorly.

An allergy or intolerance to the whole legume family is something I have never heard of before. You are in a tiny minority. And what do you mean by "reacted poorly"? Never mind the "fermenting" and "sprouting", give proper preparation a go: soaking and pressure cooking.

Omega-6 oils are in fact essential for health, but it's true that their intake should be balanced with omega-3 oils, and it's also true we eat too many omega-6 oils in the modern diet.

I never said they were not essential. The American diet is far to high in omega-6 fats. Mostly from processed vegetable oils and foods that contain them like potato chips (hence my statement that they are unhealthy). Animal fats from conventionally raised animals are also a contributing factor to high omega-6 consumptions and pastured animal products are a healthy alternative due to their more balanced omega-6/omega-3 ratio. Most people will benefit from reducing their omega-6 intake.

Now we're splitting hairs. You stated that these oils are inflammatory ("omega-6 fats which promote inflammation"), but they are only inflammatory when eaten in an unbalanced way. You're nuancing your original claims, now that you've been challenged. That's something you should perhaps have done at the get-go. Giving broad dietary advice to people is something to be done carefully. For instance, when you say "Beans are a no-no on a gluten-free diet", what authority do you have for that claim? There are no medical texts to support it. It's speculation, based on a theory. A pretty poor theory too, that does not take into account the fact that proper preparation neutralises leguminous antinutrients, as I have shown.

Consuming milk is almost as bad as consuming gluten.

Er, no. If you are a celiac or have gluten allergy or intolerance, this statement is nonsense.

I wasn't suggesting that they operate the same in the body, but that they simply have detrimental effects on health. This is a good review of the research on milks pathogenicity: http://thepaleodiet.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... -milk.html

You don't get it. Celiac disease is a serious, debilitating, destructive condition. It can kill people in some instances. You are conflating and equating it with studies that raise possible but as yet unproven concerns about milk consumption. You need to try to separate facts from speculation and conjecture.

I should have said industrially processed. Things like refined grains, sugar, hydrogenated oils, vegetable oils and really any other item that can't be prepared using the tools that you find in an average kitchen. I make an exception with olive oil and coconut oil because they have been shown to have health benefits (unlike most other vegetable oils) and are good for use in cooking.

See, this is why the paleo diet is partially nonsensical. Now you're splitting hairs about how much processing is acceptable. We must now embrace the technology of the "average kitchen". But cavemen only had rock and stone technology, so this is a compromise. And we must make exceptions for olive and coconut oils, which are industrially processed, because someone, somewhere decided they are healthy. The whole concept of a paleo diet starts to disintegrate when you pepper it with exceptions and provisos.

You acknowledge that nuts contain lectins and can irritate the gut, but you say that legumes are completely harmless even though they too contain lectins.

But the lectins in legumes are inactivated by cooking! You seem to miss my whole argument.

If eaten in large quantities nuts should be prepared to eliminate antinutrients, but they are not a major component of a paleolithic diet due to their high omega-6 content, and are eliminated in situations of autoimmunity.

But that's just another absurd refinement to a so-called paleo diet. Cavemen feasted on nuts. Nuts are one of the major food sources for primitive peoples. This is getting sillier and sillier!

Yes, animal fats are a healthy component of a diet if they are pastured due to a much better omega-6/omega-3 ratio when compared with conventional meats.

That's useful, isn't it? I'll be sure to ask for "pastured meat" when I next visit the supermarket. Oh, wait, there is no such thing for sale there. Maybe a specialised butcher? I know the local butcher does not have it. Then there's the small problem I have with pork and beef, namely intolerance. They both cause me stomach pain, and I never eat them. Oops, looks like I'm one of those poor souls who will forever be unable to benefit from a paleo diet. I may have to settle for the 80+ years of life my parents had, since both of them ate whatever they wanted, like me. Would they have lived to 100 on a paleo diet? Probably not, but it likely would have felt like it

Additionally, you state that evidence for a paleolithic diet is weak. I could just as easily make the same argument against your theory of pelvic myoneuropathy. There is some scientific evidence in support of it, but it is not proven.

I guess you are referring here to the Wise-Anderson Protocol, of which Pelvic Myoneuropathy is a synonymous concept. I would say that several studies published in Urology is as close to proven as you'll ever get in medicine.

You also have stated that stress can be a trigger of CPPS. As far as I know there is no published evidence of this whatsoever.

You're ignoring a lot of published evidence, including the Wise-Anderson Protocol studies, the Theoharides studies on IC, etc.
http://bit.ly/LpxO2L

I have helped many people using a paleo approach to reclaim their health, even in situations that seemed hopeless.

But probably because you were helping people for reasons you don't understand. For instance, 85% of people who have celiac disease in the US are undiagnosed as of 2012. These people may make up the majority of your clients (BTW, what qualifications do you have in this field?)

I'll make a deal with you. I'll add legumes back to my diet for 30 days using proper cooking methods (you can even choose the legumes I eat) if you try the paleo diet for 30 days. We'll report our results at the end of 30 days. I'm not offering this challenge to prove you wrong, but because I believe you will benefit immensely from a paleo approach.

No, and I'll tell you why. I don't believe all legumes make you ill. I think that's nonsense. And since I am thoroughly hale and hearty (although twice your age), I have no need of a fad diet to "benefit immensely". If I ate a diet that consisted of only meat, fruit, fish, nuts etc I would lose weight, probably, which would be beneficial, but then I've also lost weight eating a calorie-controlled diet that included chocolates and gluten-free biscuits, and lots of them too. Moreover in my particular case I have intolerances to a wide variety of fruits and meats, and so a caveman diet would do more harm than good. I eat a lot of rice (incl. rice milk and rice flour), chicken, eggs, vegetables, nuts, oils and sugar. My blood pressure is exemplary, my pulse normal, blood parameters all normal. I exercise for an hour daily (walking) at minimum. I feel well, and have no pain. No diabetes, no heart disease. I don't need health challenges, thanks. My only problem is that I am a little overweight, but I'm planning to fix that soon.

[painman]

Arguable. There seems to be different definitions of what a paleo diet is. The fact is that there really is no such thing as a paleo diet, since Man is an opportunistic omnivore who has always eaten whatever he could from his local environment. Primitive diets range from almost 100% carnivore (Inuit) to 100% vegetarian (some jungle tribes), and everything in between. You only have to watch children snacking happily on raw peas from the vine to know ancient man did this too, so excluding legumes from a paleo diet is silly.

The definition I use is the one that researchers use to prescribe a paleo diet in studies, which is no grains, legumes, or dairy. If some paleo "gurus" decide to define it differently that is their issue, not mine. But the paleo diet used in all the studies eliminates all grains, dairy, and legumes. There are no known vegetarian hunter-gatherer tribes. There are "pirmitive" people who are agricultural who eat a vegetarain diet, but they are not hunter-gatherers, although there are some hunter-gatherer tribes that eat a diet that is almost vegetarian with a little meat added. Most fall somewhere in between complete carnivory and complete vegetarianism. Children's eating behaviors are heavily influenced by culture. Just because post-industrial children, raised by post-industrial parents, are eating legumes raw does not mean that this is natural or healthy. Humans are not particularly instinctual eaters like other animals, it's learned behavior. Considering that I've already posted research that clearly shows that improperly prepared legumes can cause health problems, these photos are completely irrelevant to the discussion and hold no scientific weight.

You say this as if it's a fact, but unless you have access yourself to these studies, how can you know? I go by what the abstracts say. None of them mention legumes. I'm open to correction if you can link to the full texts or post photos of the passages in the text that mention legumes (should be easy for you if you have access to the studies).

It is a fact. I have access to the full texts through my college library database but it requires a password to access. I'll quote directly from the full text of the studies below:

Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study

"The information on the Paleolithic diet stated that it should be based on lean meat, fish, fruit, leafy and cruciferous vegetables, root vegetables, eggs and nuts, while excluding dairy products, cereal grains, beans, refined fats, sugar, candy, soft drinks, beer and extra addition of salt".

Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.

"The participants consumed their usual diet for 3 days, three ramp-up diets of increasing potassium and fiber for 7 days, then a paleolithic type diet comprising lean meat, fruits, vegetables and nuts, and excluding nonpaleolithic type foods, such as cereal grains, dairy or legumes, for 10 days."

Effects of a short-term intervention with a paleolithic diet in healthy volunteers

"Prohibited food: All milk and dairy products, all grain products (including maize and rice), all legumes (including peanuts), charcuterie products (for example, sausages, pates and so on), canned food (except tomatoes, see above) and all forms of candy, ice cream, sorbet, soft drinks, juices, syrups, liquor, sugar and salt."

A paleolithic diet is more satiating per calorie than a mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischemic heart disease

"Only subjects in the Paleolithic group were educated in the concept of evolutionary health promotion [26] and the potential benefits of a Paleolithic diet. They were advised to increase their intake of lean meat, fish, fruit and vegetables and to avoid all kinds of dairy products, cereals (including rice), beans, sugar, bakery products, soft drinks and beer".

So no, the subjects in the paleo group of all these studies did not consume legumes for the duration of the study.

Paleo diets, by excluding sugar and the most common starches (grains), are in effect low carbohydrate diets. Yes, you could live off fruits, but that's not very palatable or satisfying. Without the concentrated processed starches, it becomes a low carb diet. Numerous such diets (and their physical equivalents, eg stomach banding and stapling) have shown similar effects with diabetics. There is no paleo magic here, it's simple caloric and high glycemic index food restriction.

This is completely incorrect. The carbohydrate intake in subjects on the paleo diet was moderate in all studies, not low. A paleolithic diet does not eliminate starchy tubers like sweet potatoes and yams. Additionally, there are many examples of contemporary hunter-gatherer populations that consume starchy tubers and tropical fruits as their staple food sources and still avoid western disease. One good example is the Kitavans of the Trobriand Islands, Papua New Guinea. Dr. Stafffan LIndeberg of Sweden studied these people and found them free of western disease on a diet consisting of root vegetables (yam, sweet potato, taro, tapioca), fruit (banana, papaya, pineapple, mango, guava, water melon, pumpkin), vegetables, fish and coconuts. Their carbohydrate intake is 70% of total calorie intake. Far from low carb. ( http://www.staffanlindeberg.com/TheKitavaStudy.html )

• Superior in what way?
• Considering that paleo diets are fringe medicine at this point, it's unlikely that mainstream research would be bothered with refutations.

Superior in terms of biomarkers of health. Inflammatory markers, blood pressure, blood glusose, hba1c, hormonal profile, weight loss, body compostion, satiety, nutrient intake, etc.

Regardless of whether or not mainstream research is bothered with refutations the studies that have been conducted comparing a grain and legume containing diet with a paleo diet have consistently shown that a paleo diet is superior every time.

I doubt whether there is an "ideal" diet for everyone. For instance, paleo diets allow a single concentrated sugar, honey, on the basis that cavemen ate honey from beehives. Now I get absolutely ill (violent diarrhea and stomach pain actually) if I eat any honey. But I feel fine on (gasp!) white sugar.

True, but there are diets that are better than others (ie paleo diet is clearly superior to one containing grains, legumes, and dairy). The key characteristic of a paleo diet is what specific foods it eliminates (grains, dairy, and legumes). There are no specific food item recommendations in paleo research (ie "eat more apples than bananas"), but simply general recommendations to consume foods that fall within the categories of fruit, vegetables, tubers, nuts and seeds, fresh meats, eggs, and fish. If you find that a particular food bothers you than don't eat it. That's just common sense. For instance, i feel crappy every time i eat asparagus, so i avoid it. Does that mean that the entire paleo approach is now garbage even though research clearly shows that it's not? You say you feel fine on white sugar. Have you ever tried eliminating it for a significant amount of time to see if you feel any different? I've had people say they feel "fine" on sugar, but when they eliminate it completely they are usually surprised by how much better they feel.

An allergy or intolerance to the whole legume family is something I have never heard of before. You are in a tiny minority. And what do you mean by "reacted poorly"? Never mind the "fermenting" and "sprouting", give proper preparation a go: soaking and pressure cooking.

I've tried soaking and pressure cooking. In fact, it was the main method i used to cook legumes before starting a paleo diet. They still bothered me. Others have noted a similar reaction, especially after eliminating legumes and then adding them back to the diet. I mean abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, joint pain, fatigue. It's not an allergy or intolerance per se. It's more of an irritation of the intestinal lining as shown in studies on antinutrients. For instance, saponins are an antinutrient component of legumes. Saponins have been shown to affect the gut barrier and by extension immune system function . They may also increase the risk of autoimmune diseases in people who are genetically susceptible (such as yourself). Soaking, sprouting or cooking legumes doesn't reduce their saponin content.

See these studies (I don't know if you can get access to the full texts but you can try):

Patel B, Rober S, Sporns P, et al. potato glycoalkaloid adversely affect intestinal permeability and aggravate inflammatory bowel disease.

Visser J, Rozing J, Sapone A et al. Tight junctions, Intestinal permeability and Autoimmunity. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1165: 195-205 (2009).

Ruiz RG, Price K, Rose M, Rhodes M, Fenwick R. A preliminary study on the effect of germination on saponin content and composition of lentils and chickpeas. Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 1996;203:366-369.

Ruiz RG, Price KR, Arthur AE, Rose ME, Rhodes MJ, Fenwick RG. Effect of soaking and cooking on the saponin content and composition of chickpeas (Cicer arietinum) and lentils (Lens culinaris).
J Agric Food Chem 1996;44:1526-1530.

Now we're splitting hairs. You stated that these oils are inflammatory ("omega-6 fats which promote inflammation"), but they are only inflammatory when eaten in an unbalanced way. You're nuancing your original claims, now that you've been challenged. That's something you should perhaps have done at the get-go. Giving broad dietary advice to people is something to be done carefully. For instance, when you say "Beans are a no-no on a gluten-free diet", what authority do you have for that claim? There are no medical texts to support it. It's speculation, based on a theory. A pretty poor theory too, that does not take into account the fact that proper preparation neutralises leguminous antinutrients, as I have shown.

You're the one splitting hairs here to be honest. Omega-6 fats do cause inflammation in the context of a standard American diet. You're examining every word I've said to distract from the main issues that you have failed to address. See the studies above for why legumes should not be included on a gluten-free diet. The reason you even start a gluten-free diet in the first place is to stop it from damaging your intestinal lining. What's the point if you continue to consume foods that contain gut-irritating components???

See the above studies and this study that you conveniently ignored earlier (you said it's not published, but it is) :

Cordain L. et al. Modulation of immune function by dietary lectins in rheumatoid arthritis. British Journal of Nutrition (2000), 83, 207–217.

You don't get it. Celiac disease is a serious, debilitating, destructive condition. It can kill people in some instances. You are conflating and equating it with studies that raise possible but as yet unproven concerns about milk consumption. You need to try to separate facts from speculation and conjecture.

I was not talking about people with celiac disease. I'm not sure why you're making that assumption. I was stating that milk and grains are equally as undesirable on a paleo diet in a healthy subject (such as the person who started the thread in the first place, which is who the post was directed towards).

See, this is why the paleo diet is partially nonsensical. Now you're splitting hairs about how much processing is acceptable. We must now embrace the technology of the "average kitchen". But cavemen only had rock and stone technology, so this is a compromise. And we must make exceptions for olive and coconut oils, which are industrially processed, because someone, somewhere decided they are healthy. The whole concept of a paleo diet starts to disintegrate when you pepper it with exceptions and provisos.

Once AGAIN, I don't base my idea of what a paleo diet is on some romantic view of a hunter-gatherer living in the jungle. My view is based on the studies which use a modern version of a hunter-gather diet to obtain health benefits. I have no allegiance to the hunter-gatherer ideology, but rather to the studies which clearly show that a diet lacking in grains, dairy, and legumes is more healthy than one that contains these foods. You're truly the one splitting hairs here and misinterpreting my message.

My main argument is that eliminating grains, legumes, and dairy from the diet in favor of fresh meats, fish, nuts and seeds, and fruits and vegetables offers health benefits. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

But the lectins in legumes are inactivated by cooking! You seem to miss my whole argument.

I only mentioned nuts because they were permitted in the studies on paleo diets, which had positive outcomes. The studies were not conducted on subjects that had known autoimmune disease. The studies on antinutrients and intestinal permeability lend evidence to the idea that people with autoimmune diseases may benefit from avoidance of foods containing these substances. This further demonstrates your lack of knowledge in this field of study.

But that's just another absurd refinement to a so-called paleo diet. Cavemen feasted on nuts. Nuts are one of the major food sources for primitive peoples. This is getting sillier and sillier!

See above, it's not absurd. Specific diseases require specific dietary modification. It can be very individual, but certain general principles are a mainstay.

That's useful, isn't it? I'll be sure to ask for "pastured meat" when I next visit the supermarket. Oh, wait, there is no such thing for sale there. Maybe a specialised butcher? I know the local butcher does not have it. Then there's the small problem I have with pork and beef, namely intolerance. They both cause me stomach pain, and I never eat them. Oops, looks like I'm one of those poor souls who will forever be unable to benefit from a paleo diet. I may have to settle for the 80+ years of life my parents had, since both of them ate whatever they wanted, like me. Would they have lived to 100 on a paleo diet? Probably not, but it likely would have felt like it

This is silly, lol. Pastured animal products are widely available in health food stores. You make it sound as if they are some rare exotic food. They are not. You can often find them at local farmers markets as well. Even some mainstream markets are now carrying grass-fed beef. The only reason you're unable to benefit from a paleo diet is because you refuse to accept the scientific validity of this approach that I've clearly demonstrated. The fact that you have digestive issues with beef and pork is evidence that your gut is not healthy. I've found this to be pretty common in celiacs (my mother is a celiac and a few friends are as well). It will resolve once you heal your gut (ie eliminate foods that irritate the gut barrier) Might it have something to do with all those legumes you consume?

I guess you are referring here to the Wise-Anderson Protocol, of which Pelvic Myoneuropathy is a synonymous concept. I would say that several studies published in Urology is as close to proven as you'll ever get in medicine.

Yet, several studies published on the paleo diet is not enough? It seems that you're selectively picking evidence that supports whatever you happen to believe and ignore or underestimate evidence against what you believe.

You're ignoring a lot of published evidence, including the Wise-Anderson Protocol studies, the Theoharides studies on IC, etc.
http://bit.ly/LpxO2L

None of the published research on chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome proves that stress can be a cause of CPPS. The two are simply associated. Yet, you have years of experience helping people with this condition and have noticed that chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome tends to follow a period of severe stress/anxiety. Your experience combined with suggestive research has led you to conclude that stress is a potential causative factor in CPPS. I'm in the same boat with this diet stuff. It's not PROVEN that legumes can cause health issues, but there is some evidence to suggest it and my personal experience corroborates this.

I have helped many people using a paleo approach to reclaim their health, even in situations that seemed hopeless.

But probably because you were helping people for reasons you don't understand. For instance, 85% of people who have celiac disease in the US are undiagnosed as of 2012. These people may make up the majority of your clients (BTW, what qualifications do you have in this field?)

For reasons I don't understand??? This is just plain condescending. I have family members with celiac disease. I have helped them, and others, personally to deal with this condition. I have a bachelors degree in Dietetics with pre-med requirements met as well. Believe me, I understand.

No, and I'll tell you why. I don't believe all legumes make you ill. I think that's nonsense. And since I am thoroughly hale and hearty (although twice your age), I have no need of a fad diet to "benefit immensely". If I ate a diet that consisted of only meat, fruit, fish, nuts etc I would lose weight, probably, which would be beneficial, but then I've also lost weight eating a calorie-controlled diet that included chocolates and gluten-free biscuits, and lots of them too. Moreover in my particular case I have intolerances to a wide variety of fruits and meats, and so a caveman diet would do more harm than good. I eat a lot of rice (incl. rice milk and rice flour), chicken, eggs, vegetables, nuts, oils and sugar. My blood pressure is exemplary, my pulse normal, blood parameters all normal. I exercise for an hour daily (walking) at minimum. I feel well, and have no pain. No diabetes, no heart disease. I don't need health challenges, thanks. My only problem is that I am a little overweight, but I'm planning to fix that soon.

You can believe anything you want. It doesn't make it one bit true. A fad diet? Did you even read the research on this? Yes, you can lose weight on a calorie controlled diet that contains non-paleo foods, but the evidence (and my experience) suggests that it will be harder in terms of satiety signalling. From this study: http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21118562:

"Consequently, the quotients of mean change in satiety during meal and mean consumed energy from food and drink were higher in the Paleolithic group (p = 0.03). Also, there was a strong trend for greater Satiety Quotient for energy in the Paleolithic group (p = 0.057). Leptin decreased by 31% in the Paleolithic group and by 18% in the Mediterranean group with a trend for greater relative decrease of leptin in the Paleolithic group. Relative changes in leptin and changes in weight and waist circumference correlated significantly in the Paleolithic group (p < 0.001) but not in the Mediterranean group".

It appears that some component of the paleo diet (or missing component) improves endocrine function for satiety signalling. Researchers speculate that lectins may play a role and there is evidence to suggest this: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6823/5/10.

I've stated my case here quite clearly and with adequate scientific evidence. You have yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that a diet containing grains and legumes is superior to a paleo diet. I've done just the opposite.

In any case, thanks for all your help with CPPS, I really appreciate it, the forum is truly a blessing!

[webslave]

I googled your email and found you are a well known proponent of paleo diets on the internet, which explains your passion for it. (Can't provide links to readers because all members are anonymous unless they choose not to be). But I love a good debate, so on we go.

Just because post-industrial children, raised by post-industrial parents, are eating legumes raw does not mean that this is natural or healthy. Humans are not particularly instinctual eaters like other animals, it's learned behavior. Considering that I've already posted research that clearly shows that improperly prepared legumes can cause health problems, these photos are completely irrelevant to the discussion and hold no scientific weight.

I posit that most readers of this thread have enjoyed eating raw legumes like peas at some stage of their lives. Some do it all the time (if they are gardeners). Since legumes are considered healthy by mainstream scientists, this is an entirely healthy practice. So no, the fact that people eat raw legumes without any obvious negative health effects is not "completely irrelevant". If you want to attack legumes specifically, I suggest you post meta-analysis evidence advising on why humans should not eat them. Do not use "paleo diet" studies. Provide a review study (not a primary study) that concludes legumes are a threat to health.

Paleo diets, by excluding sugar and the most common starches (grains), are in effect low carbohydrate diets. Yes, you could live off fruits, but that's not very palatable or satisfying. Without the concentrated processed starches, it becomes a low carb diet. Numerous such diets (and their physical equivalents, eg stomach banding and stapling) have shown similar effects with diabetics. There is no paleo magic here, it's simple caloric and high glycemic index food restriction.

This is completely incorrect. The carbohydrate intake in subjects on the paleo diet was moderate in all studies, not low. A paleolithic diet does not eliminate starchy tubers like sweet potatoes and yams. Additionally, there are many examples of contemporary hunter-gatherer populations that consume starchy tubers and tropical fruits as their staple food sources and still avoid western disease.... (yam, sweet potato, taro, tapioca), fruit (banana, papaya, pineapple, mango, guava, water melon, pumpkin), vegetables, fish and coconuts. Their carbohydrate intake is 70% of total calorie intake. Far from low carb.

I direct you to my statement about glycemic index. None of the foods you mention are high GI. The paleo diet is a low GI diet, is a more accurate way to state my meaning. Low GI diets are well studied and seem to offer roughly the same benefits claimed by paleo diet proponents (see Dietary glycemic index: health implications and hordes of other such studies).

Superior in terms of biomarkers of health. Inflammatory markers, blood pressure, blood glucose, hba1c, hormonal profile, weight loss, body composition, satiety, nutrient intake, etc. Regardless of whether or not mainstream research is bothered with refutations the studies that have been conducted comparing a grain and legume containing diet with a paleo diet have consistently shown that a paleo diet is superior every time.

The paleo diet is a flavour of low GI diet, with the added removal of grains, dairy and legumes. I don't see it having any marked benefits over a typical low GI diet other than removing allergens (grains and milk are major causes of allergy and intolerance). The legume issue is where we have the argument. I cannot see the logic in removing them, because lectins are removed by cooking. You have accepted that point and so you've turned your attention to a new bugaboo, saponins (see below). I also doubt the benefit of removing rice from the diet. Allergies and intolerances to rice are rare in the Western world, and in countries where rice is a staple there is low obesity, low diabetes and very little cardiovascular disease.

You say you feel fine on white sugar. Have you ever tried eliminating it for a significant amount of time to see if you feel any different? I've had people say they feel "fine" on sugar, but when they eliminate it completely they are usually surprised by how much better they feel.

No, I really, really do feel fine eating up to 400 calories a day from sucrose (glucose + fructose). No digestive upset, no fatigue, no obvious symptoms of any kind. And I feel no different when I eat no sugar at all, except perhaps a little less energy. It's probably not ideal for my heart, but since I am not wildly obese and fairly active, I feel safe doing it. And I enjoy it!

I've tried soaking and pressure cooking. In fact, it was the main method i used to cook legumes before starting a paleo diet. They still bothered me. Others have noted a similar reaction, especially after eliminating legumes and then adding them back to the diet. I mean abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, joint pain, fatigue. It's not an allergy or intolerance per se. It's more of an irritation of the intestinal lining as shown in studies on antinutrients. For instance, saponins are an antinutrient component of legumes. Saponins have been shown to affect the gut barrier and by extension immune system function . They may also increase the risk of autoimmune diseases in people who are genetically susceptible (such as yourself). Soaking, sprouting or cooking legumes doesn't reduce their saponin content.

So, on to saponins.

See these studies (I don't know if you can get access to the full texts but you can try):

Patel B, Rober S, Sporns P, et al. potato glycoalkaloid adversely affect intestinal permeability and aggravate inflammatory bowel disease.

Your first study is about potatoes, a non-leguminous vegetable tuber that should be on a paleo diet, one would think. The study is about glycoalkaloids, which are not saponins AFAIK. Please explain.

In any event. the study suggests that glycoalkaloids (e.g solanine, found usually in the skins of green potatoes) can possibly adversely affect people who are genetically prone to inflammatory bowel disease (e.g. Crohn's or ulcerative colitis). "Glycoalkaloids have been shown to adversely affect the intestine permeability in an IL-10-deficient mice model of colitis, but not in normal mice, suggesting that those patients with IBD may be predisposed to this adverse effect."(source) So this has very limited to no applicability to normal people not genetically prone to IBD, and who do not eat green potatoes.

Visser J, Rozing J, Sapone A et al. Tight junctions, Intestinal permeability and Autoimmunity. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1165: 195-205 (2009).

This study is available in full online.

Does not mention saponins (or lectins, or dairy, or legumes) ... but it looks like an excellent study.

Ruiz RG, Price K, Rose M, Rhodes M, Fenwick R. A preliminary study on the effect of germination on saponin content and composition of lentils and chickpeas. Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 1996;203:366-369.

The study you name above says soya saponins were detected in lentils and chickpeas. Seems to have no relevance to the discussion

Ruiz RG, Price KR, Arthur AE, Rose ME, Rhodes MJ, Fenwick RG. Effect of soaking and cooking on the saponin content and composition of chickpeas (Cicer arietinum) and lentils (Lens culinaris). J Agric Food Chem 1996;44:1526-1530.

No access to this one, but I would guess it concludes that cooking does not remove all saponins from legumes. No argument there. But are saponins the baddies you imply, or do they have multiple health benefits? (see the Saponin section at the end of this post for answers)

See the studies above for why legumes should not be included on a gluten-free diet. The reason you even start a gluten-free diet in the first place is to stop it from damaging your intestinal lining. What's the point if you continue to consume foods that contain gut-irritating components???

Firstly, there are no studies advising celiacs to avoid legumes. Isolated cases do not count. You need to point to a meta-analysis that concludes that legumes should be avoided by celiacs. There is no such study.

"Gut irritating components" — by this you mean lectins. Oh wait, I disproved that canard, so you've switched to saponins. I'll discuss saponins below.

See the above studies and this study that you conveniently ignored earlier (you said it's not published, but it is) :
Cordain L. et al. Modulation of immune function by dietary lectins in rheumatoid arthritis. British Journal of Nutrition (2000), 83, 207–217.

I said the study you linked to was not published, and it's not. The one you name above is, here

Once again, you are using irrelevant material. The study in question suggests that lectins can provoke rheumatoid arthritis in susceptible people.

1. It's a hypothesis, not a proven theory.
2. It's about a disease that I and most of the members here do not have
3. It implicates lectins, which are removed by cooking from legumes. Lectins are present in virtually all foods, so this is not a legume issue. "They are found in plants and animals, and are present in small amounts in 30% of American foods, more so in a whole-grain diet." (from Dietary Lectins: Blood Types & Food Allergies)

Moving on ...

I was not talking about people with celiac disease. I'm not sure why you're making that assumption. I was stating that milk and grains are equally as undesirable on a paleo diet in a healthy subject (such as the person who started the thread in the first place, which is who the post was directed towards).

Fine, but it should be acknowledged that a low GI diet achieves much the same effect. The paleo diet is a sort of low GI diet minus some well known allergens, it turns out. Probably harmless, but unnecessarily restrictive when it removes legumes, sugar and rice, I contend, mainly because I can eat all those things in moderation without any problem.

Once AGAIN, I don't base my idea of what a paleo diet is on some romantic view of a hunter-gatherer living in the jungle. My view is based on the studies which use a modern version of a hunter-gather diet to obtain health benefits. I have no allegiance to the hunter-gatherer ideology, but rather to the studies which clearly show that a diet lacking in grains, dairy, and legumes is more healthy than one that contains these foods.

So we can agree then that the working definition of a "paleo diet" is now a "hunter-gatherer diet" minus all the things modern science would suggest are bad and plus a few things (like processed oils) that modern science suggests are good. Gotcha. But unfortunately for the paleo diet theory, there is no modern science suggesting that eating properly cooked legumes is bad.

The studies on antinutrients and intestinal permeability lend evidence to the idea that people with autoimmune diseases may benefit from avoidance of foods containing these substances. This further demonstrates your lack of knowledge in this field of study.

Not sure why you are now casting aspersions and becoming insulting, but that usually happens when a person is losing a debate. Don't be a bad sport. I have no argument that people with specific autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis should avoid lectin-rich foods (but they can still eat lectin-free foods like properly cooked beans!)

But that's just another absurd refinement to a so-called paleo diet. Cavemen feasted on nuts. Nuts are one of the major food sources for primitive peoples. This is getting sillier and sillier!

See above, it's not absurd. Specific diseases require specific dietary modification. It can be very individual, but certain general principles are a mainstay.

Since you've now defined a paleo diet as (a) a hybrid of some aspects of a true paleo diet plus (b) modern scientific fact and theory, your position makes perfect sense!

This is silly, lol. Pastured animal products are widely available in health food stores.

Meat from health food stores is very expensive. The paleo diet is for the well-off, I see. Grass fed beef availability depends on where you live. In many countries, and especially in the small towns, it is often unobtainable. In other countries, (e.g. Australia), it's the norm. YMMV.

Interestingly, a 2011 study concluded that "A 9.3% increase in income is needed to consume a Paleolithic diet that meets all daily recommended intakes".

The fact that you have digestive issues with beef and pork is evidence that your gut is not healthy...It will resolve once you heal your gut (ie eliminate foods that irritate the gut barrier)

Now hold on there. My mother had issues with these foods too, so I see this as a genetic issue. Intestinal permeability is not only mediated by what you eat, but by genes. Your statement is an example of the sort of quackery that is typical of fringe medicine (which is what the hodge-podge of "paleo diet" theory is, essentially). Suddenly the avoidance of some foods is seen as a panacea for all manner of ills. That's one of the hallmarks of quackery.

Yet, several studies published on the paleo diet is not enough?

They're fine as far as they go. They prove that a low GI diet helps some blood parameters important to CVD and diabetes. I have no real argument with that.

You're ignoring a lot of published evidence, including the Wise-Anderson Protocol studies, the Theoharides studies on IC, etc.
http://bit.ly/LpxO2L

None of the published research on chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome proves that stress can be a cause of CPPS. The two are simply associated.

See Stress-induced bladder mast cell activation: implications for interstitial cystitis, for example.

It's not PROVEN that legumes can cause health issues, but there is some evidence to suggest it and my personal experience corroborates this.

At least we agree it's only a theory and not proven.

I have helped many people using a paleo approach to reclaim their health, even in situations that seemed hopeless.

But probably because you were helping people for reasons you don't understand. For instance, 85% of people who have celiac disease in the US are undiagnosed as of 2012. These people may make up the majority of your clients (BTW, what qualifications do you have in this field?)

For reasons I don't understand??? This is just plain condescending. I have family members with celiac disease. I have helped them, and others, personally to deal with this condition. I have a bachelors degree in Dietetics with pre-med requirements met as well. Believe me, I understand.

There are millions of undiagnosed celiacs in the US alone. These people are truly unwell. They seek out diet gurus like you. You put them on a grain-free (and therefore gluten-free) diet. They improve. You feel justified in claiming that this is because they now avoid milk, beans and grains.

A fad diet? Did you even read the research on this?

Yup, read the research. Paleo diets may be good for some patient groups, but the understanding of why this is so is not there. It's a shotgun approach: blast away large portions of the normal diet, will-nilly, & see what happens. It's not really known why it has the effect it's having. I contend it's successful because it's a Low GI Diet with major allergen removal. So it's a fad. It needs more research. Maybe then legumes will be allowed back in, and rice, and some sugar.

And BTW there are thousands of webpages and news articles that call the paleo diet a "fad", eg http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/ ... 56/1/.html (that article also points out that the paleo diet has a charismatic leader, Cordain, like so many fad diets, and that cavemen usually only lived 25 years )

Yes, you can lose weight on a calorie controlled diet that contains non-paleo foods, but the evidence (and my experience) suggests that it will be harder in terms of satiety signalling. From this study: http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21118562 ...

That's according to you and a study that compares the paleo to Mediterranean diet. Thanks, but I'll stick to my own diet (no grains except rice, no dairy) that suits me, satisfies my appetite and tastes, and works. And it's not hard either.

BTW that study is interesting (full text here). It reports that "there is a qualitative difference between rice and other cereals" and hints that rice stands apart from other cereals, which is what I have found too in terms of my response to it. It also shows that the early satiety signalling of the paleo diet could be due to fruit vs cereals, or the fact that one group ate 2x the salt of the other, or the fact that bread and milk block satiety signals:

Another possible effect of carbohydrates on satiety could be the group difference in type of carbohydrate consumed. The major source of carbohydrate in the Mediterranean group were cereals, which, according to Holt et al [7], are less satiating than fruit, the major source of carbohydrate in the Paleolithic group. However, cereal and fruit intake did not correlate with measures of satiety per calorie. Yet another conceivable cause of the differences in satiating capacity is the significantly lower salt intake in the Paleolithic group, approximately 3.8 gram salt daily, compared to approximately 8.0 gram salt daily in the Mediterranean group (estimated from sodium intake in Table2), which could affect palatability. There was a correlation between the Satiety Quotient for energy and sodium intake. Also, since bread and milk products are often considered palatable, the much higher intake of these food items in the Mediterranean group could block satiety signals.

Saponins

Although saponins from some plants such as alfalfa are in fact quite toxic to experimental animals upon oral ingestion, the saponins of the soybean are relatively innocuous to chicks, rats and mice when fed at levels three times greater than the levels found in soybeans (Ishaaya et al. 1969). Soybean saponins normally remain in the digestive tract where they are hydrolyzed by bacterial enzymes, but neither the saponins nor their aglycones could be detected in the blood of test animals (Gestetner et al. 1968). Unlike saponins from other plant sources, the soybean saponins have only a weak effect on the permeability of the small intestine and thus have little effect on active nutrient transport (Johnson et al. 1986). Thus, there is little evidence to indicate that the level of saponins in soybeans poses any risk to human health. (From Possible adverse effects of soybean anticarcinogens )

Most listings of soybean antinutritional factors in the past included saponins, although with little or no justification. Toxicity was attributed to them simply by analogy with saponins from other sources that, in deed, are toxic. However, most reviewers have ignored studies reported 25 years ago showing that feeding soybean saponins to chicks, rats and mice failed to inhibit growth even when fed at levels three to five times those of a normal soybean meal diet (Ishaaya et al. 1969). More recently, hypocholesterolemic and anticarcinogenic effects have been attributed to soybean saponins (Messina and Barnes 1991). Consequently, there is justification for removing saponins from the list of antinutritional factors in soybeans (Liener 1981). (From Compositional Changes in Trypsin Inhibitors, Phytic Acid, Saponins and Isoflavones Related to Soybean Processing)

The presence of saponins has been reported in more than 100 families of plants out of which at least 150 kinds of natural saponins have been found to possess significant anti-cancer properties. (From Chemical study and medical application of saponins as anti-cancer agents)

Saponins reduced by cooking
Phytochemical profiles and health-promoting effects of cool-season food legumes as influenced by thermal processing
http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19873971

Saponin neurotoxic effects inactivated by cooking (water-soluble and dry-heat decomposable)
A review of the neurotoxic effect of palmyrah flour.
http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19757246

Soy isoflavones and saponins are likely to be protective of colon cancer and to be well tolerated
Environmental influences on isoflavones and saponins in soybeans and their role in colon cancer
http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15867311

Saponins ... anti-inflammatory and immune-stimulating effects have the highest ranking. Beyond that, saponins demonstrate antimicrobial properties particularly against fungi and additionally against bacteria and protozoa. In animal nutrition additions of saponins can suppress intestinal and ruminal ammonia production

From Saponins in nutrition of swine, poultry and ruminants

Plant saponins have been shown to inhibit cholesterol absorption from the intestinal lumen in experimental animals, and consequently to reduce the concentration of plasma cholesterol

From Saponins in Garlic as Modifiers of the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

These structurally diverse compounds have also been observed to kill protozoans and molluscs, to be antioxidants, to impair the digestion of protein and the uptake of vitamins and minerals in the gut, to cause hypoglycaemia, and to act as antifungal and antiviral agents. These compounds can thus affect animals in a host of different ways both positive and negative

From The biological action of saponins in animal systems: a review

Saponins decrease blood lipids, lower cancer risks, and lower blood glucose response. A high saponin diet can be used in the inhibition of dental caries and platelet aggregation, in the treatment of hypercalciuria in humans, and as an antidote against acute lead poisoning. In epidemiological studies, saponins have been shown to have an inverse relationship with the incidence of renal stones. Thermal processing such as canning is the typical method to process beans. This study reviews the effect of thermal processing on the characteristics and stability of saponins in canned bean products. Saponins are thermal sensitive. During soaking and blanching, portions of saponins are dissolved in water and lost in the soaking, washing, and blanching liquors

Saponins from edible legumes: chemistry, processing, and health benefits
http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15117556

General Relevance

Cereal grains, legumes and diabetes.
http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15162131

Cereal grains and legumes in the prevention of coronary heart disease and stroke: a review of the literature.
http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16670693

[webslave]

Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(2):217-20.
Legumes: the most important dietary predictor of survival in older people of different ethnicities.
Darmadi-Blackberry I, Wahlqvist ML, Kouris-Blazos A, Steen B, Lukito W, Horie Y, Horie K.
Public Health Division, National Ageing Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.

To identify protective dietary predictors amongst long-lived elderly people (N= 785), the "Food Habits in Later Life "(FHILL) study was undertaken among five cohorts in Japan, Sweden, Greece and Australia. Between 1988 and 1991, baseline data on food intakes were collected. There were 785 participants aged 70 and over that were followed up to seven years. Based on an alternative Cox Proportional Hazard model adjusted to age at enrollment (in 5-year intervals), gender and smoking, the legume food group showed 7-8% reduction in mortality hazard ratio for every 20g increase in daily intake with or without controlling for ethnicity (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.99 and RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87-0.99, respectively). Other food groups were not found to be consistently significant in predicting survival amongst the FHILL cohorts.

PMID:
15228991

The potential health benefits of legumes as a good source of dietary fibre
Legumes are low-GI foods that lower cholesterol

[davyboy]

Painman,

Are you still having success on this diet? I'm following it and feeling pretty great! Want to swap some tips and info?

[painman]

Hey davyboy, sorry for the delayed response! I've been very busy but also have been trying to get my stress levels under control, which this debate definitely was not helping me to do, lol.

Yes, I still follow a paleo approach and plan to do so for the rest of my life. Whenever I eat non-paleo foods I really pay for it the next day with joint pain, abdominal discomfort and IBS, and my chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome and costochondritis symptoms get worse. I'd be glad to offer some tips if you have some specific questions. I can provide them here or through a private message if you wish, just let me know. Glad you've given it a shot and have experienced the benefits first hand!

[painman]

I googled your email and found you are a well known proponent of paleo diets on the internet, which explains your passion for it. (Can't provide links to readers because all members are anonymous unless they choose not to be). But I love a good debate, so on we go.

I've written two articles in my entire life about the paleo diet. Both occasions were for friends who had asked me to add content to their websites and neither of the articles was particularly popular considering how many paleo proponents have excellent websites that have a large volume of internet traffic. This hardly qualifies me as a well known proponent, but yes I am passionate about the paleo diet due to its beneficial effects on my own health and the clients that I work with.

I posit that most readers of this thread have enjoyed eating raw legumes like peas at some stage of their lives. Some do it all the time (if they are gardeners). Since legumes are considered healthy by mainstream scientists, this is an entirely healthy practice. So no, the fact that people eat raw legumes without any obvious negative health effects is not "completely irrelevant". If you want to attack legumes specifically, I suggest you post meta-analysis evidence advising on why humans should not eat them. Do not use "paleo diet" studies. Provide a review study (not a primary study) that concludes legumes are a threat to health.

I'm honestly confused by your logic considering your commitment to scientific scrutiny and your generally lucid thought process. You've already admitted that raw legumes retain their antinutrient content and have linked to resources that clearly state that raw legumes are hazardous to human health. You've provided a link to a blog post by Dr. Clyde Wilson in which he makes a case against eliminating legumes from a paleo diet. The original link can be found here: http://drclydewilson.typepad.com/drclyd ... ients.html


Directly from Dr. Wilson's blog post: "As with everything in life, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. We have known for over half a century that lentils and beans have the highest levels of lectins and therefore can make us sick if we eat them raw ["Toxicity of raw kidney beans", Jaffe WG, Experientia 5 (1949) 81]."

Wilson clearly states that raw legumes are toxic and provides a citation to confirm it. I'm not sure what else to say here. This argument has been beaten to death and there simply is no evidence to support the claim that eating raw legumes is completely healthy, and some to the contrary.

I direct you to my statement about glycemic index. None of the foods you mention are high GI. The paleo diet is a low GI diet, is a more accurate way to state my meaning. Low GI diets are well studied and seem to offer roughly the same benefits claimed by paleo diet proponents (see Dietary glycemic index: health implications and hordes of other such studies).

You originally said a paleo diet is a low carbohydrate diet. It is not, by definition. It simply means there is no legumes, grains, or dairy in the diet. The macronutrient content can be altered to be low carb but that is not a necessity or a defining characterisitic of the diet. It's not a low Gi diet either. None of the plant foods i mentioned are low GI.

A GI of 55 and above is considered high GI.

http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch ... &ak=detail Sweet potato GI of 94

http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch ... &ak=detail Taro GI of 56

http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch ... &ak=detail Yam GI of 74

http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch ... &ak=detail Tapioca GI of 70

http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch ... &ak=detail Banana GI of 62

http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch ... &ak=detail Papaya GI of 60

http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch ... &ak=detail Watermelon GI of 72

http://www.glycemicindex.com/foodSearch ... &ak=detail Pumpkin GI of 75

The paleo diet is a flavour of low GI diet, with the added removal of grains, dairy and legumes. I don't see it having any marked benefits over a typical low GI diet other than removing allergens (grains and milk are major causes of allergy and intolerance). The legume issue is where we have the argument. I cannot see the logic in removing them, because lectins are removed by cooking. You have accepted that point and so you've turned your attention to a new bugaboo, saponins (see below). I also doubt the benefit of removing rice from the diet. Allergies and intolerances to rice are rare in the Western world, and in countries where rice is a staple there is low obesity, low diabetes and very little cardiovascular disease.

The Gi issue has been debunked, so no, that's not what is responsible for the health benefits. Legumes are proven to cause digestive upset in their raw form. Cooking tends to eliminate the lectins which irritate the gut, but there is no definitive evidence that all varieties of legumes will be completely devoid of all lectins after soaking and pressure cooking. It's very possible and probably likley that some small amount of lectins and other antinutrients remain in the legumes after soaking and cooking, which in susceptible people may cause digestive issues associated with lectin consumption. This has been my clinical experience, especially in people with autoimmune diseases. There may be some as yet unknown mechanism at play that is causing these people issues with legumes, but the most likely at this point is that some lectins may remain and most definitely some saponins remain. White rice is one of the least allergenic of all grains and i do find that many people tolerate it well, but it still is not the greatest choice considering its low micronutrient content. Yes, disease rates are lower in countries where rice intake is high, but correlation does not equal causation. Many other factors such as stress, sleep, and physical activity and many others factors come into play, making your assumptions interesting but unproven.

No, I really, really do feel fine eating up to 400 calories a day from sucrose (glucose + fructose). No digestive upset, no fatigue, no obvious symptoms of any kind. And I feel no different when I eat no sugar at all, except perhaps a little less energy. It's probably not ideal for my heart, but since I am not wildly obese and fairly active, I feel safe doing it. And I enjoy it!

You probably had less energy because you didn't replace the lost calories with other sources of carbohydrate, leading to both a calorie deficit and a reduction in carbohydrate intake.

I'm going to stop there for now because I'm strapped for time and addressing the other sections requires much more time, although I'd like to mention that I apologize if i came off as insulting. My main reason for becoming somewhat defensive was in response to your claims that my argument is "silly" and insinuating that I don't know what I'm talking about when in reality I have a degree in the field of nutrition and have experience in this field working closely with clients dealing with health conditions. I also found your statements to be hypocritical considering that you run a website promoting a theory that has little scientific evidence to support it, yet you harshly criticize a theory I've proposed that actually has some solid research to support it. I'm not saying that the theory of pelvic myoneuropathy in chronic prostatitis / chronic pelvic pain syndrome is incorrect, I actually agree with it and believe that it will be proven someday and i appreciate your commitment to help others in this area. It's just that there isn't any more evidence to support it than there is a paleo approach to diet, yet you firmly support such a theory and criticize the other. In any case, hope I didn't come off the wrong way, just trying to help people out rather than debate endlessly.