Polan on Paleo

[Benko]

Rocketdog,

Eating tofu regularly e.g. daily(unless you are an adult female) is concerning.  I would check into that (and make sure you get your thyroid including TSH tested.  TSH should be 2 or less).

[moda0306]

rocketdog,

What specific changes did you make to your diet?  Specifically:

- Did your calorie intake increase or decrease overall?

- What meats were you eating, mostly, before you dropped eating meat altogether?

- What non-meat foods would you say worked their way in the most as a result of not eating meat?

- Did you change your non-meat diet at all? (ie, quit drinking soda and eating as much sugar)

- Did your exercise habits change?

- Did you start or quit taking any supplements?

I wouldn't be too terribly surprised that if by reducing your intake of overall calories, exercising more, reducing your intake of Omega 6 heavy meats, replacing those meats with relatively healthy replacements and getting MORE micronutrients, eating out less, exercising more, etc., that you very well would feel healthier, even with a modest increase in your intake of grains and legumes.

[Pointedstick]

Yeah. There's nothing specifically about a vegetarian diet that's inherently healthier than a meaty one. I know a vegetarian who mostly subsists on bread, vegetable ramen, pre-packaged pasta, and crap like that. There's no meat, so he's technically a vegetarian, but there sure ain't a ton of veggies. I suspect what you mean, rocketdog, is that you started loading up on healthy vegetables, which is great! However, if this is the case, have you considered that the health improvements you've experienced have been due to the addition of the vegetables more than the elimination of the meat?

[Gumby]

Corporations don't fund university studies or hospital studies.

False.

Research universities, too, are rapidly privatizing. Both public and private institutions now receive a shrinking portion of their overall funding from government sources. They are looking instead to private industry and other commercial activities to enhance their funding. Last summer, an investigation by the San Jose Mercury News found that one-third of Stanford University’s medical school administrators and department heads now have reported financial conflicts of interest related to their own research. These included stock options, consulting fees, and patents...

...Steven Nissen is perhaps the most prominent physician speaking out about the pharmaceutical industry’s growing influence over medical research. An esteemed cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Nissen has written more than 300 articles and served as the immediate past president of the American College of Cardiology. Working in a bustling academia-affiliated medical center has given Nissen a unique perspective on the benefits and risks of privatization.

In the past, academic medical investigators strove to maintain “arm’s-length relationships with their corporate sponsors,”? says Marcia Angell, a former editor in chief at The New England Journal of Medicine. That changed with the rise of biotechnology and the passage of landmark congressional legislation known as the Bayh-Dole Act. Passed in 1980, the act granted universities and their professors automatic rights to own and commercialize federally funded research. The goal was to unlock financial incentives that would speed the pace of American scientific innovation. Overnight, many of the cultural taboos associated with overt commercial profiteering on campus began to evaporate.

Nissen believes that interactions between academia and industry are crucial to the development of new treatments. He also accepts sponsored research grants from industry, both to test drugs and develop new treatments, although he tries to limit his personal financial conflicts of interest by requiring that any other consulting fees and honoraria be given directly to charity. Still, he is clearly troubled by the threat that privatization poses to academic autonomy—and to research objectivity. “We can only make good decisions in science when all of the information is available for physicians, scientists, and patients to review,”? he says. But drug companies are increasingly keeping physicians and their patients in the dark...

...Like medical researchers, university professors have long collaborated with private industry. In recent years, though, the nature and scope of these relationships have changed dramatically...

...University policies governing conflicts of interest and research integrity vary widely from campus to campus—and most still have a lot of holes, Bero contends. One 2005 study examining more than 100 academic medical centers found that half would allow the corporate sponsor to write manuscripts reporting on study results and only allow faculty to “suggest revisions”?—a policy basically authorizing commercial ghostwriting of academic research. Thirty-five percent allowed the sponsor to store clinical trial data and release only portions to the investigator; 62 percent allowed the sponsor to alter the study design after the researchers and the sponsor had signed an agreement.

Source: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sc ... te-funding

You were saying?

[rocketdog]

Rocketdog,

Eating tofu regularly e.g. daily(unless you are an adult female) is concerning.  I would check into that (and make sure you get your thyroid including TSH tested.  TSH should be 2 or less).

I appreciate your concern.  I rarely eat tofu (maybe once a week, or twice at most).  I've had 3 blood workups in the past year: one at my doctor's as part of a complete physical, another when I went on my wife's health insurance policy through her work, and yet another for a life insurance policy I bought.  All tests showed my levels were spot-on across-the-board, no issues.  So far so good. 

[rocketdog]

rocketdog,

What specific changes did you make to your diet?  Specifically:

- Did your calorie intake increase or decrease overall?

I would guess it stayed about the same.  I neither gained nor lost weight after removing meat/poultry/pork/fish from my diet.  Although over 22 years I've gained 22 pounds above and beyond my marathon weight, mostly because I don't run like I used.    (I'm 6'1" and I weighed 148lbs when I ran the marathon, with 5% body fat.  Today I weigh 170lbs, with probably closer to 10% body fat, but that's just an educated guess).

- What meats were you eating, mostly, before you dropped eating meat altogether?

I ate mainly chicken and turkey (white and dark).  No seafood (never liked it).  Pork on occassion (mostly pork chops, maybe once a week).  Red meat on occassion, maybe once or twice a week.

- What non-meat foods would you say worked their way in the most as a result of not eating meat?

Gosh, I've tried pretty much all of them.  When I gave up meat it wasn't like it is today, what with all the choices available.  I had to seek it out at health food specialty stores... and this was in L.A. of all places!  If I remember right, at first I added TVP, seitan, and tempeh.  Eventually I learned how to prepare tofu, but that's never been a staple in my diet.  And of course beans and legumes, including lentils (gasp!) 

Over time, as more options became available I rotated them into my diet.  Quorn is one (brand name for mycoprotein, made from mushrooms).  Plus various other vegetarian "meat analogs" have shared space in my fridge at one time or another.  The list is large. 

- Did you change your non-meat diet at all? (ie, quit drinking soda and eating as much sugar)

Not that I recall.  I was training for the marathon when I dropped the meat, and I was already eating fairly healthfully.  So all I really did was to sub in more beans, legumes, and soy products.  I probably also ate too much pasta (albeit whole grain, including non-wheat varieties like spelt and quinoa).  But there weren't a lot of options in those days, so I did what I could on the budget I had.

- Did your exercise habits change?

Only to the extent that my daily running routine was gradually increased to prepare for the marathon.  But after the marathon 6 months later, it was business as usual as far as exercise went (I probably even slacked off a bit compared to before the marathon training began). 

- Did you start or quit taking any supplements?

I was already taking a daily multi-vitamin and vitamin C.  I don't remember making any changes in that area. 

So give it to me straight doc, I can handle it -- am I gonna make it or not? 

[rocketdog]

Yeah. There's nothing specifically about a vegetarian diet that's inherently healthier than a meaty one. I know a vegetarian who mostly subsists on bread, vegetable ramen, pre-packaged pasta, and crap like that. There's no meat, so he's technically a vegetarian, but there sure ain't a ton of veggies.

Tell me about it!  I've seen far too many "vegetarians" who were a mess.  You still have to educate yourself and eat a well-balanced diet.  It becomes second-nature after a time, but you've got to put the initial effort into it like you do with any lifestyle habit change. 

I suspect what you mean, rocketdog, is that you started loading up on healthy vegetables, which is great! However, if this is the case, have you considered that the health improvements you've experienced have been due to the addition of the vegetables more than the elimination of the meat?

Well, I wouldn't go that far.  I was never a big veggie eater to begin with, but I think I began eating salads more frequently out of necessity.  I say that only because I remember when I decided to become vegetarian I thought I was condemning myself to a lifetime of salads and pasta.    I still eat a salad almost every day for lunch, but pasta only finds its way onto my plate about once every 2 weeks these days. 

I do eat a wider variety of vegetables than I used to, mostly because my wife and I bought a share in a local CSA farm.  So we get lots of veggies from May through October, many of which I'd never had before (ever have Kohlrabi?)  But I'm still a picky eater so my wife gets some of it all to herself. 

[rocketdog]

Corporations don't fund university studies or hospital studies.

False.

After I wrote that I thought to myself, "Y'know, there's probably a few Universities out there that are making underhanded corporate deals, just like they do with secret government and military research."  Go figure. 

[Gumby]

So give it to me straight doc, I can handle it -- am I gonna make it or not? 

Since flax/nuts are such a poor source of Omega-3s (humans — particularly vegetarians — are unable to convert much ALA into EPA/DHA) it would seem that you are waaay deficient in the longer chain EPA/DHA Omega-3s. Reducing your Omega-6 intake would be best. One way to reduce Omega-6 (at least a little bit) is to switch substitute coconut oil for vegetable oil (since coconut oil is high in saturated fat and therefore low in both Omega 3 and 6 polyunsaturates). A lot of vegetarians have made that switch, but it tends to open up their eyes on all the mainstream myths they've been spoonfed (how fat and cholesterol are supposedly bad, etc.).

The beans are full of anti-nutrients (lectins, for instance), so if you eat them a lot, your gut would be better off if you eased up on them (or at least soaked them properly).

[moda0306]

Gumby,

Legumes are supposedly bad... What about almonds?

What about potato skins?  Don't they have toxins and anti-nutrients?

And I think I've asked you this before but what about dairy?  Can I assume grass fed is best?  I absolutely love cottage cheese, but I feel like dairy has an unnatural element to it in terms of human consumption.  I've been drinking almond milk and love it.

[Gumby]

Legumes are supposedly bad... What about almonds?

Everything is fine in moderation.

What about potato skins?  Don't they have toxins and anti-nutrients?

The skins have a very thin layer of toxins — not worth worrying about. Jaminet discards potato skins but eats sweet potato skins (apparently there's a little difference).

And I think I've asked you this before but what about dairy?  Can I assume grass fed is best?  I absolutely love cottage cheese, but I feel like dairy has an unnatural element to it in terms of human consumption.  I've been drinking almond milk and love it.

Grass fed raw milk is the gold standard. Grass-fed whole pasteurized milk is fine in moderation, but not as ideal.

I would avoid almond milk. Eating small amounts of almonds, on occasion, is fine (it's a "pleasure food" by PHD standards). But, since Almonds are high in Omega-6, you would be consuming too much in milk form.

http://www.balancedbites.com/PDFs/thepa ... sTable.pdf

Most nuts are high in Omega-6 and the ones that are high in Omega-3 are only high in ALA — which isn't converted very well into EPA/DHA.

[rocketdog]

And I think I've asked you this before but what about dairy?  Can I assume grass fed is best?  I absolutely love cottage cheese, but I feel like dairy has an unnatural element to it in terms of human consumption.  I've been drinking almond milk and love it.

Sorry to butt in, but you're right about dairy being unnatural.  Humans are the only mammals that drink the breast milk of a different species, not to mention that we drink it past infanthood.  It's kind of perverse when you think about it. 

That said, I do love myself some cheese (except cottage), which is why I'm not vegan.  Guilty as charged!

As for almond milk, I don't know much about it, except that it's not really "milk" of course and it's probably got some sort of sweetner and stablilizers in it? 

[Gumby]

Humans are the only mammals that drink the breast milk of a different species, not to mention that we drink it past infanthood.  It's kind of perverse when you think about it.

And yet, breast milk is called the "perfect food" despite the fact that it is high in saturated fat and cholesterol.

Raw cow's milk is fairly close in its composition to breast milk. Human milk has a macronutrient profile of roughly 54% fat, 39% carbs and 7% protein (it varies a bit depending on the individual). Note that fat is a majority of calories in, breast milk — what many scientists consider "the perfect food". That's because fat soluble vitamins are only found in fats and cannot be easily absorbed without the presence of fat (i.e. you and your brain need fat).

Every mammalian species has a similar macronutrient order in their breast milk. Raw cow's milk is roughly 52% fat, 29% carbs, and 19% protein (it varies a bit depending on the cow).

And if you think about it, Paleolithic diets were very close to those same macronutrient orders (i.e. majority fat, minority carbs/protein in terms of calories).

[moda0306]

Gumby,

I think referring to milk as "the perfect food" just because some scientists do, while other scientists insist dairy has a host of problems, is a bit much.

[Gumby]

Huh? I never said that scientists refer to all "milk" as the perfect food.

I said that many scientists consider "breast milk" to be the perfect food — which is 100% true — and that it happens to have a specific macronutrient profile that is generally similar to cow's milk. (I just edited my above statement to clarify that).

Virtually nobody disputes the benefits of human breast milk.

[moda0306]

I don't consider the macronutrient profile to be at all similar to what people evolved on past in fancy for millions of years... Lactose is something very unique to milk, is it not?

[Gumby]

I don't consider the macronutrient profile to be at all similar to what people evolved on past in fancy for millions of years...

What exactly do you mean? Archaeological evidence suggests that the paleolithic diet was majority fat and minorty carbs/protein in terms of caloric intake. That was all covered in the PHD (with references to all the research).

Lactose is something very unique to milk, is it not?

Raw milk (in all mammals) has lactase — which digests the lactose for you. So, it really doesn't matter if raw milk has lactose since the lactase is present to break down the sugar. Lactose is really only a problem when you boil the milk and kill off the lactase. Make sense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase

Also...

While it’s true that some people (described above) react to the proteins in milk, most who are sensitive are reacting to the sugar in milk: lactose. The enzyme lactase must be present to hydrolyze lactose into its constituent compounds, glucose and galactose. Somewhere between 1% – 95% of people don’t produce lactase on their own, depending on race and ethnicity.

In a sign of nature’s wisdom, raw milk contains lactase, the enzyme needed to digest lactose. Pasteurization, however, kills lactase. So if you don’t produce your own lactase, you’ll have a hard time digesting pasteurized milk. But that doesn’t mean you can’t tolerate raw milk. I can’t tolerate pasteurized dairy myself, but I don’t seem to have any problems with raw dairy.

Source: http://chriskresser.com/dairy-food-of-t ... of-disease

This is an example why nature just works when you don't mess around with it.

There's nothing very natural about almond milk — it requires machinery and wild almonds are poisonous. They only be became safe to consume once they were hybridized and domesticated.

[moda0306]

Gumby,

I was referring to the lactose as the reason why I don't like the macronutrient profile of milk.  Even with lactase, isn't milk the only source of that sugar?  We've evolved drinking lactose as infants and then never again. 

For instance, gluten is a protein.  Trans fats are different than Omega 3's.  Just because it may fit into a "macronutrient" profile doesn't mean that the individual traits of the proteins, carbs, or fats is ideal.  I could create a pile of shit food that had the right "macronutrient profile" filled with trans fats, bad proteins, and high fructose corn syrup.

[Gumby]

Gumby,

I was referring to the lactose as the reason why I don't like the macronutrient profile of milk.  Even with lactase, isn't milk the only source of that sugar?  We've evolved drinking lactose as infants and then never again.

What's your point? The fact that the carbs are in that form doesn't make it "bad" per se. I mean, the lactase breaks it down into glucose and galactose. Glucose is the primary metabolic fuel for humans and galactose is also found in sugar beets. Big deal. Lactose literally nourishes infants perfectly to toddlerhood. What exactly do you not like about lactose? The fact that the lactase gene used to shut down after weaning probably had more to do with lack of exposure to lactose than anything else (as evidenced by the fact that lactase persistence was so quickly exhibited via genetic morphisms at the dawn agriculture).

Anyway, raw milk is basically a bio-hack if you think about it. You could thrive on it for days if needed. It nourishes virtually anybody who drinks it (except those who are truly allergic to cow's milk proteins).

For instance, gluten is a protein.  Trans fats are different than Omega 3's.  Just because it may fit into a "macronutrient" profile doesn't mean that the individual traits of the proteins, carbs, or fats is ideal.  I could create a pile of shit food that had the right "macronutrient profile" filled with trans fats, bad proteins, and high fructose corn syrup.

Terrible analogy, Moda...  gluten, trans fats, bad proteins, high fructose corn syrup and "shit" are not "macronutrients".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_macronutrients

Anyway, I was just talking about the high-level primary "Macro" profile (fat, protein, carbs). You didn't have to go all "micro" on it. My point was that the primary Macro profile resembles the paleolithic diet (majority high fat, minority carbs/protein). Get it?

"There are three primary macronutrients defined as being the classes of chemical compounds humans consume in the largest quantities and which provide bulk energy. These are protein, fat, and carbohydrate."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_macronutrients

And I thought you were good at Macro.

[moda0306]

Gumby,

I was referring to the lactose as the reason why I don't like the macronutrient profile of milk.  Even with lactase, isn't milk the only source of that sugar?  We've evolved drinking lactose as infants and then never again.

What's your point? The fact that the carbs are in that form doesn't make it "bad" per se. I mean, the lactase breaks it down into glucose and galactose. Glucose is the primary metabolic fuel for humans and galactose is also found in sugar beets. Big deal. Lactose literally nourishes infants perfectly to toddlerhood. What exactly do you not like about lactose? The fact that the lactase gene used to shut down after weaning probably had more to do with lack of exposure to lactose than anything else (as evidenced by the fact that lactase persistence was so quickly exhibited via genetic morphisms at the dawn agriculture).

Anyway, raw milk is basically a bio-hack if you think about it. You could thrive on it for days if needed. It nourishes virtually anybody who drinks it (except those who are truly allergic to cow's milk proteins).

For instance, gluten is a protein.  Trans fats are different than Omega 3's.  Just because it may fit into a "macronutrient" profile doesn't mean that the individual traits of the proteins, carbs, or fats is ideal.  I could create a pile of shit food that had the right "macronutrient profile" filled with trans fats, bad proteins, and high fructose corn syrup.

Terrible analogy, Moda...  gluten, trans fats, bad proteins, high fructose corn syrup and "shit" are not "macronutrients".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_macronutrients

Anyway, I was just talking about the high-level primary "Macro" profile (fat, protein, carbs). You didn't have to go all "micro" on it. My point was that the primary Macro profile resembles the paleolithic diet (majority high fat, minority carbs/protein). Get it?

"There are three primary macronutrients defined as being the classes of chemical compounds humans consume in the largest quantities and which provide bulk energy. These are protein, fat, and carbohydrate."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_macronutrients

And I thought you were good at Macro.

Gumby,

Thanks for the breakdown of lactose.  However, I realize that proteins, carbs, and fats are "macronutrients."  What I was trying to say is that I could build the "right ratio" of macronutrients with sh!tty versions of them, and therefore I don't care what milk's "macronutrient profile" is until I know that the specific types of carbs, proteins, and fats found in milk are not damaging to the human body, and hopefully that they are some of the best kinds to be digestin.  I haven't been convinced of that yet.

Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.  Plus, finding organic, much less raw milk, is difficult enough that I don't bother anymore... especially since it's main purpose was either for cereal or mac & cheese .

[Benko]

Gumby,

Milk is a super common allergen.

Are you really suggesting that milk is safer for more people than e.g. grains, legumes, nuts?

[Pointedstick]

Gumby,

Milk is a super common allergen.

Are you really suggesting that milk is safer for more people than e.g. grains, legumes, nuts?

Without putting words in his mouth, I think Gumby is probably drawing a distinction between raw, lactase-including milk and processed lactase-less milk. Are people really all that allergic to raw milk? My infant son sure isn't! 

[moda0306]

PS,

Is that face part of your comment or something your son gives you when he's displaying just how not allergic to raw milk he is?

And if I crossed a line, I'm sorry  .

[Gumby]

I don't care what milk's "macronutrient profile" is until I know that the specific types of carbs, proteins, and fats found in milk are not damaging to the human body, and hopefully that they are some of the best kinds to be digestin.  I haven't been convinced of that yet.

You are trying to have a "micro" conversation when all I was talking about is "macro". Surely you know the difference.

Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.

You are. I never mentioned any of the micro parts of milk (such as Lactose). I was purely using the primary macro ingredients to show that fat and cholesterol are not toxins. They are primary macronutrients.

Plus, finding organic, much less raw milk, is difficult enough that I don't bother anymore...

Well, what I can tell you? Raw milk is real milk, as nature intended it. Pasteurized, homogenized, grain fed milk is a heavily processed product — it's no wonder people have bad reactions to pasteurized/homogenized milk since it isn't that great for digestion.

[Pointedstick]

PS,

Is that face part of your comment or something your son gives you when he's displaying just how not allergic to raw milk he is?

And if I crossed a line, I'm sorry  .

Bahahaha! No don't worry, we joke about him like that all the time. But yes, like all babies, he really likes his raw milk.