Doctor's Note

For those interested in digging deeper, there was an interesting Scientific American blog this summer entitled "Human Ancestors Were Nearly All Vegetarians" and there's an in-depth video series on YouTube. I wrote a whole book on the former low carb fad incarnation, Carbophobia, now available free online (like all of my work). I also have two videos Atkins Diet: Trouble Keeping It Up and Plant-Based Atkins Diet.

For some more context, please check out my associated blog posts: The Real Paleo Diet98% of American Diets Potassium Deficient, and Uric Acid From Meat and Sugar

If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

  • http://nutritionfacts.org/ Michael Greger M.D.

    For those interested in digging deeper, there was an interesting Scientific American blog this summer entitled “Human Ancestors Were Nearly All Vegetarians” and there’s an in-depth video series on YouTube. I wrote a whole book on the former low carb fad incarnation, Carbophobia, now available free online (like all of my work). I also have two videos Atkins Diet: Trouble Keeping It Up and Plant-Based Atkins Diet.

    If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

    • Procyan

      But the Harvard School of Public Health says we should fats up to 30 percent of calories.  You know, Harvard.  I mean Cornell is great but …  Whats a Holocene hominid to do?

      • JK

        A really great book to read is The China Study.  The author reveals how the food industry (dairy, meat), the big pharmaceuticals, and academia are in bed together and are behind the notion that you cite….that we should take in up to 30% fats.  It’s interesting.  

        • Procyan

          Thanks JK.  I did read it and watched FoK’s and have been WFPB’d for since july 2011.  I am doing much better. 

          But it upsets me when I see such conflicting info from reputable institutions such as Harvard.  Have you read this:

          http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/

          Harvard says that I am hurting my heart by not eating enough good fat.  And they read the literature too.

          It bothers me when scientists in various camps simply ignore the arguments of their peers.  They should ignore the wacko’s but Harvard says nothing, not one word, about The China Study, or any of the WFPB camp.

          How has Harvard been duped by the food industry?

          • Veganrunner

            Hi Procyan,

            What I noticed about the information in the link above is that progress is being made! Compare that to nutritional advice from 10 years ago and one can see the trend is changing.

            With all the current research on a WFPB diet what will the food pyramid look like in another 10 years? I think it is very encouraging!

          • Procyan

            Yes I do take your point and someday this will all be clear as…but THIS issue is black and white.  Either its under 10% calories from lipid or 30% is best. 

            There is a moral responsibility for any authority such as HSPH to get it right before making condecending statements like “Its time to end the low-fat myth”.  Afterall, this is a matter of life and death.

            I have learned from Dr G to constantly adjust my diet to incorporate new knowledge.  As near as I can tell, calories from fat is still a toss up. 

            I am not trying to provoke anyone except perhaps to separate the subtler aspects like which mushroom is best from the essential need to get it right.  You know, so I don’t have to read literature that I don’t understand anyway, heh.

          • http://www.facebook.com/duke.manly.5 Duke Manly

            I think a better idea would be to actually do the research yourself instead of listening to some internet guru. I’m reading his atkins debunker website…and its despicable. MDs are trained practionors, not researchers. This guy just wants your attention and will try to trick you by coming off as science based. For example:

            “Noting that by the end of the year, half of the Atkins group had dropped out, and those who remained ended up an unimpressive 4% lighter, Fat of The Land author Michael Fumento commented, “do you really think any of them could sell a single book copy, much less as many as 15 million (for Atkins), by admitting to a 50 percent drop-out rate in one year with a mere five percent of weight loss among those left?”[218]”

            This is a quotation he is using as an argument in the same page, he praises the ornish diet, which had a higher drop out rate than the atkins diet (by 1, the dropout rate was similar in all groups, and adherence was lower in atkins than the ornish, but not by a lot). He is using a quote to critiize a diet for having a “high” drop out rate. Yet, when he talks about his precious vegan diet, the fact of a similar (higher int he study, effectively equal) dropout rate is nowhere to be heard.

            You see how he is decieving you? I’ve seen a lot of other incidences such as this throughout his arguments. This is why it pays to read references. Don’t trust internet gurus. Having an MD doesn’t make somebody correct or trustworthy.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Reminds me of Campbell’s protein study on the rats. He tells you that the high protein rats developed cancer but he fails to mention the low-protein rats ALL DIED.

            >.<

          • Thea

            Paleo Huntrees: That’s a weird thing to write. I just finished reading The China Study. It says in black and white, right there on top of page 61 of my copy: 100% of the rats on the high (animal) protein diet were dead at 100 weeks. And 100% of the animals on the low protein diet were alive at 100 weeks. FYI: plant protein did not have the same detrimental effect as the animal protein.

            Yes, eventually, every animal dies. But those rats who were getting the low protein diet were extremely lucky and lived longer than the group of rats getting the high animal protein diet. In other words, the very opposite of what you wrote above is true.

            Clearly you didn’t read the book, and I’m sure you are innocently repeating what you have been erroneously told elsewhere (probably on a some paleo site?). Now that you know the truth, I hope you will share it with others.

            A tip: Don’t take my word for it. Read the book yourself. Not only is this data extremely compelling, but the rest of it is too. Good luck.

          • Paleo Huntress

            I’ve read the book… I was vegan for two years. Get off your high horse and ask for clarification if you need it.

            Campbell even mentions the study in Forks Over Knives… in the study I’m referencing, rodents were given aflatoxin and given 2 different diets. One with 20% protein (casein) and one with 5%. He found that they were more likely to get cancer if they ate high-protein diets and actually claimed that the ones fed low-protein diets were less likely to develop malignant tumors. Technically that was true.

            However, the low protein rats all died young. Every. Last. One. They got less cancer because they didn’t live long enough to develop tumors. And correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the point of avoiding cancer to actually live LONGER?

            Then he did similar tests on monkeys and found that the high protein group DIDN’T get cancer at all.

            “Monkeys on low protein diet surviving for 90 weeks or more show foci of preneoplastic lesions, whereas those on high protein diet reveal no such alterations at the corresponding time interval…”

            FYI: Although he SAYS otherwise, according to Campbell’s OWN data, plant protein was MORE strongly correlated with cancer than animal protein.

            Perhaps it’s time for YOU to review the data again.

            ~Huntress

          • Thea

            Huntress: I’m referring to the exact same study you are referring to. Here is the exact quote from the book, top of page 61/paperback copy:

            “The effects of protein feeding on tumor development were nothing less than spectacular. Rats generally live for about two years, thus the study was 100 weeks in length. All animals that were administered aflaxtoxin and fed the regular 20% levels of casein either were dead or near death from liver tumors at 100 weeks. All animals administered the same level of aflatoxin but fed the low 5% protein diet were alive, active and thrifty, with sleek hair coats at 100 weeks. This was a virtual 100 to 0 score, something almost never seen in research and almost identical to the original research in India.”

            He gives references in the book if you need to verify. I can’t imagine how you could have read the book and come to the conclusion that you did. Do you still think I am missing something about the above paragraph?

            I don’t know anything about that monkey study, but given your understanding of the rat study, I would need to see the original paper to be able to buy what you are saying.

            re: “high horse” Oh goodness. I spent extra time trying extra hard to make my post was as gentle and helpful as possible. I’m sorry you were offended despite my efforts. Know that I was trying to help you and others out. Let’s keep this discussion as accurate and civil as we can.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Thea,

            If that was an apology, it was a poor one, but I accept.

            A tip: If you don’t wish to come off sounding high and mighty, it would make more sense to assume that a person commenting on a book has probably read that book. Now of course, this isn’t always the case, but it would make MUCH more sense to ask for clarification than to suggest with “A tip” that I go read something I’m already referencing.

            Moving on:

            This is the specific study I refer to and one of several that Campbell did with similar levels of casein. (Arch Pathol. 1968 Feb;85(2):133-7 | The effect of dietary protein on carcinogenesis of aflatoxin)

            The paper specifically states that six months into the study they stopped feeding the daily aflatoxin because half of the low protein rats had died– and eventually the reminder before the two year mark. ALL of the high protein rats survived past 2 years.

            In his OWN first study a few years later (J Nutr. 1972 Jan;102(1):53-60 | Effect of protein deprivation of male weanling rats on the kinetics of hepatic microsomal enzyme activity.)

            He writes-

            “A deficiency of dietary protein was shown to increase the toxicity of aflatoxin for rats.”

            “The effect of protein deficiency in male weanling rats on the activity of the hepatic microsomal enzyme system was studied.”

            He also looked at levels of 5 and 20% protein from casein, though there was a second 20% group where he restricted calories as well. Typically a healthy rat will double it’s body weight (50-100 grams) in 2 years (and the 20% group did), but the 5% protein group only reached 75 grams. The low protein group also developed fatty livers.

            He wrote:

            “the normal rate of cell proliferation would have been decreased during protein deprivation, which is similar to the retardation of brain cell growth of young malnourished animals.

            Campbell did another study in 1980 with aflatoxin (J Toxicol Environ Health. 1980 May;6(3):659-71 | Subcellular distribution and covalent binding of aflatoxins as functions of dietary manipulation.)

            In the 20% casein diet they added aflatoxin at five parts per million (5 ppm) aflatoxin, but the 5% casein diet with only half that– 2.5 ppm. the stated reason was,

            “5 ppm was found to be lethal for this dietary group.”

            In every study he’s done, he’s shown that the higher protein group does better in every area. It is bizarre that he claims otherwise.”

            ~Huntress

          • Thea

            Hmmm. That’s quite the contradiction. Not much else to say without doing a lot more research. Good luck to you.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Thea,

            Campbell also did a study in 1978 (Fed Proc. 1976 Nov;35(13):2470-4 | The effect of quantity and quality of dietary protein on drug metabolism)

            He write:

            “The toxicities of several pesticides have been shown to be markedly increased, such as that of captan which is increased 2,100 times by protein deficiency.”

            In the summary of his findings he lists 3 toxins whose toxicity decreased on low-protein (5%) diets and 18 (6 times more) whose toxicity increased on low-protein diets.

            His concluding sentence reads:

            “This observation suggests that the low protein intake was not sufficient to allow for tissue recovery from the acute toxic effects.”

            So in 1978, he describes 5% as “protein deficiency” and later it becomes “ideal”?!

          • Paleo Huntress

            In his 1983 study (Cancer Res. 1983 May;43(5):2150-4 | Effect of high and low dietary protein on the dosing and postdosing periods of aflatoxin B1-induced hepatic preneoplastic lesion development in the rat)

            He finds:

            “Some degree of bile duct proliferation was observed in all animals dosed with AFB1. However, the groups fed the 5% casein diet during the dosing period had relatively severe bile duct proliferation and cholangiofibrosis [fibrosis of the bile duct]. In these groups, the architecture of the liver was often distorted by fibrous septa. Groups fed the 20% casein diet during the dosing period had mild bile duct proliferation and no cholangiofibrosis.

            I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Campbell significantly misrepresented his own data.

          • Synergy

            It is rather convenient to rely on untrained bloggers to debunk the whole of academia, but it’s not at all reliable. In the blogoshere, all it takes is a few contradictory cherry picked studies and we’ve got a roiling controversy on our hands — no matter how poorly supported the outlier data is in full context of the peer reviewed literature. (global warming?)

            Campbell is the big flashy name, but his work is hardly comprehensive by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary, Campbell could have lied about every finding he has since promoted and it would ultimately be of little consequence considering the mountain of data we have before us today.

            It will take a monumental amount of evidence to overturn the thoroughly robust “lipid hypothesis,” for one. Taubes, Minger, Colpo, et al. have quite the uphill battle before them. Worsening the odds is the fact that not one of them has relevant credentials, and each one has been caught red handed grossly misrepresenting evidence (Eisenhower? Keys?), but they’re the ones we should supposedly trust? Sorry, but that’s not how science works.

            If you do prefer that bloggers filter the data for you, perhaps you would enjoy the extensive work of “Plant Positive” at plantpositive.com and his associated youtube channel. As you suggested, it’s important to review both sides.

            Not only does the paleo/low carb argument commit the burden of proof fallacy, but it also relies heavily on the fallacy of composition.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Synergy,

            Paleo and low carb are not different parts of the same ideal. Some paleo advocates eat low carb as well but low carb can be anything from Atkins bars and Diet Coke to paleo pastured beed and Spring water, to vegan tofu and green smoothies. There are plenty of plant-based low carbers too and plenty of high carb paleo proponents. It isn’t helpful to lump them in together.

            I prefer the data, and Campbell’s data is easy to review if you feel the need to. Unlike many of the pb advocates, Campbell has been doing the research himself for decades and much of his data supports whole food omnivorism even though he seems determined to insist otherwise.

            As I said, the data itself is good, it is the conclusion that is dubious. I love nutrition blogs, but I don’t take any blogger’s word for anything. They may be the one that provides the heads up, but I will check out the evidence before I decide whether I agree or not.

            Great comment. =)

          • Dan Lundeen

            Campbell goes into a lot more detail in his new book Whole and explains why the death of the non cancerous rats is totally irrelevant. The animal protein activates an enzyme that damages DNA as a side effect.

          • Paleo Huntress

            LMAO It’s totally irrelevant because getting people to buy the malarky that a guaranteed early death is less concerning than possible cancer is the only way to prevent looking like a completebuffoon.

          • Dan Lundeen

            Meat, dairy and egg consumption are all inversely correlated with longevity, and positively with morbidity. Watch this for some good background info: http://nutritionfacts.org/video/uprooting-the-leading-causes-of-death/ If you are troubled by the video, note the “transcript” and “sources cited” tabs below the video.

            Campbell’s research explained why the poor kids of the Philippines, who ate more aflatoxin-contaminated peanut butter made from the moldy peanuts, did not get oodles of cancer like their rich, cocktail peanut eating, milk swilling contemporaries did. The rats were given humongous liver-destroying doses of the liver toxin to show that it was not the aflatoxin that caused the cancer; no, only the rats who got both the aflatoxin and the animal protein got the cancer. (All ‘cancer screenings’ on rats are done with carcinogenic levels of animal protein btw or none of them would ever get cancer.)

            Of course you have not read the new book — it explains how someone can always contrive a reductionist study to show that a poison such as meat may have a limited benefit under certain circumstances, e.g., if there is nothing else to eat.

            This last post of yours is such simple-minded drivel on a topic quite incapable of complete comprehension, and on a forum antagonistic to your POV, that by your reference to buffoons you must either expect to be called one or you totally are — you’re not Debra Minger are you? (That would explain why you are hiding behind the pseudonym) Well I’m not going to bite. What is clear is that your postings have no value.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Debra? OMG, it’s clear you spend your days up the butts of the vegan gurus and don’t bother getting educated on ALL sides or you’d know that Ms. Minger’s name isn’t Debra. Seriously dude, I have comments all over her blog too. (Google is your friend) I’m heading to bed and will address your comments when I’m rested. In the meantime, get your head free of the vegan colon it’s trapped in, smell the fart-free air and learn the woman’s name so you don’t look like such an idiot when you comment.

          • Real World Vegan

            erpa derp… another paleo-centric name change. we rlly do get under your skin, dont we dan? its a free country and all, but it seems a little childish dude.

            do you feed fritzy a pb diet?

          • Paleo Huntress

            This is so funny, Thea. My comments with the data from Campbells studies have been deleted. Why do you suppose that is? I guess it doesn’t look very good when the DATA you’re using to back your claims does just the opposite. It definitely makes Dr. Gregor look bad- when you can’t prove your argument, the next best thing to do it censor the opponent’s argument. Why would he do that if his argument was sound?

            I copied it though- so I’ll share it again-

            Paleo Huntress Thea • 2 months ago

            This is the specific study I refer to and one of several that Campbell did with similar levels of casein. (Arch Pathol. 1968 Feb;85(2):133-7 | The effect of dietary protein on carcinogenesis of aflatoxin)

            The paper specifically states that six months into the study they stopped feeding the daily aflatoxin because half of the low protein rats had died– and eventually the reminder before the two year mark. ALL of the high protein rats survived past 2 years.

            In his OWN first study a few years later (J Nutr. 1972 Jan;102(1):53-60 | Effect of protein deprivation of male weanling rats on the kinetics of hepatic microsomal enzyme activity.)

            He writes-

            “The effect of protein deficiency in male weanling rats on the activity of the hepatic microsomal enzyme system was studied.”

            “A deficiency of dietary protein was shown to increase the toxicity of aflatoxin for rats.”

            He also looked at levels of 5 and 20% protein from casein, though there was a second 20% group where he restricted calories as well. Typically a healthy rat will double it’s body weight (50-100 grams) in 2 years (and the 20% group did), but the 5% protein group only reached 75 grams. The low protein group also developed fatty livers.

            He wrote:

            “[T]he normal rate of cell proliferation would have been decreased during protein deprivation, which is similar to the retardation of brain cell growth of young malnourished animals.

            Campbell did another study in 1980 with aflatoxin (J Toxicol Environ Health. 1980 May;6(3):659-71 | Subcellular distribution and covalent binding of aflatoxins as functions of dietary manipulation.)

            In the 20% casein diet they added aflatoxin at five parts per million (5 ppm) aflatoxin, but the 5% casein diet with only half that– 2.5 ppm. the stated reason was,

            “5 ppm was found to be lethal for this dietary group.”

            In every study he’s done, he’s shown that the higher protein group does better in every area. It is bizarre that he claims otherwise.

            Paleo Huntress Thea • 2 months ago

            In his 1983 study (Cancer Res. 1983 May;43(5):2150-4 | Effect of high and low dietary protein on the dosing and postdosing periods of aflatoxin B1-induced hepatic preneoplastic lesion development in the rat)

            He finds:

            “Some degree of bile duct proliferation was observed in all animals dosed with AFB1. However, the groups fed the 5% casein diet during the dosing period had relatively severe bile duct proliferation and cholangiofibrosis [fibrosis of the bile duct]. In these groups, the architecture of the liver was often distorted by fibrous septa. Groups fed the 20% casein diet during the dosing period had mild bile duct proliferation and no cholangiofibrosis.

            Paleo Huntress Thea • 2 months ago

            Campbell also published a study in 1978 (Fed Proc. 1976 Nov;35(13):2470-4 | The effect of quantity and quality of dietary protein on drug metabolism)

            He writes:

            “The toxicities of several pesticides have been shown to be markedly increased, such as that of captan which is increased 2,100 times by protein deficiency.”

            In the summary of his findings he lists 3 toxins whose toxicity decreased on low-protein (5%) diets and 18 (6 times more) whose toxicity increased on low-protein diets.

            His concluding sentence reads:

            “This observation suggests that the low protein intake was not sufficient to allow for tissue recovery from the acute toxic effects.”

            So in 1978, he describes 5% as “protein deficiency” and later it becomes “ideal”?!

            I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Campbell significantly misrepresented his own data.

          • http://nutritionfacts.org/ Michael Greger M.D.

            Just FYI I’ve never deleted any of your comments. The only comments I’ve ever deleted on the site are the rare occasions when people have been abusive (name-calling, racist, etc…)

          • Paleo Huntress

            That’s really good to hear Dr. Greger. Can you explain where the comments went? There were THREE separate comments with the data. And if I was to try and delete them myself, there would be a “comment deleted” place marker.

          • http://nutritionfacts.org/ Michael Greger M.D.

            I don’t know. Might want to contact Disqus–they run the comment functionality of the site. Maybe they can track them down. Sorry you’re having trouble with the site!

          • Paleo Huntress

            I contacted Disqus and they tell me that only the group owner/moderator and the person commenting can delete a comment. Interestingly though, the comments appear here again- so this was all a misunderstanding I’m sure.

          • H Barzilai

            I am shocked, shocked, shocked to discover you did not give the url and reference where “all the rats died” because, and [you clearly mean to imply] and ONLY because of being on low protein diet….So shocking, it couldn’t possibly be because you’re passing on info that distorted things? I can tell you one study, that’s been going for 20 years, called my vegan diet, low protein, and looks like in 20 years of low protein is hasn’t killed me yet…strange, isn’t it? :-)

            Meanwhile just the other day a report on a study that was published in the journal Cell Metabolism, not some touchy feely journal, huh? Cell Metabolism.

            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-05/low-carb-diet-may-shorten-your-life-study-finds/5299284

            Eating a high protein, low carb diet could actually make you unhealthy and more likely to die younger, a landmark Australian study has found.

            The three-year study by the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre found that while high protein diets might make you slimmer..the best diet for longevity is one low in protein and high in carbohydrates.

            Professor of geriatric medicine David Le Couteur from Sydney’s Anzac Research Institute was part of the team which modified the diets of 900
            mice with dramatic results.

            “If you’re interested in a longer life span and late-life health, then a diet that is low in protein, high in carbohydrate and low in fat is preferable,” he said.

            The team put mice on 25 different diets, altering the proportions of protein, carbohydrates and fat.

            The mice were allowed to eat as much food as they wanted to more closely replicate the food choices humans make.

            “The healthiest diets were the ones that had the lowest protein, 5 to 10 to 15 per cent protein, the highest amount of carbohydrate, so 60,
            70, 75 per cent carbohydrate, and a reasonably low fat content, so less than 20 per cent,” Professor Le Couteur said.

            ….High protein, low carbohydrate diets like the Atkins diet and Paleo craze are popular among people wanting to lose fat. “What we did find is in late mid-life, when we analysed their health, the animals on the best diet, the low-protein/high carbohydrate diets,
            had better blood pressure, had better LDL cholesterol, had better glucose tolerance, less diabetes and so on,” he said.

            Professor Le Couteur says plenty of data in humans already exists that shows people who choose a high protein diet have worse outcomes in
            terms of death and disease.

            “Certainly we found and we expected to find that high protein diets led to weight loss and led to increased muscle bulk, but this was

            associated with worse outcomes, whether it was blood pressure or diabetes or life span,” he said.

          • Phaedra

            “I am shocked, shocked, shocked to discover you did not give the url and reference”

            All of the studies referenced were also cited in totality, you’d see that if you read the remainder of the thread. Much of the data cited is decades old and it isn’t anyone else’s job to spoon-feed it you. If you’re truly interested, take the citation and research the resource yourself. Links are convenient, but certainly not expected. 

          • H Barzilai

            The “rest of the thread” has a debunking by others showing how utterly false the claim was by “Huntress” who claimed the study showed that low-protein diets lead to 100% mortality, so other readers and follow that, but there’s a broader point worth commenting on. The broader point goes beyond what one study did or did not show, and that was that Huntress was very clearly attempting to convince everyone that low protein diets lead to “100% [early] mortality” No need to deny it, that was the very essence, and fraudulent essence of her very short post trying to mislead readers to exactly that conclusion: low protein means 100% mortality, she asserted.. Meaning 100% early mortality (not from natural causes) was the claim, and that is so absurdly false a claim, with so many vegan, vegetarian, and even non-vegetarians eating “low protein” and living into their 80s and 90s..

            It clearly isn’t the job of “Huntress” or “Phaedra” to spoon-feed, but to mis-lead.

            Then they get snippy, sarcastic, pretend to be offended, and when folks like Thea continue to bend over backwards to be nice, Thea is told “if that was supposed to be an apology, it was a poor one” and on and on. Reminds me of global warming deniers, ultra sensitive on their own websites about a peep showing evidence, but full of deliberately misleading and even rude posts on websites concerned with addressing AGW, whose regulars bend over backwards to respond both factually and super duper sensitively.

            I’m not (yet) ready to ask for site management to have the IP of Huntress and the rest to be banned, but sure wish the rest of us users could have the option of an “Ignore” button for that IP. I’ve been one to repeatedly offer an olive branch to omnis and others who are deal honestly but here it is clearly just serial repeated dishonesty again and again by Huntress and company and I’m done with dealing with those who are fans of “Zen and the Art of Lying to Others and Myself So I Can Continue My Emotionally Comforting Flesh-eating Poor Dietary Habits”

          • Phaedra

            blockquote>“The “rest of the thread” has a debunking by others”

            You were calling the comment out for not citing the sources, however, she DID cite them… and there wasn’t anything to debunk, his data was both cited and quoted accurately. You can certainly disagree with the argument, but the citations are sound.

            Paleo Huntress has already been banned from this forum. Most of the world’s population is omnivorous meaning most of the 80 and 90 year olds are as well. The two largest studies done comparing vegetarians to omnis (EPIC and SDA) found no difference in mortality rates. If it is your implication that vegans live longer, there is no evidence of this. 

            “Meanwhile just the other day a report on a study that was published in the journal Cell Metabolism, not some touchy feely journal, huh? Cell Metabolism.”

            Considering the criticisms over citations you imagined were missing (citations you must have seen since you gave Thea a thumbs up for her reply to the citation list), I’m surprised that you would link to a media story and not the journal publication itself.

            You know what’s interesting about the mouse study?  This is the ingredient list for the high protein mouse chow-

            Corn starch (397 g)

            Casein (200 g)

            Maltodextrin (132 g)

            Sucrose (100 g)

            Soybean oil (70 g)

            Cellulose (50 g)

            Where are the plants and animals?  What can you conclusively extrapolate about whole food human diets from processed mouse diets?  Nothing. 

            This is a link to another recent Cell Metabolism study publication that looked at actual people as opposed to mice- Low Protein Intake Is Associated with a Major Reduction in IGF 1, Cancer, and Overall Mortality in the 65 and Younger but Not Older Population | Cell Metabolism, Volume 19, Issue 3, 407-417, 4 March 2014

            This is what the UK’s National Health Services had to say about the study in a press release-

            The claim in much of the media, that a high protein diet in middle-aged people is “as dangerous as smoking” is unsupported.

            The headlines suggesting a high protein diet is “as harmful as smoking” was not a specific finding of the study and should be seen as unnecessary fear-mongering. This is particularly of note given that the effects of a high protein diet were found to differ dramatically by age.

            However, the opposite effect of high protein intake was seen among those aged over 65. In this age group high protein intake was associated with:

            –a 28% reduction in the risk of death during follow up (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94)

            –a 60% reduction in the risk of death from cancer during follow up (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71)

            Overall, there was no association between protein intake and risk of death from any cause, or death from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, moderate or high protein consumption was associated with an increased risk of death related to complications associated with diabetes. The authors noted that the number of people dying from diabetes-related causes was low, so larger studies were needed to confirm this finding.

            So it would appear that when you look at data that analyzes people eating real food, rather than mice eating processed mouse chow, protein intake has no correlation with overall longevity. Another point to consider is that the lead researcher in the mouse study is vegan. The vegetarian community is quick to dismiss saturated fat data due when there is potential dairy industry bias, so their embrace of this study, though not unexpected, is rather hypocritical. 

          • H Barzilai

            Let’s not confuse two points, both true:

            1) The comment I replied to did not cite anything (in that specific comment)

            2) In later comments, “Huntress” had more to add, including links, but others debunked the heck (and I will not take the bait by repeating their beunking) debunked the daylights out fo the “low protein? you get 100% mortality!” comment she made

            3) Mind boggling that you conclude your OWN comment saying that protein “have no effect” on longevity…while defending the poster who made the most extrme implicit claim: that “low protein” leads to “100% mortality”…an outlandish and false claim, she was transparently trying to convince people “low protein” is a dangerous threat out there not just in the study but that “100% mortality” is the risk in general for “low protein”. Utterly false, and even transparently false, and contrary (her false implication is contrary) to your conclusion..but it’s those evil dangerous nasty pro-veg researchers that are oppressing this poor Huntress eh? Stunning

            4) I pointed out the outlandish “100% mortality” which huntress tried to convince us is a real risk not just in a study but in general from “low protein” is clearly a nonsense claim because, as noted, lots of peole vegan, vegetarian, and some omni, live for decades and live in to their 80s and 90s for that matter (including the fellow who coined the term “vegan”) …and your reply is that “the majority of people on Earth who are in their 80s and 90s are omni”?? Logic 101 – it wouldn’t matter one bit if 99.99% of 80 and 90 year olds were omni, that’s irrelevant, if you can observe that out of say 100,000 who eat a “low protein” diet you do not have “100% [early] mortality” or anywhere NEAR that, then it’s obvious how crazy the claim was….the percent of 90 year olds who are omnis is irrelevant, even if there were no low protein diets among omnis (which isn’t true, as noted, some ominis do have a low protein diet)…

            It completely and utterly misses the point. Someone (Huntress) tries scare tactics to convince people that there’s a huge huge mortality “danger” from “low protein” diets and in reponse, it is pointed out that LOTS of poeple eat low protein diets and live to a ripe old age,…debunking this scare tactic.

            Her comment again in full: “Reminds me of Campbell’s protein study on the rats. He tells you that the high protein rats developed cancer but he fails to mention the low-protein rats ALL DIED [prematurely and FROM the low protein diet, she implies, debunked fully by others]

            >.<" [end of verbatim quote of her entire post]

            her face icon…and clear direct, deliberate scare tactics trying to fool people into thinking that, even outside of this study, any one eating "low protein" diets is in huge mortral danger of 100% [premature] DEATH…that's right folks, 100% of people on low protein diets have early deaths from the low protein diets, ignore the person beyind the curtain, ignore the many veg and even some omni low-protein diet folks in their 80s and 90s, that's the ticket folks, no misleading scare tactic claims by Huntress here, not at all folks!

            I’ve met many reasonable omnis and even some well intentioned and reasonable paleos…the lack of honesty by some, only hurts whatever they think their “cause” is, such paleos are underminining it. In this case that may be a good thing..

          • H Barzilai

            Done following this thread. Never did find the Disquos system very pleasant from a technical standpoint, but it used to be even those who disagreed were not rabid scare-mongers and rude “if that’s your idea of an apology it’s a poor one” like Huntress and her clique…but I guess that’s how the forums here are nowdays…I’m done and unfollowing…guess the disruptors get a “victory” even if logically morally and factually a false and hollow one…

          • H Barzilai

            The smaller point you are missing (and it’s already a big point) is that there HAVE been studies which DID track a large number of mostly plant-based diet eaters..If you’re a “salesman” for the Adkins and you cite one study predominantly you should admit the high drop out rate, but that would hurt the commercial interests…For a plan-based or mostly plant based diet, there have been many many studies, no one is running around saying one single study by Ornish is the “proof”…there have been massive studies, including but not limited to the Cornell Oxford collaboration China Study.. The much LARGER point is, weight loss does not equal full health…it is a PART of good health to not be obese, etc, but you can lose weight in many unhealthy ways, water loss, etc…Heck, just eat no food at all and you’ll lose weight, was that healthy? No. Just eat dirt, was that healthy? No…we have to look at many more variable for health, including cardio risk, cancer risk, and more, and the evidence is overwhelming that a plant based diet is best for overall health including

            But nobody (no responsible person I know, and certainly not Dr. Greger) no one is saying that ANY vegan diet is healthy..same thought experement: imagine eating nothing but iceberg lettuce and deep-oil fried white potatoes and white bread and nothing else…no other food…that’s a very unhealthy diet, of course…Anyone over the age of 8 or so can easily understand we need to look at many variables in our diet, as well as many variables in health.

            The health variables (or different factors each of us should be mindful of in our taking care of our health)) include weight, cancer risk, diabetes risk, heart health and more.

            And the diet variables (factors we should be mindful of in what we eat to take care of ourselves) include plant based versus high in animal flesh and other animal products (like feeding Adult Humans what nature created for Baby Cows etc) but also other factors how much salt you consume, how much sugars, also refined grains versus whole (brown and wild rice versus white rice), and others.

            Adkins is a truly despicable one if you want to use that word (which you clearly did…) leading to people eating more hamburgers, hot dogs and other terrible food choices and actually cheering them on..and raking in cash..

            The truth sometimes hurts, that you’ve been duped by Adkins and the Paleo fads which as Greger notes:

            http://nutritionfacts.org/2013/02/21/the-real-paleo-diet/

            Looks like the actual Paleo diets were mostly very very strongly (not entirely but with huge part) plant based.

          • Guest II

             My take on this article and the ones linked to it, Procyan, is that the authors are afraid that if we avoid fat in foods, we’ll replace it with white flour, sugar, white rice and potatoes- and other packaged and junk food. To their credit, the do recommend whole grains instead. But, I also get the feeling that these people are somewhat stogy and traditional and slow to change. Certainly they don’t consider a plant-based approach to health.

          • Toxins

            The only dietary fat we need is omega 3 and 6. there is no dietary need to consume outside sources of fat.

          • http://nutrientuniverse.blogspot.co.uk/ JamesKB

            I don’t really understand what this argument is about. Not many scientists have conflicting views on this really. Am I right in thinking you’re thinking Campbell recommends low fat? Because I don’t think he does. Furthermore Campbell doesn’t represent the opinion of Cornell I don’t think. I find it a little extreme that Harvard are pushing healthy fats to this extent, but I think I know the research they’re basing it on. I think several studies have shown cutting saturated fat intake doesn’t help greatly, but when you replace it with unsaturated fat instead, it does help. Perhaps the saturated fat was being replaced with refined carbohydrates. Harvard’s advice is pretty in line with Dr Gregers. Eat more nuts, seeds, avocados and maybe some extra virgin olive oil. You probably don’t need 30% though. The only big dog who really shuns fats is McDougall, but even he allows whole fats to slim active people.

          • Huntress Paleo

            I just saw a debate (done this month I believe) between Campbell and a low-carb doc. Campbell specifically states that his data showed that plant fat was associated with disease while animal fat was not. Campbell’s schtick is all about protein.

          • Thea

            Paleo Huntress: re: “Campbell specifically states that his data showed that plant fat was associated with disease…” Hmmm. Again, I just finished reading Campbell’s book. I don’t remember any part of the book saying that plant fat is associated with disease. Perhaps you misunderstood? Where was this debate?

          • Paleo Huntress

            This is the link to the debate–> (Campbell’s debate) He is discussing breast cancer and the link to diet. At the 50 minute mark he states,

            “It turns out that animal fat does NOT promote breast cancer, plant fat does a better job at that. So here we’ve got a dilemma, a really serious dilemma… So therefore… what is basically the answer? It turns out that the plant fat, you know, causing increased breast cancer risk when fed at higher levels, it increases oxidation for one thing. The animal fat doesn’t.”

            Then he goes on to say it’s ALL ABOUT THE PROTEIN. lol

            From the man’s own mouth.

          • Thea

            Thanks! I’m going to check it out.

          • bettybetty

            oil is not food and none of the WFPB nutritionists recommend consuming oil-even olive and other plant based oils. THAT is the only place vegans and REAL WFPB eaters can get “BAD” plant fats. So who eats oil on a WFPB diet anyway? Its not a whole food, hell its not even a real food. yuck. Eating moderate amounts of nuts, seeds, avocado, low salt olives, coconut etc is fine. but only about 2 oz a day! Unless your an athlete!

          • http://nutrientuniverse.blogspot.co.uk/ JamesKB

            Oil isn’t necessary bad. However, most oils have their problems. Unrefined cold pressed olive and avocado oils can be part of a healthy diet and may even provide some health benefits. Whole fats are probably better though.

          • Paleo Huntress

            When researchers went back to Crete, the half-starved WWII culture responsible for the creation of the ‘Mediterranean Diet’, and Ancel Keys’ ticket to wealth, they found that olive oil consumption was highly correlated with CVD.
            The only place one can get whole fats from whole food is animals. There is no “whole fat” in plants.

          • http://nutrientuniverse.blogspot.co.uk/ JamesKB

            Why aren’t avocados, nuts, seeds, olives and coconuts whole fats?

            This study isn’t talking about olive oil, but mono unsaturated fat. Other good sources of this include beef fat and lard. So a diet high in mono unsaturated fat could be a high in these foods. Another study found the same thing until they took this into account. After adjusting for cholesterol and saturated fat intake they found that mono unsaturated was negatively associated with CHD mortality, meaning mono unsaturated fat appeared beneficial when saturated fat and cholesterol consumption was low.

            Your study also found that people with IHD consumed more B12 than controls. B12 of course comes from animal products. It then says these people consumed less cholesterol than controls which kind of contradicts what I just said. You would think higher B12 consumption would mean higher cholesterol consumption also. I can’t really make sense of this study just from the abstract. It even says IHD sufferers consumed less trans fats than controls, but it’s probably not a good idea to start eating more of these.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Your problem seems to be that you think correlation and causation are the same. Nuts seeds, olive and avocados aren’t whole fats because they’re not all fat. They are whole foods that contain fat. Animal foods can easily be whole food, whole fat, as in the solid fat pads found in ruminants. There are no solid fat parts to plant foods, they require refining or extracting.

          • http://nutrientuniverse.blogspot.co.uk/ JamesKB

            Okay. If that’s how you want to define whole fats then that’s your choice. I don’t think we need whole fats by your definition.

            Correlation sometimes does equal causation. I know it doesn’t always. You’re the one that brought up the study and implied olive oil was a causing factor in CVD. I won’t be changing my views on trans fat on this paper alone, but it’s still interesting.

          • Paleo Huntress

            How would you define “whole fats”? Why are nuts whole fats and not “whole proteins” or “whole carbohydrates”? They contain plenty of all three.
            You are talking about whole food that is high in fat. You may not care about the distinction, but there is one whether you acknowledge it or not.
            You also don’t need to think that people need true whole fats, but I prefer the reality of the empirical evidence of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution eating animal-based whole fat, to vegan religious mythology.

          • http://nutrientuniverse.blogspot.co.uk/ JamesKB

            Vegan religious mythology eh. I’m not exactly dogmatic or anything. I’m not criticizing Paleo. It can be done healthily. I don’t really care about what a whole fat is. Neither do I care if nuts are whole proteins or carbohydrates. I just know they appear to be good for you based on research.

            We spent millions of years before that eating fruits, nuts and vegetables. We evolved, but the evidence that this is because of meat eating is weak, and did we really evolve or just kind of change? Indeed our brains use more energy and are bigger, but this appears to be at the expense of weaker muscles. Also, a bigger brain doesn’t always mean more intelligence. If I see a study on vegans having smaller brains, or less intelligence I might change my views. It wouldn’t be all that surprising to see a study like this though. A lot of vegans fail to supplement B12, get enough iodine and even calories sometimes. All of these things could cause significant mental declines.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Vegans are reaping the benefits that meat-eating had on human evolution. I wouldn’t expect them to have smaller brains today. It is because our ancestors ate meat that vegans have the luxury of not eating it.
            Nuts ate good, we eat nuts too. We eat fruits and veggies and berries and seeds and tubers too. =)
            If we changed, we evolved. People like to suggest there is something superior in the term, but it means only that we adapted with a biological change due to environmental stressors.
            It doesn’t matter to me whether you like paleo diets or not, it’s kewl of you to state it though. You came into a conversation that you acknowledge was old and you didn’t bother reading the cornents or clicking the links before doing so. The video of Campbell was linked in this thread just a few comments away. So while I appreciate that you believe that paleo can be done healthfully, the fact remains that Campbell does specifically state that in all of his research (40+ years), animal fat was not correlated with cancer.

          • http://nutrientuniverse.blogspot.co.uk/ JamesKB

            I’m not really a fan of Campbell.

            Well he says it’s correlated, but that it’s probably because animal fat consumption is associated with animal protein consumption, I think. I stopped paying attention to him long ago. I don’t think most, if any, animal proteins cause cancer or many animal products for that matter.

            I find it pointless to try and get people off meat entirely as the known problems that come with some animal products like red meat can be compensated for by a plant based diet like you say you’re following, or they’ll be drugs or supplements in the future that do this without any real side effects. For health reasons, plant based should be encouraged, but there’s no good health reason to encourage plant exclusive. Not that’s there’s anything wrong it. I don’t recommend people consume milk or butter though. I’m not saying everything else is safe when consuming a lot of plants, but that’s probably the case from what I know.

          • http://nutrientuniverse.blogspot.co.uk/ JamesKB

            So he does say that. I know what he’s talking about now. He kind of oversimplifies it. It’s not so much about plant fat as it is omega 6. This is pretty clear to us. Most of these studies use corn oil and sunflower oil which people here should know to avoid for other reasons. Olive oil should do worse at promoting cancer, but it still should promote it. As much as beef fat doesn’t promote cancer as well as corn, sunflower oil and lard, it still promotes it. Better yet is coconut oil which does an even worse job at promoting cancer. Basically you want as little omega 6 as possible when you have cancer, but you probably don’t need to worry about it if you don’t have cancer as there’s no proof that omega 6 causes cancer, just that omega 6 promotes cancer when rodents are induced with it. People might argue everyone has cancer to some extent, and yes omega 6 will likely be promoting that, but so slowly that it can’t be called a carcinogen. It’s also worth noting that omega 3 at the least inhibits tumor growth and olive oil appears to be preventative. So if people are following the advice at this site, they need not change their diet on this information unless they have cancer.

          • Paleo Huntress

            “As much as beef fat doesn’t promote cancer as well as corn, sunflower oil and lard, it still promotes it.”

            You seem to be hearing what you want to hear, James, and not what he actually says.

            He says, “It turns out that animal fat does NOT promote breast cancer”. In other words, no, beef and lard do not promote cancer. There is no interpretation necessary here… animal fat does NOT PROMOTE CANCER. Lard is probably the most healthy of them all being almost half monounsaturated. The saturated half prevents it from oxidizing like it would in its pure state.

          • http://nutrientuniverse.blogspot.co.uk/ JamesKB

            I wasn’t referring to Campbell.

            “Dietary fat and colon cancer: animal model studies.”

            Chemically-induced colon tumor incidence was increased in rats fed the semipurified diets containing 23% corn oil, safflower oil, lard or beef tallow (high-fat) as compared to those fed 5% corn oil, safflower oil, lard or beef tallow diets (low-fat). Diets containing 23% coconut oil, olive oil or fish oil, or high-fat diets containing varying levels of trans fat, had no colon tumor-enhancing effect compared to their respective low fat diets.

            In another study beef tallow was better at promoting benign pancreatic tumors than corn oil in hamsters. I’m not really interested in debating whether or not animal fats promote cancer. I just wanted to clarify that it’s not about plant fats, but fats high in omega 6 and diets low in omega 3. Although in the above study olive oil seems to be a better choice than beef tallow even though tallow has less omega 6 per gram. So it’s not just about omega 6.

          • yardplanter

            Perhaps it would have been more instructive to indicate just what Campbell’s point was in the video ( large metastudy data ) . i.e that fat and high meat consumption is highly correlated to cancer rates . ( please do push the correlate/causation button). He states fat and especially meat protein consumption is the issue – no more no less. Eat less meat – probably get less cancer. He never advocates for no protein but adequate amounts of protein , just none derived from meat.

          • http://nutrientuniverse.blogspot.co.uk/ JamesKB

            I know this comment is very old, but anyway. Pages 84 – 86 China Study. Total fat is positively associated with breast cancer, animal fat is positively associated and plant fat isn’t associated.

          • Paleo Huntress

            JamesKB,

            Just click the link to watch and listen to the man himself say it. =)  http://youtu.be/mJYlXmfb08M?t=49m55s  (50 minute mark)

            “”It turns out that animal fat does NOT promote breast cancer, plant fat does a better job at that. So here we’ve got a dilemma, a really serious dilemma… So therefore… what is basically the answer? It turns out that the plant fat, you know, causing increased breast cancer risk when fed at higher levels, it increases oxidation for one thing. The animal fat doesn’t.”

          • Kool
          • Krucifear

            Plenty of good fat in avacados, nuts, beans, dark chocolate and bananas!

          • Paleo Huntress

            Bananas contain a whopping ONE gram of fat per 1 cup of mashed fruit. Adzuki beans contain LESS than a gram of fat per cup- black beans contain ONE gram per cup… so maybe your definition of “plenty” is different than mine. If one eats locally and lives in a temperate climate, the only remaining foods from your list that this individual has access to are nuts. Where did early man get his fats a-plenty?

        • crazygemini12

          By really great, do you mean “really terrifying”? :D It is a good book, though. 

          • Paleo Huntress

            Totally! It’s good for putting under the leg of my old table.

        • Paleo Huntress

          I find it interesting that everyone points to big bad meat and dairy, but conveniently forgets Big Ag and most of Big Food along with it, as processed foods depends largely on grain agriculture. Wheat futures are valued at TWICE the price of all the gold mined each year. Do you REALLY believe they wield no direct influence?

          Which foods have gone up significantly in the American diet in the last century?… here’s a hint, it isn’t fresh meat and saturated fat. So knowing this, and knowing that our modern diseases are a product of the last half of this century, the idea that these foods have somehow become toxic is ludicrous.

          The China Study is NOT a study. It’s a book. And it was so poorly supported that no reputable scientific publisher would touch it, hence it’s publication by a Sci-Fi publisher.

          • Kimberly

            Just commenting on Campbell’s comment on animal fat vs. plant fat. I had to go and have a listen for myself, and you’re right, he does say that, but you neglect to point out that he’s talking about these nutrients in isolation. Still surprising to hear, but not at all contradictory to his message. His message is not against animal protein specifically, although I can certainly see how people would get that impression, but against whole animal foods and processed foods (including isolated parts of plants, such as pure plant fats like olive oil, etc.). Still, it’s surprising to hear that plant fats in isolation are worse at promoting breast cancer than animal fats in isolation, so I’m left wondering if he mispoke (he did mix up his words a couple of times in this debate). If he didn’t make a mistake, I’d be interested in seeing this data.

          • Real World Vegan

            i have a few comments about campbells research.

            -all- of his research was done with isolated components, not once did he feed whole food. most of his studies were done using casein, and he extrapolated all of his claims about whole animal foods from data collected on the impact of feeding an isolated dairy component. how can he accurately apply one to the other?

            he didn’t misspeak, he has also been quoted in a vegsource.com hosted lecture as saying-

            We made a mistake 20 or 30 years ago in focusing on fat. It wasn’t animal fat. In fact we have evidence now to suggest that maybe the polyunsaturated fats of plants are more problematic in causing tumor growth than the animal fats. -dr. campbell

            the information is only surprising if you dont regularly read the data yourself. you can go into most any library and find campbells published papers for free.

            his data has also shown that the only reason plant proteins didnt promote cancer in his research is because they are incomplete– and because they are fed in isolation, the body has no access to the missing aminos. in the real world we don’t eat plant protein in isolation. his data showed that as soon as the missing aminos were included, the plant proteins become cancer-promoting too. this means that every pb person who is eating more than one kind of plant is consuming the same cancer-causing protein.

          • bettybetty

            plant derived oils are HORRIBLE for us and they are in EVERYTHING processed. Also people use (olive oil especially) like its going out of style. Its not good. Oh gosh and now there is the coconut oil craze! Awful stuff!

          • Benjamin Beeler

            Paleo – Doubt the China Study all you want. Assume that Campbell grew up on a dairy farm, ate lots of flesh, scoffed at vegetarians, and then started advocating plant based diets to make himself popular or to support some other agenda.

            The problem is that his work is not without context. Time and time again patients have been cured of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and a host of other diseases on a WFPB diet. If you want to overlook the results, that’s your MO.

          • Paleo Huntress

            I don’t doubt the China Study, the data is what it is. What is in question is Campbell’s interpretation of the data. You are quite right about context, and people have been cured of disease by a whole host of whole-food diets.
            Again, Campbell states specifically that animal fat had no correlation with disease in his research, but that plant fat did… and the reason for this was plant fat’s ability to cause inflammation whereas animal fat does not. If Campbell is your God, you can’t dismiss one factoid while clinging to another.

        • Simon

          The China study has been widely debunked. And the Omnivore diet you refer to includes people who probably eat anything they want without thought.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Oh Simon. Don’t be silly, all WFPB advocates know there’s only ONE “carnivorous” diet. >.<

    • HemoDynamic, M.D.

      Thank you very much for providing all your work FREE!  That is just incredible that you can do that! 
      I truly appreciate it and hope that others take advantage of your publishings.

      Here’s to the Paleo pleasures of Plants!
      ;-}

    • Rayball75

      So much conflicting information out there…

      1.5-Million-Year-Old Skull Fragment Shows Oldest Evidence of Regular Meat Consumption – http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/article00631.html

    • taytaybodita

      I really just want to understand one thing about the Paleo Diet. They are pretty convincing when they say beans and grains are bad for you because of lectines. Then I see on this site that beans and grains are good. In fact, they (beans) are extremely important in your diet. How do you know what is right?

      • JacquieRN

        The “anti-nutrient”of concern in legumes are lectins. Lectin break down the membranes of harmful invaders: cancer cells (reducing prostate, colon and other cancers), fungi, bacteria and viruses is part of the reason that most plants are healthy. 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]. We also know that cooking beans for 15 min at 100 Cor 2 hrs at 80 C completely denatures lectins, and canning beans is just as effective, meaning cooked and canned legumes are not only completely safe but their residual lectin levels fight cancer and fungal / bacterial /viral infection [Thompson LU et al, J Food Science 48 (1983) 235; Dhurandhar NV &Chang KC, J Food Science 55 (1990) 470; Xia L & Ng TB, J Chromatography 844

        (2006) 213]. Cooking at temperatures under 80 C does not denature lectins even after many hours. Many cultures in the world (Southeast Asian, the Americas)
        have been healthy eating lentils and beans for centuries.

        • Paleo Huntress

          There are many anti-nutrient concerns with legumes including phytate, enzyme inhibitors, and glucosides– lectins are just one of them. They are so well known for their gut-irritating properties that most every child learns the “musical fruit” song before they start kindergarten. They are the first thing we are told to ditch when we’re trying to heal a leaky gut or auto-immune issue too. The protein is hard to digest, the carbohydrate is hard to digest, the minerals are chelated and un-absorbable and they only look good against the even less nutritious grains in the dietary data, or in some cases, ridiculously, against macaroni and cheese. <—(not kidding)

  • BPCveg

    The following are the concluding two sentences from the most relevant article cited (i.e. ‘Evolution of dietary antioxidants’ by Benzie), namely:

    “The hypothesis that higher intake of plant foods is beneficial to human health because this increases antioxidant defence against oxidative damage is logical in evolutionary terms, especially when we consider the relatively hypoxic environment in which humans may have evolved. However, it will remain a mere hypothesis unless validated scientifically by interdisciplinary research that considers not only what we are, but also how and why we became so.”

    In other words, the scientist who publishes on evolution of diet must admit that such appeals to evolution are highly speculative and only can be a “mere hypothesis” until validated by “interdisciplinary research”.

  • Thea

    I have never been persuaded by the idea that we should eat like our ancestors.  But I know that lots of people put faith in this kind of thing.  Thus, I greatly appreciate this video for providing a balance to the claims made by paleo diet proponents.  I would guess that the information in this video is just as valid as any claims made by paleo diet proponents. 

    Do we 100% know exactly how humans ate so long ago?  We keep finding out more information (which leads to more plant-plant based answers).  For example, bread doesn’t stick around in the archeological sites as well as bones.  But I read an article about a site that found that humans were eating a bread-like food many thousands of years before previously thought.  The point is: This area of knowledge continues to evolve.  To form one’s diet around such suppositions one way or the other seems really silly to me.  But if you are pursuaded by such arguments, then you owe it to yourself to check out the “other side of the story” as is partially shown by this video.

  • Guest

    The whole argument seems moot to me. I don’t care what our ancestors supposedly ate in the prehistoric past. I think it’s presumptuous for us to think that we can determine their diet on such sketchy evidence and even arrogant if we insist on specific evolutionary dogma the way my molecular cell biology professor does. We not only cannot be sure of the unwritten past, but we’ve left observational science behind. It’s also possible that we can no longer eat as they might of since such foods may no longer be available or polluted in which case we eat higher up on the food chain at our own risk.
    Since everyone else is speculating about our diet from the dim past, I’ll offer my speculation too: men were too slow and too weak to hunt down animals, birds or other game and so they mostly confined themselves to the colorful fruits that they could easily see with their color vision, and were attracted to, along with other plants which were easy to identify and harvest. They may have been able to get clams or mussels if they lived near the ocean- although ancient taboos may have prevented them from eating such foods- which still exist among orthodox Jews. And so, they may have well been vegan for the most part.
    Instead of speculation, I think it’s better to look at research in the here and now to determine which foods are best for our health. That’s what this site does- and guess what the conclusions are?

    • Veganrunner

      Well said! “it’s better to look at research in the here and now”

      • Heath

        yes, the here and now!! You should read some of the work done by Chris Masterjohn if you have the time.
        I would point out that the Maasai of Kenya eat a diet that is roughly 80-90% animal based, yet they have virtually no cancer. So, at the very least , the ide that animal protein causes cancer is immediately debunked by a whole population of modern day Kenyans loving in the here and now. Fyi I am NOT a paleo person. I just want to know what’s true in regards to diet. Weston Price figured the best way to find out what is a healthy diet is to search the world for healthy people. Then, see what exactly they ate.
        Look at native Americans, who ate animal products; the Europeans who first came here often wrote of how healthy these peoples were, and how they could run after an animal all day when hunting, without tiring on he least. Recently, maasai warrior was filmed by nationalcgeographic. He had grown up eating all animal diet. He came here to he US and, with zero training entered the NYC marathon, along with over 45,000 other runners. How did he do? He finished on the top 2,000. Such things fly in the face of ant based diet. I think we need to use common sense, and ait that there are many many examples that, in real life, contradict the dogma of plant based diet.that being said, I do think including fresh fruits and vegetables is healthy. I just don’t believe avoiding animal products entirely is.

        • Charzie

          Sorry, I got a chuckle out of the “ant based diet”. LOL!

  • Toxins

    For those who advocated a paleolithic diet, I wonder why. I find it interesting that people idealize these ancient peoples. They had no knowledge of nutrition at all, they just ate whatever was available, it wasn’t about health and nutrition it was, eat whatever you can find to survive. They had very short lifespans lasting to the ripe age of 30 as well so I wouldn’t idealize that, we have a lot more knowledge about what foods are healthy for us and we have the variety available to us to choose, they did not have that luxury.

    Also, I would highly recommend Dr. Greger’s e book on the irrationality of carbophobia.
    http://atkinsexposed.org/

    • MD

      Let’s not fall prey to an arrogant presentism. Try reading the following:

      http://www.amazon.com/Health-Civilization-Professor-Nathan-Cohen/dp/0300050232

      • Toxins

        I am not interested in buying a book to read the opinions of a doctor. Carbophobia is a science based free e book with all studies available for viewing.  If you have some evidence to share, meaning actual studies from peer reviewed medical journals, then my ears are open.

        • MD

          First, before you argue with someone try reading what I posted, instead of reactively making an assumption (sounds like a real scientific disposition. 

          Mark Nathan Cohen IS NOT A DOCTOR. Excerpt from Wikipedia: “Mark Nathan Cohen is an American anthropologist and a professor in the State University of New York.[1] He has an A.B. degree from Harvard College (1965) and a Ph.D. degree in anthropology (Columbia University, 1971). His areas of research and teaching include human evolution and demographic history, cultural evolution, biology, medical care and forensic anthropology. He has written several books in the field of population growth and life expectancy.”Second, don’t hind behind “research” as if it is not an ideologically and/or ethically compromised academic practice (and actually watch this link before you decide to be a keyboard warrior and critize it without knowing what it is):http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.htmlThird, I’m not a paleo-enthusiast (they’re just as close-minded as you apparently are). Rather, I am skeptic who does not get too cozy touting one point of view.

          • Toxins

             Ah, sorry. Usually I come across paleo proponents who show me books and websites. I jumped to the conclusion you were part of the usual crowd.

        • Paleo Huntress

          Paleo diets aren’t carb-phobic. That is an uneducated and ignorant postion to take.

          • Toxins

            From what I have seen advocated from “Dr” Loren Cordain this is what I have seen advocated. High intakes of fat and protein is stressed along with minimizing carbohydrates.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Why do you put the Dr. in quotes? I’m curious about where you’ve “seen” Cordain’s work. He is known as the only low-fat paleo advocate- and this suggests to me that you are likely repeating something you heard rather than reading it yourself from the source.

            This is what Mark Sisson writes- “You can go higher carb or lower carb (I initially recommend low carb, just because it makes losing weight and stabilizing your metabolism incredibly easy, especially for folks coming off the SAD), and as long as you’re eating real foods you’ll be getting healthier and losing body fat.”

            Robb Wolf writes: “Some folks do well on higher carb, some better on lower. We can do theory and internet flame wars all day and never get to a point that helps people. Or, we can take general guidelines, encourage folks to tinker, and actually see some results for our efforts.”

            Dr. Loren Cordain writes- “[D]iets high in carbohydrate derived from cereal grains were not part of the human evolutionary experience until only quite recent times. Humans can adapt to many types of diets involving multiple macronutrient combinations with varying amounts of fat, protein and carbohydrate.”

            and this- “[T]he combination of saturated fats and inflammatory foods such as grains is a deadly formula for a heart attack.”

          • Toxins

            Quoting and giving me anecdotes are not what we do here at nutritionfacts.org. You need to have science based evidence to share using studies and reviews. I use quotes for cordain because his phd is in exercise physiology and he is not a medical doctor nor a dietician.

            Whole plant foods, such as brown rice, quinoa, etc are not inflammatory foods. In fact, whole grains are anti inflammatory as discussed in detail here. The nutritional profile of whole grains are examined.

            http://www.healthgrain.org/webfm_send/251

            So again, where is your evidence for your claims that whole grains are the cause of chronic disease?

          • Paleo Huntress

            Who is “we”? Would that be the royal we?

            The quotes I shared are refutation of your claim that Loren Cordain supports a high fat, low carb diet and to further support the FACT that paleo diets are NOT low carb. When making libelous claims, quotes ARE actual evidence. It’s good to offer evidence… you didn’t offer any when you made your claims about Cordain.

            Please try and follow along and do your best to avoid strawmen like,“your claims that whole grains are the cause of chronic disease”. I didn’t make that claim anywhere. =)

            Dr. Cordain is a doctor because he earned a doctorate (that’s how that works). Most medical doctors get less than 30 hours of nutrition education in Med school so I wouldn’t be too concerned with that. Dr. Cordain has more than 100 papers published- he is light years beyond medical doctors regarding nutrition and is an expert.

          • Toxins

            Again, giving me quotes and videos are not valid sources of evidence. This is the problem with paelo proponents condemning grains. The evidence is non existent so they resort to poor science. When you have some real papers to share then please post them. Otherwise, continuing to quote people’s opinions is not a path I am interested in going along.

          • Paleo Huntress

            OMG, I try really hard not to make blanket inferences about how difficult reading comprehension gets without animal food, but vegans don’t make it easy.

            I didn’t offer the quotes as evidence for OR against grain consumption. I offered the quotes as evidence of each ‘paleo’ proponent’s position on carbohydrate (which is what this piece of the thread is addressing). Clearly, your perception of what paleo promotes is erroneous.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Let’s put your article up against Harvard’s Matt Lalonde’s analysis. Besides pure fat and iceberg lettuce, grains are the LEAST nutrient dense of the foods. And this is before we look at calories. They fare even worse when you take calories into account. The fact is, we can only eat so many calories- and the more nutrients we get in for those calories, the better. =)

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwbY12qZcF4

      • http://www.facebook.com/jdmumma JD Mumma

        Q1: Are you claiming someone fell “prey to an arrogant presentism”?
        Q2: If yes, can you please make a specific reference (quote) to back up your claim.
        Q3: What specific inference and/or claim are you making that will be supported or refuted by us reading Mark Nathan Cohen book that you provided a link to?

    • VeganEngineer

      Hi there, I actually have your same thoughts and questions on the idealization of the paleolithic diet. I came to this conclusion based on what I have read: supposedly sound science determined that our DNA as humans evolved and became what it is now primarily under the palelithic era, hence we should consider carefully what those people ate, to mantain our DNA as sound as possible.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jdmumma JD Mumma

        “consider carefully what those people ate” yes…
        but base and entire diet around mostly: cherry picked research, hypothesis (not-theory) and non-empirical evidence… hmmm maybe not!
        I am not implying all, like I said said “mostly.”

    • Guest

      Hi there, I actually have your same thoughts and questions on the idealization of the paleolithic diet. I came to this conclusion based on what I have read: supposedly sound science determined that our DNA as humans evolved and became what it is now primarily under the palelithic era, hence we should consider carefully what those people ate, to mantain our DNA as sound as possible.

    • Liz

      Well that’s because the “traditional” groups of people that have been studied, have much MUCH lower and sometimes none of the western diseases of civilization. And THAT is very interesting, despite having elderly people as part of their population.

      • Toxins

        Dying young is not something to view as ideal. What we should idolize are diets that have sustained a population to live as long, if not longer then current Americans and be free of degenerative diseases. Back in the 1950′s the Japanese rural Okinawan group of people had the most centenarians per capita. How did they live so long? Here is their diet

        Caloric Restriction, the Traditional
        Okinawan Diet, and Healthy Aging

        The Diet of the World’s Longest-Lived People and Its Potential Impact on Morbidity and Life Span

        Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1114: 434–455 (2007).

        TABLE 1. Traditional dietary intake of Okinawans and other Japanese circa 1950

        Total calories 1785

        Total weight (grams) 1262

        Caloric density (calories/gram) 1.4

        Total protein in grams (% total calories) 39 (9)

        Total carbohydrate in grams (% total calories) 382 (85)

        Total fat in grams (% total calories) 12 (6)

        Saturated fatty acid 3.7

        Monounsaturated fatty acid 3.6

        Polyunsaturated fatty acid 4.8

        Total fiber (grams) 23

        Food group Weight in grams (% total calories)

        Grains

        Rice 154 (12)

        Wheat, barley, and other grains 38 (7)

        Nuts, seeds Less than 1 (less than 1)

        Sugars 3 (less than 1)

        Oils 3 (2)

        Legumes (e.g., soy and other beans) 71 (6)

        Fish 15 (1)

        Meat (including poultry) 3 (less than 1)

        Eggs 1 (less than 1)

        Dairy less than 1 (less than 1)

        Vegetables

        Sweet potatoes 849 (69)

        Other potatoes 2 (less than1)

        Other vegetables 114 (3)

        Fruit less than 1 (less than 1)

        Seaweed 1 (less than 1)

        Pickled vegetables 0 (0)

        Foods: flavors & alcohol 7 (less than 1)

        Data derived from analysis of U.S. National Archives, archived food records, 1949 and based on survey of 2279 persons.

        Some points:

        Their diet was 85% carb, and 6% fat. Sweet potatoes (a Japanese sweet potato) made up almost 70% of their calories. Nuts were less than 1% of calories (the equivalent of 1/10 of an ounce a day) Oil was less than 2% of calories (which is about 1 tsp a day) and sugars were less than 1% of calories (less than a tsp a day)

        The total animal products including fish was less than 4% of calories which is less then 70 calories a day. That is the equivalent of around 2 oz of animal products or less a day

        • emmarsh

          Wow, that’s a lot of sweet potatoes! Thanks for passing this info along. I had no idea what specific foods the Okinawans ate.

        • Paleo Huntress

          I think it’s interesting that no one seems to notice how few calories the Okinawans ate. Calorie restriction has been proven to increase longevity. Frankly though, so has carbohydrate restriction. On average, the Okinawan diet you share above (though it’s quite different than the traditional diet shared by others) contains 277 grams of carbohydrate. That’s less than the average American eats each day. (There are 50 grams in a serving of Mac n’ Cheese and most people eat 2-3 in a sitting for example) And bottom line, they ate some MEAT. They weren’t vegetarian or vegan, and they rendered lard and cooked in it. They recognized that it was an important part of their diet and this is taking into account how much more NUTRIENT DENSE their plant foods were than ours are now. If we’re going to trot out the Okinawans as evidence that optimum diets should be high carb, we can’t ignore that they should contain some animal foods and saturated fats too.

          • Toxins

            “The total animal products including fish was less than 4% of calories which is less then 70 calories a day. That is the equivalent of around 2 oz of animal products or less a day” This is insignificant and I agree with you, I am sure that a diet can be totally healthful if the total animal products of their diet is minimal and is used as purely a condiment.

            Dr. Greger covers caloric restriction and how a plant based diets mimics its effects.
            http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-benefits-of-caloric-restriction-without-the-actual-restricting/

            Lets not confuse refined carbohydrates found in the bread of a macn cheese with the purple sweet potatoes of the okinawans. Complex, unrefined carbohydrates found in beans, brown rice, oats, etc is what is advocated here as these foods are considered healthy. I agree that Americans eat too much refined carbohydrates from processed foods but this cannot be compared with healthful complex carbohydrates from whole plant foods.

            I also agree that we should try to consume more nutrient dense plant foods outside of iceberg lettuce and carrots but simply switching to an unrefined plant based diet as a start will significantly alleviate the health epidemic.

          • Paleo Huntress

            (I can’t watch Dr. Gregor’s videos- his sneering voice is incredibly off-putting and prevents me from taking him seriously. I don’t know if he has conscious control over it- but if so, I think he’d find people more amenable if he didn’t sound so disgusted while he was narrating.)

            I don’t have anything confused- I was a whole food, high starch vegan for some time and it was REALLY bad for my body, eventually ending in a diabetes diagnosis. But that doesn’t change my point- most plant-based gurus are recommending a vegan diet, using high-starch cultures to back their recommendations- but there is no such thing as a vegan culture in all of recorded history. Animal food was important to EVERY culture– and the fact that some ate it in smaller amounts than others doesn’t make it less significant.

            Brown rice and oats are high glycemic foods- the fact that they are “whole” doesn’t change that. A cup of cooked brown rice is only 2 points lower (21) than white (23). A cup of cooked brown rice raises the blood sugar as fast and as high as a Fun Size Snickers bar or a 2 inch fudge brownie- so clearly, the fiber isn’t making much of a difference in the absorption of the glucose.

            According to Okinawan gerentologist Hiroaki Masuzaki, the traditional Okinawan diet contained 200-300 grams of animal food per day and they used sugar in their cooking. Add to that that purple sweet potatoes are native to America and are a more recent addition to the Okinawan’s diet and therefore not all that “traditional” at all. I suppose we’re all going to choose the source that best supports our own belief systems, but I simply don’t buy the claim that the Okinawans’ diet contained 70 calories/day from animal food- especially when lard is the primary cooking fat and 8 grams would account for MORE than those 70 calories. “Animal food” isn’t defined merely as protein, it includes animal fat too.

            Plus, government food numbers, especially during war times are notoriously skewed- first, they are counting what is distributed rather than what is consumed- and second, people raise their OWN food animals when food becomes more scarce- and these would not be counted by government agencies.

          • Toxins

            Using the glycemic index to determine whether a food is healthful or not is quite inappropriate for the topic at hand.

            “by using the potato as an example, the glycemic index of white vegetables can be misleading if not interpreted in the context of the overall contribution that the white vegetable makes to the carbohydrate and nutrient composition of the diet and their functionality in satiety and metabolic control within usual meals. It is concluded that application of the glycemic index in isolation to judge the role of white vegetables in the diet and, specifically in the case of potato as consumed in ad libitum meals, has led to premature and possibly counterproductive dietary guidance. ”

            http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/3/356S.abstract

            The glycemic index has not been found to be a useful concept when devising optimal diets for diabetics.

            “We conclude that, in T2DM patients treated with diet alone who have optimal glycemic control, long-term HbA1c was not affected by altering the source or the amount of dietary carbohydrate. The deleterious effects of the high-CHO diets on total:HDL cholesterol had disappeared by 6 mo. The low-GI diet elicited sustained reductions in postprandial glucose and CRP, and, for these reasons, it may be preferred for the dietary management of T2DM.”

            http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/1/114.long

            One of the major problems with the glycemic index is its variability; not only do blood sugar responses to similar foods differ between individuals, they can vary significantly in the same person on different occasions.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17384339

            A recent review of the scientific literature conducted by the American Diabetes Association concluded that there is little difference in blood sugar control between “low-glycemic index” and “high-glycemic index” diets.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3263899/

            For this reason, in their most updated guidelines, the American Diabetes Association has deleted a statement suggesting benefit from the glycemic index.

            Please provide evidence, not quotes from random authors, for your claims.

          • Paleo Huntress

            I didn’t reference glycemic index, I referenced glycemic LOAD (hence the serving sizes). Perhaps you’d like to rewrite your response before I respond?

            This is a statement from the 2013 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes from the ADA.

            “[E]ither low-carbohydrate, low-fat calorie-restricted, or Mediterranean diets may be effective.”

            This is from the ADA’s journal Diabetes Care-

            “[T]he GL provides a summary measure of the relative glycemic impact of a “typical” serving of the food. Foods with a GL ≤10 have been classified as low GL, and those with a value ≥20 as high GL. In healthy individuals, stepwise increases in GL have been shown to predict stepwise elevations in postprandial blood glucose and/or insulin levels.

            A cup of brown rice is a high glycemic load food that raises post-meal glucose and insulin levels HIGHER and is an inflammatory food.

            OTOH, the same amount of baked sweet potato has a load of 17, TWICE as much fiber, similar carbohydrate and protein values, fewer calories and is strongly ANTI-inflammatory- plus it CRUSHES the rice nutritionally.

            There is simply NOTHING in grains (except empty calories) that you can’t get a better source of in something else.

          • Toxins

            You clearly have not even looked at my references and are simply reacting to my posts. As I will post for the second time, grains are far from empty calories, I am not sure how you can rightly justify this based on the available evidence.

            This paper goes into great detail

            “Epidemiological studies have clearly shown that whole-grain cereals can protect against obesity, diabetes, CVD and cancers. The specific effects of food structure (increased satiety, reduced transit time and glycaemic response), fibre (improved faecal bulking and satiety, viscosity and SCFA production, and/or reduced glycaemic response) and Mg (better glycaemic homeostasis through increased insulin secretion), together with the antioxidant and anti-carcinogenic properties of numerous bioactive compounds, especially those in the bran and germ (minerals, trace elements, vitamins, carotenoids, polyphenols and alkylresorcinols), are today well-recognised mechanisms in this protection. Recent findings, the exhaustive listing of bioactive compounds found in whole-grain wheat, their content in whole-grain, bran and germ fractions and their estimated bioavailability, have led to new hypotheses. The involvement of polyphenols in cell signalling and gene regulation, and of sulfur compounds, lignin and phytic acid should be considered in antioxidant protection. Whole-grain wheat is also a rich source of methyl donors and lipotropes (methionine, betaine, choline, inositol and folates) that may be involved in cardiovascular and/or hepatic protection, lipid metabolism and DNA methylation. Potential protective effects of bound phenolic acids within the colon, of the B-complex vitamins on the nervous system and mental health, of oligosaccharides as prebiotics, of compounds associated with skeleton health, and of other compounds such as a-linolenic acid, policosanol, melatonin, phytosterols and para-aminobenzoic acid also deserve to be studied in more depth.

            Finally, benefits of nutrigenomics to study complex physiological effects of the ‘whole-grain package’, and the most promising ways for improving the nutritional quality of cereal products are discussed.”

            http://www.healthgrain.org/webfm_send/251

            Stating “There is simply NOTHING in grains (except empty calories) that you can’t get a better source of in something else.” is utter nonsense. Plant foods go beyond the nutrition label.

          • Paleo Huntress

            I looked at ALL of your references- but as you’re showing a propensity for straw men, (For example, I didn’t say grains were all empty calories, but you still built another straw man.) I wanted to clarify that I’m not discussing glycemic index and give you the opportunity to adjust your comment before I waste time responding to something that isn’t on topic.

            FWIW, most data compares whole grain consumption to processed grain consumption (including those you cited). It’s the “light cigarette” argument. Compared to regular cigarettes, light cigarettes don’t do as much damage. With grains, compared to processed grain foods, whole grains don’t do as much damage.

          • Toxins

            I didn’t perform any “tactics”. I quotes you word for word. Also, its not comparing white grains, its looking at the nutritional profile of whole grains. This conversation is running in circles I see. I will remain silent until you share some SCIENTIFIC evidence.

          • Paleo Huntress

            “Tactics”? Are you responding to MY posts because I didn’t mention the word ‘tactics’ and you’ve put in it in quotation marks to show you’re refuting it. I think you may be too reactive about the topic to read what is written and instead read what you expect to find.

            You wrote, “As I will post for the second time, grains are far from empty calories”- but I wrote that all that grains have over other sources (like the sweet potato) is empty calories. In other words, you get the same nutrients in other foods- but grains have more calories, so those additional calories are now empty. Not ALL of them, the extra ones you had to consume for the same nutrition.

            Wanna try again before I comment on your sources?

          • Paleo Huntress

            I gotta say… it is quite comical how this community, and YOU in-particular goes on and on about how most of the carbohydrate on the Okinawan diet comes from SWEET POTATOES and then go on to claim that grains are somehow better. lol Ah well… it isn’t always easy to twist the data to fit your personal ideal.

          • Toxins

            The diet of the Okinawans are not based on my personal opinions, but based on the study posted. Please post some studies to refute, otherwise this conversation has lost meaning.

          • Paleo Huntress

            There’s nothing to refute- YOUR OWN DATA shows that the sweet potatoes are better than the rice.

          • Dan Lundeen

            Could get out of your guys circle by talking about all the bad stuff in meat again. Lol. Starting with Neu5Gc a sugar in nonhuman mammalian meat that incorporates into cells and brings on an autoimmune response.

          • Paleo Huntress

            The only significant study I’ve encountered on Neu5gc was with rats with the Neu5gc gene removed at the genetic level. They were then injected full of the molecule and then with the antibody. It was a contrived immune situation that doesn’t reflect how the immune system normally works when food is EATEN. The rats died, which was meant to demonstrate that the hypothesis that Neu5gc molecules kill animals without the gene. When the study was repeated with a COX-2 inhibitor there was very little immune response and they lived normal healthy lives. (Well, as normal and healthy as any lab rat gets).

            Red meat has been a part of the human diet for LITERALLY 100s of 1000s of years. You cannot say that about grains.

          • Dan Lundeen

            Neu5Gc is the glycolyl capped sialic acid that is found on the cell surfaces of all mammals except humans, who lost the gene for the enzyme to oxidize the acetyl version. The glycolyl version is introduced solely by eating red meat and due to its similarity with acetyl is incorporated into the cells of meat eaters, but the immune system reacts with inflammation leading to arthritis and autoimmune diseases. Cancer tumors are found to concentrate Neu5Gc and use the resulting inflammation to promote vascularization needed for tumor growth. Your cite is consistent with all of this. Thanks !Classic paleotard to cite a reference in this manner.

          • Paleo Huntress

            ~shrugs~ Inflammation, auto-immune reaction and tumorigenesis is far more significantly correlated with grain consumption, most especially glutenous grains. And what do you know, I don’t even need to stoop to your name-calling level to point that out.

            Best!

            Huntress

          • Paleo Huntress

            Have you even read your OWN resource?! In section after section after section, reference is made to superiority of whole grains over processed grains. EVERY paper they cite in the bibli was a study looking at replacing processed grains with whole grains.

            I’ll tell you what- how about YOU offer some science that actually supports what you claim before insisting others offer science that refutes it?

            I’m heading to a family birthday party, but since I still have this study page open from earlier, I’ll comment on this study you shared-

            You wrote this about the study-

            “The glycemic index has not been found to be a useful concept when devising optimal diets for diabetics.”

            Then you copied and pasted the conclusion in- please read the bolded lines carefully.

            “We conclude that, in T2DM patients treated with diet alone who have optimal glycemic control, long-term HbA1c was not affected by altering the source or the amount of dietary carbohydrate. The deleterious effects of the high-CHO diets on total:HDL cholesterol had disappeared by 6 mo. The low-GI diet elicited sustained reductions in postprandial glucose and CRP, and, for these reasons, it may be preferred for the dietary management of T2DM.”

            The low GI diet caused less INFLAMMATION. Are you familiar with the link between inflammation and diabetes? It also specifically states that the only group it made no difference in were those who had “optimal glycemic control”– and frankly, that isn’t something that describes most diabetics and finally it concludes that the low GI diet may be preferred!

            READ YOUR OWN DATA.

        • Paleo Huntress

          I’ll add too-

          “Centenarians represent a rare phenotype appearing in roughly 10–20 per 100,000 persons in most industrialized countries but as high as 40–50 per 100,000 persons in Okinawa, Japan. Siblings of centenarians in Okinawa have been found to have cumulative survival advantages such that female centenarian siblings have a 2.58-fold likelihood and male siblings a 5.43-fold likelihood (versus their birth cohorts) of reaching the age of 90 years. This is indicative of a strong familial component to longevity. Centenarians may live such extraordinarily long lives in large part due to genetic variations that either affect the rate of aging and/or have genes that result in decreased susceptibility to age-associated diseases. Some of the most promising candidate genes appear to be those involved in regulatory pathways such as insulin signaling, immunoinflammatory response, stress resistance or cardiovascular function.”

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3259160/

          In other words, the Okinawans may have the ideal genes to handle a high carb diet and their longevity may not be related to their diet much at all.

          We are not Okinawan.

          • Kyle Key

            And we’re not Paleolithic humans either, your point?

          • Paleo Huntress

            “And we’re not Paleolithic humans either, your point?”

            My point is that we can’t point to the Okinawan’s diet as the factor that produces their longevity because even the Japanese of Okinawan ancestry, living in different cultures, eating different diets, still have the increased longevity.

            People following a paleo template are not under any illusions that the foods we eat actually existed during the Paleolithic. It’s a template that is meant to closely match what was available in quantity and to eliminate what was not.

            That is my point.

    • Paleo Huntress

      Precisely. They ate what was available. They evolved on what was available. If we all ate today based on what was local and seasonally available, we’d likely be healthy too. No sugar, fruit for a few weeks, berries, veggies and leaves all Summer, and meat, fat and tubers/squashes in Winter. Perfect! Our metabolisms developed alongside the seasons, and our environments. The idea that the foods we evolved eating are irrelevant is wishful thinking.

      • Kyle Key

        Our bodies don’t require specific foods, they require specific nutrients, so yes, the foods that humans or human ancestors ate tens of thousands or millions of years ago is irrelevant. The only relevant information is what types of food will provide the nutrients we need–and for those of us that have the luxury, in the most healthy, least environmentally destructive, non-animal harming way possible.

        • Real World Vegan

          dude, im an ethical vegan and for the record, if youre eating grains and legumes, your diet probably takes more lives than her diet. its also more destructive to the environment.

          • Toxins

            Where is your evidence for this?

    • Charzie

      I’ve always thought exactly what you said…our progenitors were actually more opportunists than anything like carnivores or vegetarians, or gulp, insectivores. Bugs, which are always plentiful, had to make up at least a portion of their diets…has anyone ever studied the nutritional profile of insects? Dr. Greger? LOL, not that I would be particularly swayed by the data, but many cultures still rely heavily on them and there are a number of groups who are trying to encourage consumption as a multi-pronged solution to hunger, pest management, and employment. Hey some people love lobster, shrimp and crabs, and they look an awful lot like bugs! It’s all cultural…what you learn.

      I don’t idealize the ancient diet, because we can’t really fully know it, but realistically I’d have to guess that besides plants (and bugs), like someone else mentioned, it probably included whatever else was easy to procure, (considering it wouldn’t make sense to expend more calories hunting down food than you would receive from consuming it) like mussels, clams, crabs, snails, some fish, maybe small animals, but I bet the taste for meat came from observing REAL carnivores consuming flesh, and maybe leaving carcasses behind. If the meat oriented paleos wanted to get real, I think this is what they should consider, all that hunting is just counter intuitive. I’d like to see them attempt anything near a 50% meat diet, dumped into the wild like a “paleo” with no weapons besides their “carnivorous” teeth and jaws! LOL!. Seriously though, I am vegan by choice, but I don’t necessarily think that it is strictly biological. I have no clue what this means, but each time I was pregnant with my 2 sons, it was the only time in my life I ever craved meat, and disgustingly enough, raw liver! I didn’t eat it raw, but I did want to! Badly. Now even thinking about it makes me want to ralph! I don’t know if it is societal, or my circle or what, but it seems women have a lot easier time dispensing with the meat than men…feedback? I have a male friend who is tortured because he so badly wants not to eat his animal friends, and is aware of the health issues, but keeps buckling to the “temptation”. I just don’t know what to think, I just know what is right for me! Changing to a WPF no added fat, high complex carb vegan diet killed my diabetes before it killed me, effortlessly got rid of over 150 lbs and a slew of other unhealthy issues, so I don’t need further proof, personally. I’m convinced!

      • Toxins

        That is interesting. Typically women when pregnant have an aversion for meat. It is strange you experience the opposite. Also, Dr. Greger has covered bugs here
        http://nutritionfacts.org/video/good-grub-the-healthiest-meat/

        • Charzie

          Thanks Toxins! I should have known the good Doc would have thought of making videos about it if it touched on “food”…sorta! Gotta watch it!
          As far as pregnant woman having an aversion to meat, it would make sense to me because of all the inherent safety issues. As far as me being “strange”, nothing new there! LOL! (I know that’s not what you said!)
          But there was, at the time, (going back to the 70′s) an informal “sex prediction” based on a woman’s cravings during her pregnancy, that seemed to be far more than randomly correlated, even though it makes no sense to me whatsoever…crave dairy, it’s a girl, meat, it’s a boy. I didn’t hear about this until after my (gag) raw liver issue, but it was amazing how many women we polled, even after the fact, that fit the bill! It may have something to do with just poor nutrition in general under the duress of pregnancy and what is available, I’ve no clue because it targets two food groups I avoid completely! (Even then, I wasn’t exactly a vegetarian, but meat was never a favored menu item). Maybe it got started by the meat and dairy lobbies to spotlight their “nutritional powerhouses”? One can only speculate, again, no science of course, but the coincidence was pretty high.
          In retrospect, I would have loved, or actually STILL love to be able to poll vegan women, who obviously avoid both groups, to see if they noticed particular cravings during their pregnancies, if there was any particular pattern, and if it correlated with the sex of their babies. Not very scientific I realize, just one of the traditional folk-type narratives that help coalesce our separateness into a circle of shared connections.

          I’ll “bug” off now and go check out that video! Thanks again!

  • veggiedude

    I hope someone edits the wikipedia page on the subject – it still maintains that “Paleolithic hunter-gatherers consumed a significant amount of meat and possibly obtained most of their food from hunting” – and then it sites a source which no longer exists.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jdmumma JD Mumma

      Seems that maybe the Texas Sharp Shooters fallacy may be on the loose at that Wikipedia page! ;-)

  • Guest

    Just curious about people who live in cold regions where plant life was not readily available, like Eskimos.  Would natural selection ultimately produce different body types based on the region our ancestors came from?  Have any studies compared the impacts of different diets taking into consideration ancestry and climate? 

    • Guest II

       Eskimos don’t do so well; they’re the shortest-lived people in North America and often suffer from nose bleeds and hemorrhages due to getting too much fish oil. They’re a good reason for not going paleo- or living under such extreme unnatural contidions.

  • Lkthomps

    If part of the argument is that the meat people eat today is very different from the meat paleolithic humans ate, can’t the same be said about the plants we eat today? I am a huge advocate of the whole plants based diet but what do I say to my friends who are going “paleo” and say that our ancestors didn’t eats beans or many grains and that our bodies are not suited to digest these??

    • Derby City Vegan

      I am bewildered by claims by our carnivorous friends that before the development of agriculture humans did not eat grains or legumes.  This really makes little sense.  People would not bother to domesticate foods that they were not already eating.  You might also want to visit John McDougall’s website.  In some of his recent lectures he makes reference to more recent archeological studies in which researchers reported finding starch grains between the teeth of archaic humans.  He also mentions genetic studies that  claim that humans have more copies of the genes for amylase than other great apes strongly suggesting that humans are designed to digest starch.

      • Paleo Huntress

        Derby City Vegan,

        Grains and legumes are not the only foods rich in starch. When you consider that we know that ruminants thrive eating grass and leguminous greens that surely occasionally contain some of the seeds of both, but that their health fails when they are fed the grains and legumes alone, it doesn’t seem a stretch at all. It makes sense that primitive man occasionally chewed the seeds he found in his foods, including the stomach contents of ruminants he was eating.

        None of this goes against the paleo template.

        • Real World Vegan

          very true

      • Real World Vegan

        carnivores eat only meat. ive never met a person who eats only meat. do you know many?

    • d1stewart

      It’s true that the plants we eat today are very different from their primordial origins. That, however, has been true as long as agriculture at any scale has existed–man has always used selection to grow foods that meet his criteria for quality. The strawberries of 500 years ago weren’t the strawberries of 250 years ago and those weren’t the strawberries of 100 years ago and those weren’t today’s strawberries.

      Your paleo friends are wrong. Our ancestors have long eaten beans and grains and our bodies do digest them. They digest them–not rot them, as our bodies do meat.

      Paleo is a fantasy of humans eating massive amounts of meat nearly all the time. The funny thing is, meat is animals, and animals do not sit still for being caught and killed. Meat, until domestication of certain animals, was a rare food, difficult to obtain. (If your paleo friends think agricultural changes to vegetable foods and grains from selection are a problem, why don’t they see domestication of animals as a similar problem? Do they think that the cows we raise and eat today are anything like cows of 10,000 or 100,000 years ago?) What we do know of human consumption of fiber is incompatible with a meat-dominant diet; there is just too much plant matter to allow very much meat at all in ancient diets. It is likely that “paleolithic man” hardly ever ate meat, and never had a Porterhouse steak or a “lean chicken breast.”

  • R Ian Flett

    One issue that is usually overlooked is whether a diet that is optimal for reproductive success is necessarily optimal for longevity. Males of many species often live fast and furious lives in order to spread their genes. It has been suggested that there is a trade off for this in the form of an earlier demise. Once longevity becomes valued over fertility a different dietary strategy might pay off such as less high energy food.
    It has been noted, for example, that higher methionine intake aids fertility, but probably reduces one’s lifespan. 
    Meats are highest in methionine. Draw your own conclusions.

    • http://poxacuatl.wordpress.com/ Strix

       That’s an interesting view. I’ve not thought of it exactly that way, but it makes sense: We are a continuously evolving species.

      It’s odd that we are striving for longevity for existence on a planet/in an environment we are destroying.

      Let’s hope Mars provides some breathing space; at least we’ll be healthy and prepared to destroy  her too.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jdmumma JD Mumma

      Being “suggested” does not qualify in science as a theory, hypothesis maybe, but not a theory. Presenting only two options – reproduce and live short or lower reproduction and live longer – may fall under presenting a false dichotomy (aka false dilemma).
      There are many elements to both fertility and longevity and methionine is one but not the primary.

  • Karl Young

    Thanks as always, Dr. Greger, for the great public service you provide (and I enjoyed your talk at the SF Vegfest this week). This video is particularly helpful as watching the mountain of information and reference starved testimonials that the paleo people are able to muster on public sites like Amazon when a new paleo book comes out is pretty frustrating. Restoring some balance is refreshing even it might not match the volume of noise that we’re all exposed to.   

  • http://www.facebook.com/oliver.h.perry.5 Oliver Hugh Perry
  • Ww131

    Speaking of arsenic in animal products, what about the arsenic in rice?

  • Dave Novakoff

    I’m a vegan who does CrossFit, and everyone else at the gym is into Paleo like an addiction.  I hope we vegans don’t come across like that, but I bet a lot of us do.

  • Rayball75

    So much conflicting information out there…

    1.5-Million-Year-Old Skull Fragment Shows Oldest Evidence of Regular Meat Consumption – http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/article00631.html

  • http://www.facebook.com/clairejones.email Claire Jones

    Clearly, we’re meant to eat a diet that’s not trying to kill us

  • Robert

    Does the Primal Blueprint fall within the Paleo / Atkins category? I tried to talk a few friends out of it on that assumption. I tell them the whole-food, plant-strong has worked well for me, according to my waistline and biometrics.

    • http://www.DonForresterMD.com/ Don Forrester MD

      Hadn’t heard about the Primal Blueprint yet. Perused the website and looked a material/reviews on Amazon. I think it is fair to say it falls in a similar category but Atkins wasn’t pushing processed supplements that I was aware of. I would stick with your approach which the best scientific, archeological and clinical studies support at this time. It is also consistent with our knowledge of human physiology and biochemistry. Your approach is also consistent with our design as “hind gut fermenting” herbivores with the modifications from our great ape relatives of more amylase genes (to digest starch) and more volume in our small intestine to absorb starch. Of course the science is changing so you have to keep tuned to NutritionFacts.org. Congrats on your improved health and your diet which is also good for the planet and reduces suffering of other sentient species.

  • http://www.facebook.com/karen.harris.96742277 Karen Harris

    Dr. Greger – A friend has lost 40 pounds on the “Whole 30 Diet” – one in the family of Paleo diets out there. She commented that my plant-based diet was more inflammatory than hers, because of the beans and legumes. Are my beans and lentils inflammatory? Thank you! I watch your videos daily and apply the knowledge gained.

    • Dr. Connie Sanchez, ND

      Your friend is probably referring to the net acid-base load on the kidneys. Foods with a high net acid load are meats, dairy, fish, grains and most beans and legumes. Foods with a net alkaline (base) load are fruits and vegetables. High-protein diets increase net dietary acid load and acidify the urine. Conversely, diets high in fruits and vegetables have been proposed to be associated with a greater degree of alkalinity.(1)

      As to bean being inflammatory one has to take the whole diet into consideration. A plant-based diet, high in fruits and vegetables, with the addition of beans/legumes and whole grains tends to be a more alkaline and more anti-inflammatory. A diet with few fruits and vegetables tends to be more acidic and inflammatory. The key is to have a high volume of frutis and vegeables in your diet.

      1. Minich, D., et al. Acid-Alkaline Balance: Role in Chronic Disease and Detoxification. ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, jul/aug 2007, VOL. 13, NO. 4.

      • Paleo Huntress

        “one has to take the whole diet into consideration. A plant-based diet, high in fruits and vegetables, with the addition of beans/legumes and whole grains tends to be a more alkaline and more anti-inflammatory.”

        Why not a plant based diet high in fruits and vegetables, with the addition of pastured animal foods and fish? Significantly less carbohydrate and more nutrient density.

        Is there any reason to think that the acid/base load wouldn’t be about the same?

        • Dan Lundeen

          Are you being paid by the meat industry to post these messages? This is a reply to a 5-month old post! Your questions are answered by Dr. Greger in the 1500 or so video posts; there is an index btw. For meat search “sialic acid e.g., for fish search “putrescein” e.g.

  • http://twitter.com/2rejuvenate Ranjan 2 Rejuvenate

    I think a separation of emotional sentimentality and fact is more important than separation of State and Church!!
    Our diets are 99% sentimentality & familiarity and 1% fact
    Ranjan

  • Martin351

    Though I agree with much of what Dr Greger says in many of his articles, this whole paleo diet thing seems to speak for itself.

    I’ve read tens of thousands of personal stories/articles in regards to it all having benefits. Honestly, I’ve never read one thing showing anything negative about it. To be clear, what I mean negative is those who actually understand what it entails. Many people mistake it for an Atkins diet which many know how is horrific for a long-term solution and dangerous.

    All the paleo diet states is no:

    - Legumes
    - Grains / Starches
    - Dairy
    - Soy
    - No processed foods
    - No fatty meats

    That’s pretty much it..

    So instead of looking at a typical American dinner of say meat and potatoes followed by pop. Or going out for burgers and fries.. you may opt for the following..

    Leaner cut of the meat or chicken, pile of veggies, lemon water or a juice (if you can find one with little to no sugar)

    Most people love meat and lean cuts of chicken and beef, as well as, fish work for the paleo eating style. The challenge is though eliminating the filler foods like rice, spaghetti, potatoes, and things of the like.

    When I say the paleo diet speaks for itself, I go by the best research out there.. the same thing somebody posted above.. the “here and now” research:

    In my line of work I meet and befriend a lot of people, and I know a fair bit of both vegetarians and vegans, as well as, those who follow the paleo diet. I’m the type of person that gets fascinated with this type of thing and tends to ask a lot of questions.. this is what I found:

    - All people who follow either Vegetarian or Vegan (about 105 of them), all say their energy is overall better but still lacks at times, suffer from intestinal problems, and stalled weight loss (for those whom carry that goal). Some irritability. A need for supplements to balance out their nutrients as some cannot simply eat enough food to get their nutrients. Though there were handful to the extreme in either direction, this is the general consensus

    - All people who follow the paleo diet (about 60 of them) every single one of them had all their energy come back and stay throughout the day (no lag or energy spikes), continued weight loss (for those carrying the goal), general feeling good (no anger or irritability), no need for supplements. This was common for all of them.

    The people from the paleo family seemed happier, more full of life, more energetic, with less chronic illnesses. Though some people on the other side could match this, most of them were not at the same level. There is something to be said for this.

    As I said, the here and now research speaks for itself.

    • d1stewart

      “Here and now research” seems to mean anecdotes from people you know. Personal reports that “every single one of them had all their energy come back” are worthless–yes, worthless. Such self reporting of “energy” is a subjective impression that can be accounted for by mere placebo effect and by expectation wish fulfillment, and by enjoyment of the diet. Can you cite any scientific research? Literally, what you say “there is something to be said for,” there is nothing to be said for. It is worthless as evidence. This isn’t said to be mean–it’s said because it’s scientifically true. There’s no such thing as either “here and now research” or “research [that] speaks for itself.”

      In addition, what you say paleo means is not what an endless variety of others say it means. Take any of the whole food items on your list (leaving out, that is, generic “processed foods,” though all meat foods, including lean chicken, are heavily processed), and Google “paleo ________ recipe.” Odds are, you’ll find hundreds if not thousands of hits. No two paleo dieters follow the same diet. Raw milk–paleo? Yes, according to some paleos. Apparently paleolithic man would udder-feed from a cow now and then (though it’s doubtful that he survived for evolutionary selection). Lentils–paleo? Yes, according to some.

      Even your outline of a paleo diet taken by itself shows that no paleolithic man could have eaten such a diet. Paleo is a modern fantasy diet based on a pretense of science.

      • Paleo Huntress

        “all meat foods, including lean chicken, are heavily processed”

        Would you elaborate on this statement please? My meat foods come from pastured animals. They are killed, bled, aged and butchered. Which part of this process do you consider heavy processing? It’s significantly less processing than it takes to get grain from field to plate so I’m not clear on what you could be trying to say.

        • Steve

          There is more processing steps involved with most meat that is grown on farms than say rice. If you count bran layer of rice as a processing step, surly you must count removing the animals skin as a step. There is much more processing for getting beef to your plate than white rice.

          • Steve

            That sould read; “removing the bran layer of rice as a processing step”

          • Phaedra

            White rice must be-

             

            1.) Harvested (plants cut down)

            2.) Threshed (removing the grains from the straw)

            3.) Winnowed (removing the chaff from the grain)

            4.) Polished (removing the bran from the grain)

            5.) Cooked (raw starch is practically indigestible)

            No, eating meat is not like eating rice. If we’re to make the skin-removal argument, it’d be closer to eating a piece of fruit that needs peeling. Meat can be eaten raw and it is very digestible.

      • steve

        The single thing I love most about the paleo diet, is it’s evolved more in the last 3-5 years than the preceding 10,000 years.

  • Hannah

    Even locally raised animals used for consumption, are not immune to being exposed to chemicals. If a farm is surrounded by other farms that use chemicals, there is likely to be cross contamination.

    • Paleo Huntress

      Hannah,

      “If a farm is surrounded by other farms that use chemicals, there is likely to be cross contamination.”

      Wouldn’t this apply to plant foods as well?

    • Dan Lundeen

      Hannah, The animals even without the chemicals are bad for you: parasites, pathogens, Neu5Gc, cholesterol, saturated and trans fats, naturally occuring hormones, PhIP, TMAO etc. But it is true sadly that the chemicals are everywhere, even in organically grown veggies. However, the chemicals are not nearly as concentrated in (even conventional) crops as they are in animals. And if you don’t eat or suckle animals to begin with then the chemicals even in conventional crops are not nearly as bad for you, e.g., 95% of cancers are caused by meat and dairy consumption per T. Colin Cambell in his new book Whole.

      • Paleo Huntress

        When you consider that you have to eat many MORE times the veggies to get the same nutrition, you realize that the concentration is moot.

        • Dan Lundeen

          More paleotroll nonsense from PH since there are many nutrients entirely lacking in non-plant sources, including fiber and phytonutrients. With a whole plant diet you can eat as much as you want without acquiring mental deficiencies.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Neither fiber nor any “phytonutrient” is essential. But lucky for us, we’re omnivores… so we can get the concentrated nutrition in the animal foods and the fiber and phyto-woo in the plant foods. The best of BOTH worlds…

            It’s like… magic.

          • Dan Lundeen

            There is no nutrient in meat that you can’t get from a plant-based source and plenty of baddies in the meat. Unlike our ancestors, we have a choice of what to eat. Why would you choose the unhealthy, unethical, environmentally destructive sources? Animals do not make B12 – there’s no reason to eat them for it and moreover even many meat eaters cannot absorb enough B12 from meat. Dr. G recommends everyone regardless of your diet take B12 and vitamin D supps — both are available in vegan form.
            BTW 97% of non-vegans fail to get the RDA for potassium — you just can’t get enough if you replace any of the whole plants you should be eating with corpse flesh.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Plants don’t make water and yet we’d be hard pressed to claim they aren’t a good source of it. Same goes for animals and B12 and NOTHING is more environmentally destructive than grain agriculture so its ludicrous to even attempt to demonize pastured beef when you eat grains. Potassium isn’t part of this discussion, but feel free to take it to the one it is.

          • Dan Lundeen

            What utter nonsense. 90% of crops are grown to feed animal production; animal production is responsible for more than half of all global warming. You can’t possibly pasture raise enough beef to feed all the narcissists. Here’s the potassium link http://nutritionfacts.org/2013/05/23/98-of-american-diets-potassium-deficient/ come on over.

          • Paleo Huntress

            LMAO First, your claim is not only ludicrous, it is unsubstantiated. (cite your sources) And frankly, I don’t have any interest in debating with someone who can’t differentiate between different types of agriculture. Second, it is YOU, that is following MY feed here, so if you’re going to creep my activity, pay attention to which threads I’m actually writing in so that you can keep the discussions on topic when you troll me.

          • Dan Lundeen

            SMH I haven’t seen any sources from you other than ALL CAPS. Yawn, you bore me PH.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Yeah, I’d say that too if I had no argument. I suspect you find yourself bored quite a lot.

          • Paleo Huntress

            Allan Savory: How to fight desertification and reverse climate change

            “Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it’s happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. Savory has devoted his life to stopping it. He now believes — and his work so far shows — that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert.” Grazing Ruminants.</blockquote"

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

          • Paleo Huntress

            And FWIW, no matter how much plant food you eat, you won’t get enough B12. And I’m thinking I don’t have to point out how many “mental deficiencies” are caused by a lack of B12.

            Right?

  • katrubie

    I have read all these comments about paleo diets and I cannot help but suggest that a paleo diet may have in fact been nutritionally deficient in nutrients. It is not like the paleo people had a supermarket available to them where they could choose from a diversity of foods from different regions. They would have been restricted to the food that grew naturally in the area in which they lived and to the seasons in which they grew/migrated. They did not have food preservation and probably did not cook either, so I am not sure how varied their diet was even amongst potentially edible foods that could not be eaten raw (at least not in large quantities). Thus, the paleo diet was probably malnurishing in every way. When we talk of a paleo diet today, we have more choices in food, because we have the supermarket to broaden our food choices. It is hardly fair to compare the past diet (which we honestly know very little about) with a modern version of the diet. Perhaps we need to call it the Neo-paleo diet! ;)

    • d1stewart

      It’s not neo-anything-old, though. It’s not a new Paleolithic diet; it’s a new, modern fantasy diet based on false premises and invalid logic.

  • John

    Dr. Greger,

    I was wondering if you would take a minute to discuss your thoughts on the Whole30 Program. In a sense, its a healthier version of the Paleo with restrictions on consuming carrageenan, MSG, sulfites, and any foods with added sugar.
    I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter and will be checking back regularly for your reply.
    Thanks,
    John

  • Manuel Herrera

    The assumption here regarding meat eating with the Paleo diet is quite myopic. The basic template for the diet is eating lean, healthy meats (i.e., grass-fed, free-range), wild-caught fish, vegetables, nuts, and fruits. I can’t think of a more balanced diet than this. A little over half of daily caloric intake should come from animal protein. The argument that a plant-based diet being more the Paleolithic norm is still unconvincing and goes against most scientific studies. The video below from a Harvard study is the latest one from scientists that further supports the hypothesis that meat eating was prominent in most, if not all, Paleolithic diets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_bYlY6AHew

    • Paleo Huntress

      I don’t know how I missed it before Manuel, but what a really kewl video segment from Harvard. “Around two million years ago, we see evidence of intensified hunting activity. We see more butchered bones, more stone tools. Throwing was an important part of hunting… it enable our hominid ancestors who didn’t really have any other weapons, no bows, no guns, no snares, no nets, to hunt using simple technology like rocks or sticks.”

  • Rodica

    This is great info, great article, thank you a lot! The free sharing of your books is such a fantastic gesture, I am very grateful.

  • Mia

    Very true

  • Guest

    I really just want to understand one thing about the Paleo Diet. They are pretty convincing when they say beans and grains are bad. Then I see on this site that beans and grains are good. How do you know what is right?

  • Zaz Zaz

    We have the potential / previous vitamin C synthesis ability in our DNA, but don’t use it because historically we’ve consumed so much C in a plant-based diet, could we reverse that process, & activate our C synthesis, by _not_ consuming C?

  • Eric Jackson

    Your composing is purely awe-inspiring that I desired to read such high
    quality material..cookies
    on Amazon