Which diet is the healthiest long-term?

I don't think I said anything against consistency. It's kind of a given that if you don't stick to a lifestyle, its long-term impact won't be much. At the same time that's empowering, since people can make a change today and even if old probably benefit.

I had cited a few studies, which you didn't really respond to, and they're not the only ones, but if meat is carcinogenic and promotes atherosclerosis along with other chronic diseases, then the ideal diet is vegetarian. If people can't stick to a vegetarian diet, they should be advised to limit meat just like we already say about candy, i.e. semi-vegetarian diet.

Yes, and we come to the same central question for paleo vs vegan/vegetarianism in whether meat is healthy, and whether legumes or grains are healthy. From what I've read, legumes are healthy even in large quantities, grains can be healthy in small to moderate quantities, and meat is unhealthy even in small quantities (except possibly high omega 3 fish).

Sure, if somebody has an allergy/intolerance, that individual should avoid that food group. Though it's with caution, since people may misattribute an issue they're having to something they ate. Not saying that's what you did, but with the gluten-free fad it happens.

If somebody has a gluten allergy, I don't see how it follows they should add more meat to their diet. Healthier options would be to try things like quinoa and legumes in place of those grains.

For carcinogenic things, like well-done beef, I don't think it would make you feel bad until pretty late in the disease. Cardiovascular disease is often asymptomatic as well. Feeling good now is important, but I don't know that it's the end-all-be-all for long-term health.

I think the "no body is the same" contention can be taken too far. Actually, our bodies are really similar and major differences mostly surround issues like celiac disease (or milder intolerances), higher iron needs for particular women, etc. But at the end of the day, blueberries help prevent cancer and beef promotes it.

There's a reason that studies are supposed to include groups and, when possible, blinding. There's so many variables that go into our individual lives, that it's easy to blame the wrong thing for feeling bad or feeling good. Using a large number of people who don't know what group they're in (blinding) helps control for that noise. I'm not going to read a book, but if you have a link to an article you think is convincing I could take a look.

I don't think there's much to envy. If somebody goes on a donut diet, and so can eat 2 donuts 3 times a day or whatever, they're going to spend more of their time feeling weak and hungry. It's great that they have discipline, but they're torturing themselves and doing something that's not sustainable. Plus they're not getting the nutrients and antioxidants that their body needs to maximize health long-term. I hear you on the no off switch thing though. I need to avoid buying unhealthy foods to avoid eating them. If I eat something unhealthy and don't want to gain weight, I need to buy only a small portion at a time.

 

I agree to a point, most people on a paleo diet or high protein consume FAR too much meat! The body only needs 0.36 grams of protein per pound of bodyweight. However I do think you're having a popular misconception that paleo is HEAVY on red meat, and meat in general (bacon and steaks) and while a lot of people do it that way it doesn't mean it is correct. I rarely eat red meat, and my main sources of protein come from fish, eggs, or a plant based paleo friendly protein shake. A vegan/vegetarian could eat Oreos and sugar non-stop, be overweight, diabetic, etc and never touch meat at all; because it's not properly following the diet in a healthy way. Anyone that believes in eating TONS of meat and saturated fat is misguided and in for health problems if kept up long term. I did my share of no carb diets and eating a ton of meat and it caused me terrible kidney problems, so that's a very bad idea! Lol My point is one can be semi-vegetarian and still paleo it is not this HEAVY meat diet that people believe. It can actually be done several ways, it's actually very flexible. However it does avoid plant based proteins like legumes, soy, beans all grains and dairy products. Paleo also emphasizes the QUALITY of the foods you consume.

Animal proteins are more complete proteins than plant based sources. Animal protein sources, such as meat, fish, poultry, eggs and dairy, are similar to the protein found in your body, they contain all of the essential amino acids that your body needs to function effectively. On the contrary, plant protein sources, such as beans, lentils and nuts are considered to be incomplete, as they lack one or more of the essential amino acids that your body needs. (Vegans can take supplements to make up for this).

Red meat, processed meats, alcohol, burned or heavily barbecued foods are carcinogenics. The reason why red meat and processed meats are carcinogenic is due to the chemicals they contain. Which is why the QUALITY of meat does matter and is highly emphasized in a paleo diet.

Certain individuals it's fine to eat grains and legumes, it doesn't effect them poorly. However, I wouldn't agree with using legumes to replace animal protein OR eating large quantities. Legumes can cause problems due to lectins, which can be potentially harmful. Lectins may not cause any immediate problems when you eat them, but they often lead long-term to all sorts of problems, such as not being able to properly absorb vitamins and minerals, food allergies, arthritis, and a variety of other issues, including leaky gut syndrome and increased inflammation of the gut. While a lot of lectins can be deactivated with heat, minus a couple of them it isn't a HUGE deal for a lot of people. However, those suffering from IBS, Crohns Disease, Hashimoto's or other autoimmune diseases or gut related illnesses may have problems with consuming legumes. Other potential problems of a diet high in legumes is High Protease Inhibitors, which keeps the proteins from being broken down and properly absorbed leading to chronic inflammation. Also, they are high in carbs which is not a friend of those who are Diabetic or metabolically damaged. Then there is the issue of Phytoestrogens which can cause the body to overproduce estrogen which can disrupt the hormonal system. Last but not least, FODMAPS's which are horrible for people who suffer digestive issues. A lot of these reasons are why diets rich in legumes are not beneficial for a lot of people.

Next the issue of grains, gluten and wheat, pretty much same thing here. Certain individuals thrive off them others feel horrible when they eat them. I myself feel TERRIBLE if I eat any grains at all, I indulge, but I always regret it afterwards. Again, very high in carbs and not the best for diabetics or those metabolically damaged. Also while gluten-free has become a fad, gluten doesn't just negatively effect people with Celiac Disease, it is LIFE THREATENING, to those who suffer Celiac Disease but can have negative effects for those not suffering from Celiac Disease. The protein is very hard for our bodies to digest and causes gut inflammation in 80% of the population. This can damage the gut lining leading to malabsorption of nutrients. So if someone already has gut problems, this isn't going to help a good amount of people.

All carbs are converted by our bodies into sugars (glucose) which is used for energy, grains are very high in carbs. As glucose can’t stay in the bloodstream for too long, our pancreas produces insulin allowing glucose to be distributed to our cells to burn as energy for various functions. Majority of people are not active enough to burn all the glucose we consume as part of a standard, grain-based diet and therefore some of it ends up getting stored as glycogen – to be used by our muscles and liver – and the rest as triglycerides, or fat, in the fat cells around our waists and all the other areas we don’t want fat to be. Consuming too many carbohydrates, more than your body needs, can lead to insulin resistance, weight gain and obesity, pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers amongst other things. Also, same with legumes, grains contain lectins and phytic acids which is linked to osteoporosis, skin issues, muscle cramping, harsh PMS symptoms, fatigue, anaemia, and overall poor immunity.

Yes, I am aware many studies show grains can be beneficial in small quantities, but again not for EVERYONE.

I don't expect you to read the book but many articles are online if you google the benefits of a paleo diet...

 

I agree that vegan isn't automatically healthy (large amounts of oreos and sugar being good examples of doing it wrong), but I was saying that the optimal diet is a form of veganism. While not comprehensive, the studies I mentioned earlier support that.

Legumes (which includes soy and beans) seem to be the core of the debate between paleo and vegan (and to a lesser extent, grains, which I would consider something okay to eat but not VERY healthy like legumes). I'll respond to the more detailed points you make below.

Complete proteins are not a valid concern for vegans. Common combinations of foods provide complete proteins, and you do not need to eat them in the same sitting. Soy and quinoa are each complete on their own, grains and legumes generally complement each other to make a complete protein, e.g. a peanut butter sandwich or beans and rice.

High-heating cooking of meat does produce polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines in addition to other carcinogens, but all meats contain some carcinogens. High-heat cooking of meat also produces advanced glycation endproducts, which is the same thing that causes vascular damage in diabetes.

But even if you eat all of your meat sous vide (a low temp cooking method), heme iron itself is carcinogenic. It's found in all meats, but is higher in red meats. This is unfortunate, because it really is an easier source of iron to absorb than plant-based irons.

Processed meats like salami and hot dogs are actually in the same category as cigarettes (in terms of certainty that they cause cancer) according to the WHO. In addition to the above, they have N-nitroso compounds. https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

The effect of cooking method is probably greater than the quality of meat, at least based on ecological studies, for example:

In the 1980s and 1990s, New Zealand had the highest mortality rate of colon cancer in the world, and also had high rates of prostate and breast cancer. At the time, per capita meat consumption was 2nd only to Denmark, and meat tended to be well-done. New Zealand beef is primarily grass-fed. But one issue that did not make sense at first was why the Maori, natives of New Zealand, had less than half the rate of colon cancer of European descendants. Most Maori habits would contribute to their cancer risk (smoking, obesity) but one major difference is that they used low-heat cooking methods culturally (long simmering "boil"-ups, Hangi). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0027510702001689?via=ihub

I think this is more of an argument against the raw food people. Cooking (or even washing) beans is a good idea, and most people do cook their beans.

"In many large population studies, lectin-containing foods like legumes, whole grains, and nuts are associated with lower rates of cardiovascular disease, weight loss, and type 2 diabetes. [7-10] These foods are rich sources of B vitamins, protein, fiber, and minerals, and healthy fats. Thus, the health benefits of consuming these foods far outweigh the potential harm of lectins in these foods."

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/lectins/

Can't say I've fully evaluated this one before, but the thread is about the common person.

Well, whatever some in vitro study found on protease inhibitors, in the average person legumes do not cause inflammation in the gut. Heme iron does though.

Contrary to popular belief, carbs are not the cause of metabolic syndrome (type 2 diabetes is a part of metabolic syndrome), but rather obesity combined with genetic susceptibility. While high blood sugars can cause damage via advanced glycation end products, the treatment is to lose weight/improve their body composition (work out more if they're "skinny fat").

Now, in the meantime before they lose that weight they can use anti-diabetic drugs and also watch their glycemic load. Generally legumes have a low glycemic index, which means that the carbs from them trickle in rather than come like a tidal wave like simple sugars do. This is helpful for blood sugar control compared to other sources of carbs. https://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/blog/pass-those-peas-please/

Soy has a particuarly low glycemic load because in addition to this slower absorption, they are not as carb-heavy as most other legumes. A good piece of nutritional advice for a diabetic would be to replace simple carbs with legumes, especially soy.

Phytoestrogens are partial agonists of estrogen (sort of like the drug Tamoxifen), and their effect is to suppress cancers related to estrogens like breast cancer. https://www.bcpp.org/resource/phytoestrogens/

They do not have a strong effect on the hormonal system.

Maybe in people with severe IBS, or people who would rather eat less healthy than temporarily fart too much. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228670/

I'd have to see your source for the 80% of people getting inflammation from gluten. As far as I've seen, people who do not have celiac disease or an intolerance are better off consuming it. https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/ditch-the-gluten-improve-your-health

So yeah, if it really makes you feel terrible, you may have an intolerance and might as well find an alternative. Me, in contrast, have literally eaten pure gluten as a meat substitute with no effect on how I feel. It was too salty to be called healthy though.

There's really nothing special about carbs there. Eating too many calories makes us fat. Simple carbs and oils have a problem in terms of not making us feel very full for the calories. Obesity contributes to both type 2 diabetes and several major cancers (endometrial, breast, colon, e.g.).

I can only assume the concern is absorption for anemia (iron) and osteoporosis (calcium), but have they actually shown that populations/cohorts/subjects with high legume consumption have higher rates of these issues? I didn't see much data on a quick search, but there was this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5508855/

"Only one study has investigated the effect of beans and this was among other dietary changes.33 Middle-aged and senile patients with osteoporosis (n = 90) were randomised to a dietary education/intervention or control group. After the intervention, among other dietary improvements the frequency in which beans were eaten increased. Furthermore, the BMD of the lumbar spine and femoral neck were significantly improved.33 While diet therapy may improve bone health in osteoporosis patients, more research is needed looking at the focused effects of this food group."

Anemia is a bit confounded as legumes replace meat in vegans and heme iron is more bioavailable. So I would suspect that's more an issue of decreased meat intake, and frankly it's the only real issue I've seen with the vegan diet, at least for young women. Doesn't mean we need meat for iron, but may need to supplement or combine certain foods with things like vitamin C to improve absorption.

And before you bring it up. B12 isn't really an issue anymore unless they're a raw food vegan who doesn't eat fortified foods like cereal.

 

Actually everyone does have an "off switch".

The problem is that when it is consistently IGNORED it stops working.

Here is an experiment you can try for yourself and I recommend that you do.

All you need is a timer and a side plate.

Dish whatever food you want to eat onto the side plate because you are ALLOWED to go back for seconds and even thirds in this experiment.

Before you start eating you set the timer for 20 minutes.

You eat the food on your side plate but you have to WAIT until the timer goes off BEFORE you can dish some more food for yourself and reset the timer.

Repeat the process until you are finished eating.

Please try this and let us know what you learn about your "off switch".

Besides, what have you got to lose?

 

Paleo makes sense to me, at least as I understand it being the 'caveman' diet where you can eat anything that is fresh, natural and not overcooked.

Variety is the real name of the game though. The human metabolism requires nutrients that most of us arent arent getting anymore to work at peak efficiency.

 

Having spent enough time with dieticians, I can tell you that most are not too worried about your preferred diet before you get into their hands, as long as you are not so strict in adherence that you deprive yourself of basic nutrients over a long time. Whether you are trying to reduce your fat, your salt, your protein or your sugar/carb/ starches, they want to see you 'cheat' enough that your calories are not too low, your protein stores are not too low, and your electrolytes and bloodwork do not show up problems. All these diets teach you some valuable habits as you end up learning to read labels, and you end up ditching processed foods in favor of something less processed, without quite so many multisyllabic chemicals you don't understand and get nervous about. The end result gets you pretty much the same place so often. You eat more fruits, whole grains, veggies and legumes and nuts and fiberous foods that have not been turned into a ground up patty or TV dinner, or a fake 'juice' product.

the same process of becoming conscious of what you put into yourself, also makes you more aware of how much of everything you put into yourself ie portions, and that too is a good thing. It isn't long before you start thinking about other aspects of a healthful lifestyle because the 'bug' has hit you. Next thing you know you have lost 15 pounds on any of these, gained a little spring in your step, a better glucose score, and blood pressure and that feeling of confidence feeds into more of the same interest in healthful living.

You may see it as a validation of that keto, low salt, or low calorie, or low saturated fat, or low white starch/ carb diet. I see it as a validation of just learning to pay attention to what is on that label you have started to read and how much 'stuff' you are shoving in, or in short it's all really about you deciding that you want more control over how you feel.

 

Not a bad idea, actually! When I allow myself sugary treats that wouldn't be a bad idea to try out!

I can just see myself staring at the timer, then staring at donuts...then the timer again Hahahaha

 

Agreed!

Animals don't wash their food before they eat it which means that they naturally consume nutrients that we send down the drain. I am not advocating that we stop washing our food because we still need to get rid of the pesticides. Instead I started taking Tissue Salt supplements that are the same mineral salts that occur in the soil that are also found in our cells.

Think of it as the equivalent of a vitamin supplement which just ensures that we have all of the mineral nutrients we need.

 

I love it! I feel great on it, has helped ease symptoms of a lot of health issues I have, plus it is more flexible than what people think. Plus my fitness performance and endurance is amazing when I am religiously following this lifestyle.

Only downside of it, it is EXPENSIVE! LOL

 

I will look into tissue salt

 

https://schuesslertissuesalts.com.au/about/history/

 

I will say the health and fitness industry is worth $72 billion. If you search a reason why specific ways of eating are good or bad you will find data from source to back up what you say. I am not saying your studies are not true or meaning to insult what you have cited so please don't misunderstand where I am coming from. I do agree with a lot of what you stated. I am just saying there is soooo much confusion due to all the conflicting information that is available. I can put any diet into Google and find studies that are against it or for it. It's no wonder people are so confused as to what eating plan they should adapt!

In short if it is a way of eating where you feel healthy, you're actually healthy, and it's a diet that fits your lifestyle one will stick to it.

A lot of people have autoimmune diseases, gut issues or intolerances and they don't even know it. These issues are becoming more and more common. However people are quick to turn to harmful medications as opposed to looking at dietary reasons. They don't understand whats causing problems. I myself was going to to the hospital, seeing specialists, allergists and was getting no where and really suffering. Finally a Naturopath recommended an elimination diet, and it made me aware of how certain foods effected me and I noticed a dramatic differenc with adapting the Paleo way of eating as do other people I know.

 

Since I have a gluten allergy my own diet is carb restricted perforce. However I have always been able to eat corn without any symptoms until recently when I was overseas. After attending a BBQ where I ate some of the local corn I experienced the same negative reaction that I would have had as if I had eaten bread rolls made from wheat.

This resulted in me conducting some additional tests on myself to confirm that it was only the corn and then I began doing research. What I discovered was that what I was reacting to the GMO PESTICIDES in the corn!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize

In essence the same TOXINS that kill insects by destroying their digestive systems is GENETICALLY ENGINEERED inside the corn itself!

My own reaction was severe whereas for normal people it is probably less pronounced. However it DOES EXPLAIN why so many people suffer from intestinal disorders these days that have nothing whatsoever to do with gluten allergies.

I hate to imagine what the long term effect of consuming the Bt toxins would be.

 

I completely agree that you can find a study to support most positions. But part of the debate is in evaluating the studies themselves. For example, a lot of the studies that support a keto diet have effects that can be explained by the weight loss alone. Few would dispute that keto can help with weight loss via appetite suppression, but more controversial is how it is for long-term health otherwise. One study I found with an approximately isocaloric keto diet suggested the diet was harmful when there is no weight loss. I'd try to find it but you're not keto anyway, so just an example.

I haven't seen convincing studies to suggest that legumes are bad at all. Mostly hypotheses that they could be bad based upon the presence of anti-nutrients, but studies involving actual people have suggested that legumes are healthy.

It's true that modern medicine relies too much on medications, but that doesn't mean they're harmful, just shouldn't be the first line approach. Somebody who has horrible cholesterol should first try to control it with diet and weight loss. If they can't/won't do that, they would probably benefit from a statin.

I think anecdotes, like case reports, are useful in telling us what can happen, but in terms of what usually happens, well-designed studies are needed. Paleo as you've described is fairly flexible and broad, so maybe there's some aspect that's helping and others that aren't. It could be as simple as the gluten intolerant people benefiting from that aspect, and/or people who ate too much refined sugar getting away from that... but just because certain people feel better on it doesn't mean all aspects of it are true - eliminating legumes is a major thing I think is harmful advice for most people, and also the idea that grass-fed, organic beef is better than no beef at all.

I haven't looked into this in detail, but it's important to keep in mind that many things that are very toxic to insects have almost no effect on mammals. Just because it's heavily toxic to insects doesn't mean it's toxic to mammals (except maybe cats, for which almost anything is poisonous due to the limitations of their liver's ability to metabolize things). But a specific allergy in certain people? Probably. Maybe that's what happened for you.

 

While I agree that what I posted was anecdotal and I have no doubt that my own system is probably more sensitive than average when it comes to the Bt toxin that does not mean that the toxin does NOT cause harm to others.

Furthermore there is some misinformation out there about Bt toxins. Using it as an external pesticide spray is relatively harmless because it naturally degrades within 48 hours. However the GMO engineered Bt protein WITHIN the plant can remain active for months even after harvesting. There are also significant differences in the CONCENTRATIONS between the external sprays and the internal toxic proteins on a per acre basis.

https://www.gmoscience.org/is-bt-toxin-safe/

The worst part of this is that there is virtually no research being conducted on humans to determine if there are any negative effects. (A single 2011 Canadian study used blood samples from pregnant women and umbilical blood from newborns that documented the presence of Bt proteins.) All other studies have been on rats and mice and have discovered a variety of ailments associated with these toxins.

Then there is the fact that insects ADAPT to a changing environment at a significantly higher rate because of faster reproductive cycles. Bt corn crops produced higher yields given that the insects that ate the corn kernels were negatively impacted. However this has resulted in insects that eat the roots of the corn crops to expand exponentially alongside the larger crop yields. On top of that we have the subset of the kernel devouring insects that has evolved an immunity to Bt toxins surviving and thriving instead.

Nature outperforms us so we are actually doing ourselves more harm than good with these GMO's IMO.