Cost of Food & Obesity Amongst Poorer People

ruggedtoast

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The fourth link even says there is scientific evidence that the diet works...

It certainly does:

It’s clear that a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, lean protein, omega-3, and other polyunsaturated fats improve our body’s ability to make use of food rather than store it as fat or keep it lingering in the blood stream as excess sugar

http://greatist.com/health/debunking-diets-paleo-facts/

The comments are pretty good too:

MichaelHails 5 pts
Been enjoying Paleo for about 6 months now and dropped about 20 pounds (mostly in the first three). What's been marvelous is that for months, I felt myself become more energetic and stronger, and thought "I guess this is the lifestyle that works for me," and in the intervening months, more and more research has been backing up the fundamentals.

And at the bottom there are even no fewer than 14 peer reviewed scientific research studies cited to support the benefits of a paleolithic diet.

Great debunking job there Adouglasmor.

adouglasmhor

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I am happy to have my understanding augmented. However randomly linking odd pages off the internet that you have clearly not bothered to read, in response to a google search you have done searching for a particular answer is not going to add to anyone's knowledge.

I can google "proof aliens exist" and provide you ten links "proving" they do.

There is a vast amount of interesting, thought provoking and scientifically valid evidence about paleolithic diets and weight loss and associated health gains.

If you have an actual reason why you think this isn't valid then fire away. If its just something you dont know anything about but have closed your mind to then why bother posting?

Start with the fact in palaeolithic times people did not buy their food from a shop and work from there.

Then the same foods were not available all year round and in the same areas. For example in the earliest sites found in Scotland - shellfish was the main source of proteins and wild grains and plants were added. Fruit was not available all year round, shellfish is toxic at certain times, birds are mostly migratory. Show some scientifically valid evidence? Sorry i don't agree with your fad diet, but that's all it is.

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

adouglasmhor

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It certainly does:



http://greatist.com/health/debunking-diets-paleo-facts/

The comments are pretty good too:



And at the bottom there are even no fewer than 14 peer reviewed scientific research studies cited to support the benefits of a paleolithic diet.

Great debunking job there Adouglasmor.

Actually not all the links to studies are to studies supporting the Paleo diet.
And the comments are from supporters of the diet.

adouglasmhor

In fact only 2 of them mention the paleo diet in their title several suggest health benefits of foods eschewed in it.

Pretty poor argument rugged toast, sorry your emotional attachment has blocked out you logical analysis.

chewmylegoff

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Start with the fact in palaeolithic times people did not buy their food from a shop and work from there.

Then the same foods were not available all year round and in the same areas. For example in the earliest sites found in Scotland - shellfish was the main source of proteins and wild grains and plants were added. Fruit was not available all year round, shellfish is toxic at certain times, birds are mostly migratory. Show some scientifically valid evidence? Sorry i don't agree with your fad diet, but that's all it is.

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

I'm not on the paleo diet myself and in fact had never even heard of it before reading this thread, but I find it a bit strange that you're accusing it of being a fad diet unsupported by scientific evidence when you have already said you're on the 5/2 diet which is of course a fad diet which does not have a consensus of scientific support.

misskool

ILW wrote: »

Forget all this diet stuff.

JUST EAT LESS

Not really. People do need a balanced diet with the right portions. If I could get away with it, I would eat 2 chocolate bars and nothing else. That would be eating less but it wouldn't make me healthy.

ILW

misskool wrote: »

Not really. People do need a balanced diet with the right portions. If I could get away with it, I would eat 2 chocolate bars and nothing else. That would be eating less but it wouldn't make me healthy.

You would lose weight though. Guaranteed.

Generali

misskool wrote: »

Not really. People do need a balanced diet with the right portions. If I could get away with it, I would eat 2 chocolate bars and nothing else. That would be eating less but it wouldn't make me healthy.

Oh hell. I'd better rethink dinner.

ruggedtoast

adouglasmhor wrote: »

In fact only 2 of them mention the paleo diet in their title several suggest health benefits of foods eschewed in it.

Pretty poor argument rugged toast, sorry your emotional attachment has blocked out you logical analysis.

I'm not on a diet actually. Certainly not a calorie restricted one anyway.

The people I know who have done paleo have ended up on it as they have tried all the calorie restricted regimes which ultimately dont work. They seem to find it has worked for them when nothing else has, and that they are able to stick to it without hardship.

I've also met a few athletic types who use it to maximise their energy and performance and are very happy with it. There is more than enough scientific and anecdotal evidence to suggest its worth a shot for people wanting to improve their health or lose weight, I am wondering what your beef is (pardon the pun).

Again with the link you most latterly published I am wondering if you bothered to actually read it?

#1 is an anti cholesterol diet created by an organisation that exists to promote awareness about cholesterol; despite the fact the actual scientific evidence that cholesterol causes heart disease is patchy at best. But everyone needs to get paid right; even if it involves jumping on the diet pseudo-science bandwagon.

#3 on this websites list of great diets is the Weight Watchers diet. Does anyone know anyone who's done a WW diet?

Does anyone know anyone who's done a WW diet who has actually succeeded in keeping thin?

WW is certainly good for WW's shareholders but I cant see its ever provided much benefit to anyone as a lasting way to stay in shape.

At #11 on this hit parade of complete nonsense is the Slim Fast diet. Thats right, the "chemical sludge in a PET bottle" diet rates 13 places higher than eating the healthy foods of our ancestors.

If you actually bother to open their own link to the paleo diet:

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/paleo-diet

The 'debunking' is weak at best, and again points to research that proves it works (although the site seems to have a problem with sample sizes). Their other criticisms are that its "expensive", unlike WW or Slim Fast of course, that you can't have dairy, which is blatantly untrue, and that its hard to stick to; which is absurd when you look at the diets they have promoted.

But then again the paleo people weren't paying them off to come higher in their list of dietary garbage so its not surprising they scored last.

Mrs_Arcanum

Warning, some generalisations will follow.

The wealthy as a group did/do (on the whole) mentally exhausting jobs and eat according to need as did their parents before them. Good quality meat etc but smaller portions. Stress is known for reducing appetite.

Poorer families often come from areas where they were employed in physically demanding jobs, farming, mining etc. Where high carbs were used to keep energy up cheaply which would be burnt off at work.

The problem has arisen from maintaining the diet of a physical labourer with no work to burn it off.