What The Paleo Diet Is, Part 2 - Now With Accuracy.
OK, that's the last time I copy-paste from Wikipedia.
So.
There actually are reasonable and sensible reasons Becca and I have decided to try Paleo, and we have, in fact, done more than a zero amount of research into its claims.
The "it's the caveman diet" line is a useful shorthand, but as the last day or so have demonstrated, it doesn't stand up very well to critical thinking. So here's a rather more extensive explanation of the hypotheses the Paleo community are making, and why I think it's worth trying.
Anecdotal evidence
First of all - the main reason we're trying Paleo is the absolute stack of anecdotal evidence that it's very good for improving energy levels, reducing blood pressure, losing weight in a sustainable fashion and a bunch of other stuff. I've seen hundreds - not an exaggeration - of testimonials from people who tried Paleo and found significant, measurable improvements. I've also heard a number of glowing testimonials from people I personally know and respect.
Obviously, these are not controlled trials and there could have been other factors.
OTOH, I'm not a moron. I've studied diet and nutrition for years. I've read or heard about dozens of diet alteration ideas. Exactly two of them have impressed me enough, due to a combination of intelligent science and lots of positive reports, to try them out.
The first one was the Slow Carb diet, which I used for weight loss.
It worked - 15 kg dropped, 11kg of that weight is still off two years later.
Paleo is the second.
So - why it works is a lot less important than if it works. If all its core hypotheses turn out to be absolute crap, but I drop another 5kg and 30 points of systolic BP and feel awesome, I'm OK with that.
The Actual Theory
Paleo's basically an interlocking set of six main hypotheses. All of them are based around the central concept that 10,000 years - the time between the Paleolithic period and now - isn't actually a very long time, and whilst we may have partially adapted in some cases to deal with foods that entered our diet after that period, it's eminently reasonable to suggest that we might not in all cases have digestive systems which can cope with elements of some of those foods.
In order from least to most controversial, those hypotheses are:
Processed food is full of crap. 30g of sugar in a can of chilli. 80g of sugar in a two-person portion of lasagne. Hydrogenated fats. Non-human-safe horse. I assume I don't really have to quote studies on this one?
Processed sugar isn't good for humans. This one is at least reasonably uncontroversial. It spikes insulin levels like crap. It's directly linked with incidence of diabetes. It fucks with your HDL/LDL levels. It's correlated with incidence of heart disease. It may be addictive.
Humans tend to do better on a higher-fat, lower-carb diet than what we have today. Again, not spectacularly controversial, and the basis behind most low-carb diets. The theory here is that we've only had access to carbs in large quantities since the invention of agriculture, which wasn't very long ago. Carbs are great for getting enough energy to not die, but may not be ideally suited to keeping us perfectly healthy. Specifically, fast-metabolising carbs tend to fuck around with our insulin and fat storage systems. The Wikipedia entry on low-carb diets seems to be a decent summary of this hypothesis. (Note here that Paleo doesn't advocate NO carbs - it advocates limited carbs.)
Grains interact with the human digestive system in ways that are generally unhelpful. This is NOT an "anything we didn't eat in the Stone Age is Bad" hypothesis - it's specifically a "grains have some chemicals in them that we have trouble with" hypothesis, with the further "and perhaps that's because they only entered our diet recently" hypothesis trying to explain it. Specifically, gluten may cause trouble - there's evidence that far more than the 1% of people who have celiac disease suffer from problems associated with gluten. Research is still at the early stages on this one, but there's enough evidence knocking around that "hey, let's eliminate gluten from my diet and see what happens" isn't a particularly stupid plan. There's also evidence that other chemicals in grains - lectins and phylates - aren't great either.
Dairy products also aren't a good idea for a variety of reasons This is the source of a lot of debate in the Paleo community. The argument against dairy is that it's comparatively high-GI in most forms, that dairy intolerance is a lot more widespread than is commonly believed (75% of adults worldwide, according to Wikipedia), and that there is good evidence dairy allergies are even more widespread than that. Here's a summary. Once again, for me this one falls under "try it and see".
Beans are bad for a variety of reasons This one's a source of massive controversy in the Paleo community. There is evidence that they contain a few things that may or may not be bad for you - notably some lectins and phytic acid. However, the evidence is much weaker. TBH, the main reason that we're avoiding beans on Paleo is that Becca doesn't like 'em and I'm sick of 'em.
Choose food that avoids all the contra-indicated things above, and you end up at the Paleo diet.
Postscript
Incidentally - whilst I am somewhat interested by reasonable, evidence-based discussion on this, I'm not terribly interested in a round of "it's all woo-woo" dismissal. If you have an absolute disproof of all of the above hypotheses, feel free to claim that "it's all woo-woo", accompanied by citation. Otherwise, I'd appreciate a more moderated response.
Becca and I are trying a limited-time trial of a change in diet that is unlikely to produce any drastic health problems in the short term.
We haven't joined a cult. I'm not giving all my money to a foundation in California. We're not becoming Breathearian.
We've checked with Becca's rheumatologist that it doesn't have unfortunate interactions with arthritis, and I'm monitoring my weight and blood pressure.
Does it actually work? Well, that's what we're doing the trial to find out.
So.
There actually are reasonable and sensible reasons Becca and I have decided to try Paleo, and we have, in fact, done more than a zero amount of research into its claims.
The "it's the caveman diet" line is a useful shorthand, but as the last day or so have demonstrated, it doesn't stand up very well to critical thinking. So here's a rather more extensive explanation of the hypotheses the Paleo community are making, and why I think it's worth trying.
Anecdotal evidence
First of all - the main reason we're trying Paleo is the absolute stack of anecdotal evidence that it's very good for improving energy levels, reducing blood pressure, losing weight in a sustainable fashion and a bunch of other stuff. I've seen hundreds - not an exaggeration - of testimonials from people who tried Paleo and found significant, measurable improvements. I've also heard a number of glowing testimonials from people I personally know and respect.
Obviously, these are not controlled trials and there could have been other factors.
OTOH, I'm not a moron. I've studied diet and nutrition for years. I've read or heard about dozens of diet alteration ideas. Exactly two of them have impressed me enough, due to a combination of intelligent science and lots of positive reports, to try them out.
The first one was the Slow Carb diet, which I used for weight loss.
It worked - 15 kg dropped, 11kg of that weight is still off two years later.
Paleo is the second.
So - why it works is a lot less important than if it works. If all its core hypotheses turn out to be absolute crap, but I drop another 5kg and 30 points of systolic BP and feel awesome, I'm OK with that.
The Actual Theory
Paleo's basically an interlocking set of six main hypotheses. All of them are based around the central concept that 10,000 years - the time between the Paleolithic period and now - isn't actually a very long time, and whilst we may have partially adapted in some cases to deal with foods that entered our diet after that period, it's eminently reasonable to suggest that we might not in all cases have digestive systems which can cope with elements of some of those foods.
In order from least to most controversial, those hypotheses are:
Processed food is full of crap. 30g of sugar in a can of chilli. 80g of sugar in a two-person portion of lasagne. Hydrogenated fats. Non-human-safe horse. I assume I don't really have to quote studies on this one?
Processed sugar isn't good for humans. This one is at least reasonably uncontroversial. It spikes insulin levels like crap. It's directly linked with incidence of diabetes. It fucks with your HDL/LDL levels. It's correlated with incidence of heart disease. It may be addictive.
Humans tend to do better on a higher-fat, lower-carb diet than what we have today. Again, not spectacularly controversial, and the basis behind most low-carb diets. The theory here is that we've only had access to carbs in large quantities since the invention of agriculture, which wasn't very long ago. Carbs are great for getting enough energy to not die, but may not be ideally suited to keeping us perfectly healthy. Specifically, fast-metabolising carbs tend to fuck around with our insulin and fat storage systems. The Wikipedia entry on low-carb diets seems to be a decent summary of this hypothesis. (Note here that Paleo doesn't advocate NO carbs - it advocates limited carbs.)
Grains interact with the human digestive system in ways that are generally unhelpful. This is NOT an "anything we didn't eat in the Stone Age is Bad" hypothesis - it's specifically a "grains have some chemicals in them that we have trouble with" hypothesis, with the further "and perhaps that's because they only entered our diet recently" hypothesis trying to explain it. Specifically, gluten may cause trouble - there's evidence that far more than the 1% of people who have celiac disease suffer from problems associated with gluten. Research is still at the early stages on this one, but there's enough evidence knocking around that "hey, let's eliminate gluten from my diet and see what happens" isn't a particularly stupid plan. There's also evidence that other chemicals in grains - lectins and phylates - aren't great either.
Dairy products also aren't a good idea for a variety of reasons This is the source of a lot of debate in the Paleo community. The argument against dairy is that it's comparatively high-GI in most forms, that dairy intolerance is a lot more widespread than is commonly believed (75% of adults worldwide, according to Wikipedia), and that there is good evidence dairy allergies are even more widespread than that. Here's a summary. Once again, for me this one falls under "try it and see".
Beans are bad for a variety of reasons This one's a source of massive controversy in the Paleo community. There is evidence that they contain a few things that may or may not be bad for you - notably some lectins and phytic acid. However, the evidence is much weaker. TBH, the main reason that we're avoiding beans on Paleo is that Becca doesn't like 'em and I'm sick of 'em.
Choose food that avoids all the contra-indicated things above, and you end up at the Paleo diet.
Postscript
Incidentally - whilst I am somewhat interested by reasonable, evidence-based discussion on this, I'm not terribly interested in a round of "it's all woo-woo" dismissal. If you have an absolute disproof of all of the above hypotheses, feel free to claim that "it's all woo-woo", accompanied by citation. Otherwise, I'd appreciate a more moderated response.
Becca and I are trying a limited-time trial of a change in diet that is unlikely to produce any drastic health problems in the short term.
We haven't joined a cult. I'm not giving all my money to a foundation in California. We're not becoming Breathearian.
We've checked with Becca's rheumatologist that it doesn't have unfortunate interactions with arthritis, and I'm monitoring my weight and blood pressure.
Does it actually work? Well, that's what we're doing the trial to find out.