Primal Blueprint

[beav80]

Anybody read this?  Here's my take.

What I like:
- the exercise ideas, everyday cardio to get yourself around, some sprints and heavy lifting
- a concentration on vegetables and fruits
- I like meat-just give me a reason to buy it
- there are healthy fats and they can help you live better and serve as an energy source if you keep your carbohydrate intake low
- controlling insulin is a good way to avoid chronic disease
- sleep/stress ideas, basically get more sleep and try to have less low-level constant stress in your life

What I didn't like:
- Grok/Korg- the idea that the average modern family (Korg family) is sick, weak, car dependent, and unhappy and the paleolithic family was independent, healthy, happy, kind, and good.  This is classic romanticizing of the past, the noble savage idea from Rousseau.  Why not mention more of the likely demises of Grok- murder, mauled, poisoned by food.  Sisson just pairs these all into the more inane title "accidents."
- the references section is so sparse as to be useless, especially in the Grok/Korg section
- an explanation of the basic biology of nutrition with an overriding interpretation throughout- there's too much in the bold statement/completely sure of yourself department and too little in the speculative, more evidence is needed department

Otherwise, I can understand wanting to get behind a system like this, emphasizing what was awesome about our ancestors and trying to emulate that in the way you lead your life.  I just don't think we should idealize the past and trivialize comforts of the present- I don't know about you but I sleep in a bed, have my whole life.  The only time I worried about predators was when I was camping- by choice.  We have it great.

[galaxie]

I've read his website.  It's highly unlikely that primitive humans ate as much animal protein as he recommends.  You have to decide for yourself whether you want to buy into the diet concept even if it isn't historically accurate, or whether the claims of historical accuracy are what make you think it's effective.

[rjack]

I also liked the book and follow most of the ideas.

What I didn't like:
- an explanation of the basic biology of nutrition with an overriding interpretation throughout- there's too much in the bold statement/completely sure of yourself department and too little in the speculative, more evidence is needed department

If you want more science, read The Paleo Solution by Rob Wolf. If you want a microscopic history of nutrition science read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes.

[happy]

I paid a closer look at Mark's Daily Apple and the info on the Primal Blueprint he has posted, after MMMs post. I haven't read  his book.  OP I see what you are getting at, and kinda agree, but most of what he recommends makes sense to me.  As far as research goes, it doesn't matter how "well referenced"  something is, if you are going to base your views on  the referenced research, you really need to read the references and know something about critical appraisal of the literature. Quite often studies don't actually say what they are referenced  to mean, or the research was of poor quality and the writer has over interpreted and placed too much emphasis on the meaning of the results. Hence its a really time consuming business to really judge whether the science is any good (unless that happens to be your area of expertise).

No-one really knows what Grok ate in what quantities, so its all hypothesis. Most likely it would be different depending on where Grok lived and the prevailing food supplies. However it definitely wasn't SAD (Standard American diet).  I would imagine if there was a lot of fruit easily accessible they gorged on fruit,  if some other vege was in season, that was the thing. When someone hunted some game they ate a lot of meat etc..  We can extrapolate a bit from what we know today eg Innuit eskimos not living in town eat a heap of whale/seal blubber..and fresh salad, veges/fruit I'm guessing is almost nonexistent. My son was privileged to recently spend a week in a remote Aboriginal community and he said: "they ate a lot of meat" ie the normal thing each day was to hunt kangaroo/rabbit and fish. He also said "they didn't eat often": they took off at 10-11am to do something or other, and came home at 4pm, having not eaten or drunk during that time. My son and his group were starving and thirsty having not taken anything with them, but their hosts were unphased. He also said " they weren't just lying around on  benefits doing nothing, they were always doing something productive", and spent time in play eg swimming in the river.

What I'm getting at is that we can argue about the quantities of the diet and the research,  but its probably no more accurate than common sense: we evolved eating unprocessed food both meat and vege/fruit. We mostly slept at night, so we are probably designed to get lots of sleep at night. Our stress response was acute: fear, fight or flight - we are probably not adapted for chronic stress. During the day we were often moving around. And so on.

I haven't slavishly adopted the whole plan, and I really think some of the Grok stuff is ridiculously over the top and as you say romanticised. The  message I take from his work is along the lines of - think about what your body was evolved to do and try to provide its optimal conditions to function well.  I have  taken the fundamental principles to heart and am going to try to model my life style more in that direction.

[beav80]

Happy-  I can agree with what you are saying.  I guess the thing that gets me are the strings and the way that he's trying to gloss over some of the very real disadvantages faced by our distant ancestors and some of the very real benefits we have now.  Steven Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature is probably closer to what our ancestors were facing; constant danger of attack by neighbours and groups killing individuals on their own like Grok if they were found near the border of a known territory.  More primate group aggression and potential for murder along with better nutrition and physical activity as a very minor footnote.

[James]

Thanks much for the review, the book has been on my short list and I've been interested in hearing more about it.  I have to agree in general about the glossing over of our past, stuff like that drives me nuts.  That would be a big drawback, though I'm pretty good at glossing over parts of books and just getting what I want out of it also.  :)


In reading more about them I think Good Calories, Bad Calories is probably the book I'm looking for.

[boy_bye]

Happy-  I can agree with what you are saying.  I guess the thing that gets me are the strings and the way that he's trying to gloss over some of the very real disadvantages faced by our distant ancestors and some of the very real benefits we have now.  Steven Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature is probably closer to what our ancestors were facing; constant danger of attack by neighbours and groups killing individuals on their own like Grok if they were found near the border of a known territory.  More primate group aggression and potential for murder along with better nutrition and physical activity as a very minor footnote.

it's been a bit since i read the primal blueprint book, but i don't get the sense that sisson wants people to actually go back in time and live the wholesale grok lifestyle. not at all. he acknowledges how awesome science, medicine, beds, antibiotics, and all the bounty of modern conveniences are. what he's advocating is not about going back in time; it's about sifting through the suitcase of all of our cultural and physiological heritage and holding on to the things that work while discarding things that don't. things to keep: real food, more physical activity, short/intense/infrequent stresses, modern medicine, running water, etc. things to leave behind: frankenfood, sedentary lifestyles, violence, infant mortality, etc.

why wouldn't we want to harvest all the great wisdom from our past? why not allow our ancestors' badassity to inspire us to give up some of the conveniences that make us weaker instead of stronger?

[beav80]

madgeylou-  That's the part that I like about the book (exercise, sleep, stress, real food recommendations), and I get that he's not literally telling me to put on a loincloth but when you profile a day in the life of Grok as if it were a fun, relaxing, and family bonding jaunt in the forest with a five second potential bear attack (low level stress with intense immediate stress) whereas the actual case would have been more like constant low-level threat of attack by aggressive territorial neighbours who travelled in a pack.  I think Sisson is also being disingenuous when he breezes over the sources of death in ancient times as being "accidents"- accidents like murder, food poisoning, dying unnecessarily by infections to comparatively minor injuries.  As Hobbes put it, life was short, brutish, and nasty in our distant past.

Like I said above I like the fitness/nutrition ideas, I don't like the rose-coloured glasses treatment of our past on the planet and the glossy overall treatment.

[grantmeaname]

beav, you're just substituting your uninformed opinion for the Sissons' uninformed opinion. It's literally no better-- perhaps yours is even a little further from the truth.

 What people ate is knowable and well understood, because we can excavate their villages and middens and examine their bones. And violence is visible, too, because we can examine human remains. Each is a huge avenue of inquiry in one of the elder statesmen of the sciences, and such investigations are extraordinarily well understood. So don't wave your hand and say "my views must be right because they were famously advanced by a 17th-century philosopher in a quotable way". Hobbes' work wasn't based on any more archaeology than the Paleo guys', and unsurprisingly, the truth lies in the middle of the two extreme, uninformed viewpoints.

[grantmeaname]

You have to decide for yourself whether you want to buy into the diet concept even if it isn't historically accurate, or whether the claims of historical accuracy are what make you think it's effective.

This is exactly my view. It's clear the claims are based at least partly in "science" as well as science, and the elder statesmen of the fad are body builders, not nutritionists. You can accept that and still take what you can from it (and for many, it does work as a diet), or you can decide that since they don't have the facts of the past on their side that you should move on. It's hard for me to see either of those as invalid.

[Kriegsspiel]

http://youtu.be/8nLKHYHmPbo

This is an hour long lecture on horticulture, as opposed to hunter-gatherers or agriculturalists.  Very thought provoking talk, which relates to what we're talking about here.  Grant, I figure since you're the anthropologist here, you can give your take on his lecture. 

Either way, it's a pretty mustachian concept.

[beav80]

You have to decide for yourself whether you want to buy into the diet concept even if it isn't historically accurate, or whether the claims of historical accuracy are what make you think it's effective.

This is exactly my view. It's clear the claims are based at least partly in "science" as well as science, and the elder statesmen of the fad are body builders, not nutritionists. You can accept that and still take what you can from it (and for many, it does work as a diet), or you can decide that since they don't have the facts of the past on their side that you should move on. It's hard for me to see either of those as invalid.

Agreed.

[Mark B]

LOL, this is another topic I'm commenting on that is probably dead, but at least I'll feel better when I'm done.

I think looking for "historical accuracy" in terms of whether Grok and his clan were a bunch of fun loving regular guys or cannibalistic Paleo-Nazis is not the point.  And to a small degree, the amount of meat Sisson recommends is also not the point.  To me the point, and his message, is do things that natural selection molded us to do, and stay away from the neolithic agents of disease--

-Walk a lot at a moderate pace
-Eat meats, poultry, fish, nuts and vegetables
-Lift heavy things
-Sprint once in a while
-Play
-Rest
-Stay away from processed shit in shiny packages--PUFAs, trans fats, processed carbs, grains, sugar.  Eat things that are as close to their natural state as possible, and that are palatable in their natural state.  If a nomadic paleolithic man came upon wheat or rice growing in a field, he might just conclude that it's a hard, tasteless, inedible bit of non-food.  I'm guessing he would have rather eaten a spider.

-About the science, Sisson has an B.S. in biology and decades of practical experience in human performance.  I've read his takes on research papers and it appears to me that he both reads them thoroughly and understands them.  I will say that he does paint with a pretty broad brush sometimes--I would prefer him to not say things like "everyone should do squats and deadlifts", but I think he's leaving it up to us to be smart enough to apply common sense as it applies to our own lives.  I have a bulging disc in my lower back, so no, I won't be doing any hack squats.  Sisson's statements also remind me of MMM with his figures.  The point isn't necessarily 100% accuracy.  I think MMM even replied to a similar complainypants comment by saying, ok, yeah, I wasn't quite 100% accurate with one statement on one topic, so this guy wants to negate my entire existence.

Anyway, I think Sisson, Wolf and company are doing a lot of good.  I hope so, 'cuz if not, I'm totally fucked.

Oh and I just read a nested quote, by whom I'm not sure:  "...the elder statesmen of the fad are bodybuilders, not nutritionists."  That might be technically true but I don't know that anyone is listening to any "elder statemen" at this point.  I am seeing physicians and PhD nutritionists jumping on board as the science validates more and more of the legitimate paleo guys' claims. 

[grantmeaname]

To me the point, and his message, is do things that natural selection molded us to do, and stay away from the neolithic agents of disease

But this entire statement is drivel, as anyone other than Sisson who has completed a semester of biology can tell you. This entire hundred-thousand year phase of human history has been characterized by increasing diversity in diet and activity. Natural selection has been molding us to do more things, not fewer, to the extent that it can even act in measurable ways over periods this short.

If a nomadic paleolithic man came upon wheat or rice growing in a field, he might just conclude that it's a hard, tasteless, inedible bit of non-food.  I'm guessing he would have rather eaten a spider.

Wheat and rice grew on riverbanks. Clearly, that's not what paleolithic societies (who, again, were not always nomadic) did when they found wheat and rice.

About the science, Sisson has an B.S. in biology and decades of practical experience in human performance.  I've read his takes on research papers and it appears to me that he both reads them thoroughly and understands them.

That's funny, because I've never heard a single anthropologist defend any of the "ten immutable 'primal' laws validated by two million years of human evolution". I'm not here for character assassination - I'm sure Sisson is a great guy - but he fundamentally does not understand how evolution and natural selection work as processes, and somebody gave him an absolutely terrible Sparknotes book on human prehistory that he apparently failed to verify with so much as a cursory google search or trip to the local library. When he gets so many of the basic facts and theories so thoroughly wrong, it's hard to discuss the dietary maxims he derives from them.

I am seeing physicians and PhD nutritionists jumping on board as the science validates more and more of the legitimate paleo guys' claims.

Physicians are barely trained in nutrition, and PhD nutritionists are both frequently wrong and barely more scientific than sports scientists. Even with those caveats their reaction to him has been tepid. There is one academic community with incredibly extensive background on human nutrition - biological anthropologists - and their response to the Paleo hypotheses has been unequivocally negative and well supported by a corpus of decades of anthropological data.

I'm not going to argue that a diet depending on lean meats and a variety of vegetables combined with a moderate amount of exercise is unhealthy. I'm just saying that the "science" that Sisson uses to get to his recommendations is horseshit, even though the resulting diet is (somewhat) nutritionally sound.

[Mark B]

Have you even read his blog?  He cites peer reviewed research by major universities, comments on it, and incorporates it into his system when he thinks it's warranted.  There's "Paleo" and there's Mark Sisson and his website, Mark's Daily Apple.  A lot of

So, PhD nutritionists and MDs, even those who are involved in what might loosely fall under the Paleo hat, are now to be discounted.  Hmm, I wonder where that puts blog forum posters. 

Having diversity in diet and activity doesn't mean any natural selection has taken place to positively select species members who can take advantage of the diversity.  Natural selection confers a reproductive advantage on those whose gene expression best fits the current environmental conditions.  Humans reach reproductive maturity at 12 to 15, and so anything that helps a male live to 12-15 and a female to live a bit longer than that will give an individual an advantage.  It's clear that practically any freely available starchy crap will do that, so, yes, speaking strictly in terms of natural selection, wheat, rice, corn, etc, have been enormously successful, despite the effects they might have on the body later in life, if a paleolithic individual is granted a later life.  Hell, I bet twinkies would have been a real boon to early man if they were around, if you're talking purely about natural selection.

I don't believe there is one Paleo hypothesis, and it doesn't surprise me that a biological anthropologist would only care what biological anthropologists have to say.  What would surprise me is that they would even care enough to have an opinion.

[Mark B]

And let me just sum it up by saying, I could not give a rat's ass about the details of how old Grok and his crew rolled.  I'm interested in sites such as Mark's Daily Apple to the extent that I want to know what to eat today.  I want to know what will get my HDL up, my small LDL down, what will keep my arteries clear and what will allow me to live a long and active life.  The back story of Paleolithic man, broad brush, is kind of interesting, but I read MDA and a couple of other blogs like Archevore to get information about how to achieve all of the above so that I can make a decision based on the data presented.  I can leave Grok to the anthropological eggheads.  Wheat is bad for me, I have the blood test and biopsy of my gut to prove it.  I wouldn't have considered this without reading some of Sisson's stuff, and none of the MDs I had gone to even brought up wheat as a possible solution to the health issues I was having.  Anecdotal, but true. 

[grantmeaname]

Did anthropologists murder your sister?

[Mark B]

Ha!  No, but one wore Birkenstocks and gave me a "B".

[MustacheMatt]

Dr. Davis from wheatbellyblog offers some articles about what we ate in the past and its affects on bones, teeth, life expectancy, etc.

Looking forward to reading primal blueprint, i've had some great success cutting out processed foods, grains, etc.

Will reply again soon as I'm done reading it!

[Hamster]

I think it's great that people try to think about how to lead healthier lifestyles, and I think the paleo/primal thing is interesting as a theory. I also think that it's pretty irrefutable that decreasing overly processed foods is healthier, especially eliminating trans fats, and things that are really dense in high glycemic index carbs.

But the evidence supporting the overarching theory for primal blueprint (of eating/exercising like pre-agricultural humans - if that's even possible) is weak. I find it follows the same basic money-making recipe as the authors of most health/diet fads.
1) Build a diet/exercise concept around a theory that sounds scientific, but is accessible to the general public.
2) Pick data/ideas that fit the theory, and ignore those that don't.
3) Begin marketing.

Does primal/paleo work for people? Sure, but so do the Atkins Diet, the South Beach Diet, the Cabbage Soup diet, the Mediterranean diet, or (the antithesis of Sisson's ideas) low fat diets with lots of cardio. All of these are completely different from paleo, but all of which have people restricting some part of their diet and ultimately changing the balance of calories in to calories out. They all also have studies showing improvements in a variety of health outcomes.

If the primal diet/exercise concepts work for you, that's great. But, they are definitely not the only way, and probably not the healthiest way to get the same results. But, the marketing and science really turn me off. 

Sisson strongly markets body image. His website is peppered with photos of his bare chest and his wife's abs. I checked out a few of his books from the library, and was had trouble getting past the contrived Grok/Korg stories, the cherry-picked photos/data, and the general tone. A photo in one of his books has a caption along the lines of: "look how ripped these aborgines are". There are other ways to get ripped, and they all focus on 2 things. Resistance exercise and dropping body fat by reducing calories. Of course the aborigines were ripped - hunter gatherers used their bodies and didn't have easy access to calories. If you started doing more resistance training, and either burned more or took in fewer calories on paleo/primal, then of course you will look more ripped. It has nothing to do with using coconut oil instead of canola oil.

All the body image stuff is a red flag to me, and no different from TV ads for buns of steel/ab cruncher/tug-toner (trust me, you'll be glad you clicked on it). Looking ripped is nice, but a good physique comes with fitness - and six-pack abs have more to do with low body fat than any other meaningful measure of fitness.

Finally, publishing books and a blog doesn't require peer review (which you could say of almost all diet/nutrition books/blogs), so there's no mechanism to even try to get the evidence right.

Not trying to be a hater, and if following this "blueprint" works for you, that's great. But, it's neither representative of how paleolithic people ate/lived, nor is his idea of eliminating foods developed agriculture on very strong scientific ground.

[Hamster]

I've already written way too much, but as an alternative to thinking about what people may have done/eaten 25,000 years ago, why not look at what lifestyles are promoting the longest/healthiest lives in the world we live in now?

National Geographic Society sponsored "expeditions" to various regions/groups which have the highest proportions of people living into their hundreds (and maintaining relatively good health compared to other societies). The author has written a book called "Blue Zones" about this work. This page has links to 5 regions that summarize what researchers felt were the most important contributers to longevity in each.

What were the common elements in these societies?
Diets that are mostly plant based, with limited red meat. In addition to fruits/veggies, many include quite a bit of grains, beans, soy, dairy - which aren't very paleo. Some, but not all included moderate alcohol, green tea, herbal teas, or wild greens.
Strong social networks
A sense of personal purpose or a plan
Regular exercise (particularly walking)

Sounds simple enough.

[brighteye]

Mark B: I guessed that you read Archevore when you mentioned "neolithic agents of disease" :-)
I had the same experience as you with my doc regarding wheat so I am very glad for Mark Sissons work. Without him I would maybe still be sick and miserable.
To OP: Agreed: The Grok/Gork story is (too) simple. The reason he may over-simplify the Grok-analogy is because he wants to reach as many people as possible. When you go to the website, you will find much more nuanced and detailed views.

If you want to know more about the eating habits of societies untouched by civilisation, read Weston A. Price's book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration". To me this book was eye-opening.

[MustacheMatt]

So I just knocked out reading the Primal Blueprint Fitness book.   I agree with a previous post that the Grok story is a bit weak, but I believe he is accurate that composition is 80% diet an that conventional wisdom leads to the endless cardio treadmill.  His main diet book is now on my "to read" list along with some Gary taubes.

For the naysayers above, I would recommend reading and trying the material.  What money is made by these scary paleo pushers?  You buy a book at discount or if you're resourceful enough you borrow or download it.  I buy no shakes, replacements, or supplements.

My costs for going "paleo" were reading wheat belly for free off the Internet, then watching Tom naughtons fat head for free on YouTube.  Had amazing success, then purchased both items from their websites for about 30-35~ total.  Later I had email exchanges with both thanking them and encouraging them to create more content. 

What are the additional costs of a paleo diet that I'm missing?  Less eating out?  Less doctor visits for joint pain?  No gym memberships or complicated workout equipment in the house? 

I love not beating myself up in the gym, being lean and fit, oh yeah, and not having breasts as a middle aged male.  14 months grain free, and see no benefit to ever going back.  I thought my gut, knee/ankle pain, and descent into diabetes was part of regular life - it is, if you keep listening to the "experts."

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

There's a good book called Diet Evolution that is about a primal type diet.  The author is a heart surgeon who has seen the effects that changing to this diet has caused in his patients' heart health.

[Mark B]

There's a good book called Diet Evolution that is about a primal type diet.  The author is a heart surgeon who has seen the effects that changing to this diet has caused in his patients' heart health.

Good effects, or bad?

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

Good effects.  Like, patients no longer need to have operations they were thought to have needed after just 6 months of changing their diet. 

[grantmeaname]

His diet in the long term is basically near-total abstinence from meat. Hasn't it been commonly understood for over fifty years that eating less red meat is good for your heart?

[boy_bye]

His diet in the long term is basically near-total abstinence from meat. Hasn't it been commonly understood for over fifty years that eating less red meat is good for your heart?

sure, but it doesn't mean it's true:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/#axzz2dOcF6iwW

[Storypage]

There is one academic community with incredibly extensive background on human nutrition - biological anthropologists - and their response to the Paleo hypotheses has been unequivocally negative and well supported by a corpus of decades of anthropological data.

I'm intrigued. Where might I read up on this?

I've long been skeptical of the Paleo fad diet, and have decided it isn't for me in any case, but it would be interesting to read an alternative viewpoint to the caveman craze.

[grantmeaname]

sure, but it doesn't mean it's true:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/#axzz2dOcF6iwW

An extremely pro-meat paleo site has a guest poster who believes that a media coverage of a recent study may have material limitations or bias? News at 6!

[MustacheMatt]

There is one academic community with incredibly extensive background on human nutrition - biological anthropologists - and their response to the Paleo hypotheses has been unequivocally negative and well supported by a corpus of decades of anthropological data.

I'm intrigued. Where might I read up on this?

I've long been skeptical of the Paleo fad diet, and have decided it isn't for me in any case, but it would be interesting to read an alternative viewpoint to the caveman craze.

Look up Vegsource, they have lots of info on the other side of the spectrum.

I consider the paleo fad to be the opposite of what our government recommends as healthy.  High in fat moderate protein and very low carb.  So really anywhere you look you'll find conflicting information to it.

[Mark B]

Ha! Good one. If it's the opposte of what the government spews at us, then it must be on the right track.  Check this out, there is an hour long video of a presentation Dr. Attia gave regarding how we came to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us:

http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/how-did-we-come-to-believe-saturated-fat-and-cholesterol-are-bad-for-us

[MustacheMatt]

Ha! Good one. If it's the opposte of what the government spews at us, then it must be on the right track.  Check this out, there is an hour long video of a presentation Dr. Attia gave regarding how we came to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us:

http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/how-did-we-come-to-believe-saturated-fat-and-cholesterol-are-bad-for-us

Yeah that's what I'm getting at.  I can appreciate the skepticism.  But it's harmless to try it strictly for 30 days.  Then there's no need for wondering.  I already know what the results are because I'm seeing them in everyone I help. 

Read books for free off net, try for 30 days, have informed opinion.

As of this posting I'm halfway through primal blueprint.  I think the author makes an excellent presentation, he's not an absolutionist but makes the case for grain free and what the results are, and he exhaustingly cites all of his sources.

I wish I had seen this before wheat belly, because its broader and also makes mention of specific types of exercise and why the different efforts matter in different ways.

[matchewed]

Diet isn't about 30 day trials. Diet is about a lifetime of nutrition. 30 days won't tell you if you'll have any sort of chronic health problems in the future due to your diet. Hell, any diet change from the SAD will make you feel better after 30 days.

Our best sources, to grantmeaname's point, is from our historical record. People have eaten a whole bunch of different things historically. We're basically the quintessential omnivore. I'd take anybody's advice to eat only this or only that with a grain of salt.

[MustacheMatt]

Diet isn't about 30 day trials. Diet is about a lifetime of nutrition. 30 days won't tell you if you'll have any sort of chronic health problems in the future due to your diet. Hell, any diet change from the SAD will make you feel better after 30 days.

Our best sources, to grantmeaname's point, is from our historical record. People have eaten a whole bunch of different things historically. We're basically the quintessential omnivore. I'd take anybody's advice to eat only this or only that with a grain of salt.

Yes we are omnivores, it is a huge indication of our amazing adaptability.  Now what are the effects of eating different diets, and if we were to compare them what knowledge could we gain.

What do we know about insulin and its effects?

Is the anyone in this thread that hasn't read the book?

[matchewed]

Diet isn't about 30 day trials. Diet is about a lifetime of nutrition. 30 days won't tell you if you'll have any sort of chronic health problems in the future due to your diet. Hell, any diet change from the SAD will make you feel better after 30 days.

Our best sources, to grantmeaname's point, is from our historical record. People have eaten a whole bunch of different things historically. We're basically the quintessential omnivore. I'd take anybody's advice to eat only this or only that with a grain of salt.

Yes we are omnivores, it is a huge indication of our amazing adaptability.  Now what are the effects of eating different diets, and if we were to compare them what knowledge could we gain.

What do we know about insulin and its effects?

Is the anyone in this thread that hasn't read the book?

It depends on who you listen to. Eating large quantities of red meat has been linked to higher rates of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular diseases, so yeah I think we know some of the effects.

I think we know a great deal about insulin and its effects - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin that's a pretty big entry. Is there a more specific question you're looking for? Maybe what is the effect of diet on insulin?

I don't need to read the book to know that a 30 day trial is a silly way to determine if a lifestyle change will have a positive or negative impact in the future.

And isn't that the crux of the book? That some how way back when we were evolutionarily optimized for a certain diet (hahahahah evolutionarily optimized, it doesn't even make sense)? And doesn't this book argue that the diet is very specific, high protein and high fat primarily through the consumption of meat?

Look I'm not saying that Mark doesn't have good points, he does, we as a society should exercise more and eat better, that alone will induce those miraculous changes he describes. There is no need to eat a diet 80% meat to obtain the results. And wheat is just trotted out as a local bogeyman for them to knock around.

[MustacheMatt]

Diet isn't about 30 day trials. Diet is about a lifetime of nutrition. 30 days won't tell you if you'll have any sort of chronic health problems in the future due to your diet. Hell, any diet change from the SAD will make you feel better after 30 days.

Our best sources, to grantmeaname's point, is from our historical record. People have eaten a whole bunch of different things historically. We're basically the quintessential omnivore. I'd take anybody's advice to eat only this or only that with a grain of salt.

Yes we are omnivores, it is a huge indication of our amazing adaptability.  Now what are the effects of eating different diets, and if we were to compare them what knowledge could we gain.

What do we know about insulin and its effects?

Is the anyone in this thread that hasn't read the book?

It depends on who you listen to. Eating large quantities of red meat has been linked to higher rates of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular diseases, so yeah I think we know some of the effects.

I think we know a great deal about insulin and its effects - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin that's a pretty big entry. Is there a more specific question you're looking for? Maybe what is the effect of diet on insulin?

I don't need to read the book to know that a 30 day trial is a silly way to determine if a lifestyle change will have a positive or negative impact in the future.

And isn't that the crux of the book? That some how way back when we were evolutionarily optimized for a certain diet (hahahahah evolutionarily optimized, it doesn't even make sense)? And doesn't this book argue that the diet is very specific, high protein and high fat primarily through the consumption of meat?

Look I'm not saying that Mark doesn't have good points, he does, we as a society should exercise more and eat better, that alone will induce those miraculous changes he describes. There is no need to eat a diet 80% meat to obtain the results. And wheat is just trotted out as a local bogeyman for them to knock around.

He doesn't recommend eating 80% meat.  It would help if he had a book on the subject that people could read and become informed, backed up by scientific studies and real world results.

Maybe someday.

[Hamster]

His diet in the long term is basically near-total abstinence from meat. Hasn't it been commonly understood for over fifty years that eating less red meat is good for your heart?

sure, but it doesn't mean it's true:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/#axzz2dOcF6iwW

The linked blog post is full of more manipulation, obfuscation, and ad hominem attacks than a political campaign, and is one of the reason that I don't like cult of personality diet fads. Yes, I am lumping Mark Sisson and Primal Blueprint in that category. Yes, I checked 3 of his books out from the library. Yes, I think his approach to eating is healthier than what many people in America eat.

But, is it sound science? Is it a rational theory once you get beyond the "aha" of it being something new?  And, does it fit with what MANY studies have indicated are most likely to help us live a long life and minimize chronic disease? No, no, and no.

In the blog post, he attacks observational studies, and basically calls the researchers babies who dream of being grown ups and doing big-boy research with a randomized-controlled trial. There are very good reasons that such large and long-lasting studies are generally observational, rather than experimental. One, it  is too expensive to randomize thousands of people to two different diets and then follow them for 4 decades to watch for health outcomes. Two, even if you did this, there is no way you would have good adherence to the randomization over decades. Three, the questions you are asking and answers you are seeking will change over such a long period of time, and as soon as you change those items, you are no longer studying your a priori hypothesis that determined your experimental design, so you throw it out and start over?

In case Mark (or the reader) isn't aware, many of the greatest discoveries in health and biological sciences have come from observational studies, not RCTs or experimental designs. Smoking increases your risk of lung cancer - observational studies (just try and get a review board to approve randomizing people  into 2 groups, and making half of them smoke so you can prove that it causes lung cancer). HIV causing AIDS? Do you think we've done a human RCT where we gave half of the subjects HIV to prove that was the cause? Nope. We figured it out based on... observational studies.

He goes on to question (attack?) many of the conclusions based on recall bias (always a problem with self-reporting of diet) confounders and associations that may muddy the associations between meat and health outcomes - people who ate more meat also did x, or people who ate less meat also did y. Those are all valid concerns, and they are all things that the authors addressed. Epidemiologists tend to be some of the most humble and self-questioning researchers, because all are well aware of these limitations and it is a point of pride to be able and willing to pick apart your own research, look for all of these biases/confounders and try to figure out how to minimize their influence. Most often this is doen with multiple regression - which the blog post dismisses as mathematical contortions or something... And, peer review of epidemiological studies is focused primarily on identifying and accounting for as many of these sources of bias/counfounding as possible.

Finally, the funniest part, is that if observational studies are so bad, then what does that make all of Sisson's "work"? Has he randomized people to live like our paleolithic ancestors, compared them to a control group for decades to follow for long-term health outcomes, and proven that his methods work? I'd argue that he has nothing more than a theory, and a biased collection of anecdotes, which is even weaker than an observational study in drawing conclusions.

I should finish by saying that I do think a lot of people will be better off following "primal blueprint" than they would living like the typical American. But, I could say that of a ton of diet/lifestyle changes. What bothers me about this is the marketing, and arrogance (as illustrated by the linked post above), in the face of anything that gets in the way of the theory. Not directed at any one person, but a general observation: I really do find it amazing how many people are very proud to be independent thinkers by rejecting conventional wisdom, then they suppress their own free thought once they've found a guru to think for them.

[matchewed]

Diet isn't about 30 day trials. Diet is about a lifetime of nutrition. 30 days won't tell you if you'll have any sort of chronic health problems in the future due to your diet. Hell, any diet change from the SAD will make you feel better after 30 days.

Our best sources, to grantmeaname's point, is from our historical record. People have eaten a whole bunch of different things historically. We're basically the quintessential omnivore. I'd take anybody's advice to eat only this or only that with a grain of salt.

Yes we are omnivores, it is a huge indication of our amazing adaptability.  Now what are the effects of eating different diets, and if we were to compare them what knowledge could we gain.

What do we know about insulin and its effects?

Is the anyone in this thread that hasn't read the book?

It depends on who you listen to. Eating large quantities of red meat has been linked to higher rates of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular diseases, so yeah I think we know some of the effects.

I think we know a great deal about insulin and its effects - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin that's a pretty big entry. Is there a more specific question you're looking for? Maybe what is the effect of diet on insulin?

I don't need to read the book to know that a 30 day trial is a silly way to determine if a lifestyle change will have a positive or negative impact in the future.

And isn't that the crux of the book? That some how way back when we were evolutionarily optimized for a certain diet (hahahahah evolutionarily optimized, it doesn't even make sense)? And doesn't this book argue that the diet is very specific, high protein and high fat primarily through the consumption of meat?

Look I'm not saying that Mark doesn't have good points, he does, we as a society should exercise more and eat better, that alone will induce those miraculous changes he describes. There is no need to eat a diet 80% meat to obtain the results. And wheat is just trotted out as a local bogeyman for them to knock around.

He doesn't recommend eating 80% meat.  It would help if he had a book on the subject that people could read and become informed, backed up by scientific studies and real world results.

Maybe someday.

And maybe someday you'd like to actually discuss points rather than tell me to read a book that I know is coming form a biased source.

[MustacheMatt]

Diet isn't about 30 day trials. Diet is about a lifetime of nutrition. 30 days won't tell you if you'll have any sort of chronic health problems in the future due to your diet. Hell, any diet change from the SAD will make you feel better after 30 days.

Our best sources, to grantmeaname's point, is from our historical record. People have eaten a whole bunch of different things historically. We're basically the quintessential omnivore. I'd take anybody's advice to eat only this or only that with a grain of salt.

Yes we are omnivores, it is a huge indication of our amazing adaptability.  Now what are the effects of eating different diets, and if we were to compare them what knowledge could we gain.

What do we know about insulin and its effects?

Is the anyone in this thread that hasn't read the book?

It depends on who you listen to. Eating large quantities of red meat has been linked to higher rates of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular diseases, so yeah I think we know some of the effects.

I think we know a great deal about insulin and its effects - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin that's a pretty big entry. Is there a more specific question you're looking for? Maybe what is the effect of diet on insulin?

I don't need to read the book to know that a 30 day trial is a silly way to determine if a lifestyle change will have a positive or negative impact in the future.

And isn't that the crux of the book? That some how way back when we were evolutionarily optimized for a certain diet (hahahahah evolutionarily optimized, it doesn't even make sense)? And doesn't this book argue that the diet is very specific, high protein and high fat primarily through the consumption of meat?

Look I'm not saying that Mark doesn't have good points, he does, we as a society should exercise more and eat better, that alone will induce those miraculous changes he describes. There is no need to eat a diet 80% meat to obtain the results. And wheat is just trotted out as a local bogeyman for them to knock around.

He doesn't recommend eating 80% meat.  It would help if he had a book on the subject that people could read and become informed, backed up by scientific studies and real world results.

Maybe someday.

And maybe someday you'd like to actually discuss points rather than tell me to read a book that I know is coming form a biased source.

Forum on book recommendations.
Thread about particular book, with article from MMM himself on site.
Discussion about book.
Troll who refuses to read biased material.
Fails to present nonbiased material in its stead, is just angry at any new information that could possibly cause his version of the world to crumble.

You win, I can't compete with willful ignorance.  Are there any other books that offend you so that I might be able to find them and read them immediately?

[matchewed]

I'm not trolling I'm trying to discuss points.

Ones like the advisement of consuming a diet largely consisting of meat being arguably unhealthy. The supposed evil that is grains.

You can cry troll and tell me to read a book/forum or you can participate in a discussion. I see what choice you've made. And I have read Mark's Daily Apple, read it for about a year in order to educate myself and come to my own conclusions. My vision of the world is not so delicate or narrow minded as you may assume.

But like you've said you have no interest in a discussion. So thank you and have a nice day.

[MustacheMatt]

I'm not trolling I'm trying to discuss points.

Ones like the advisement of consuming a diet largely consisting of meat being arguably unhealthy. The supposed evil that is grains.

You can cry troll and tell me to read a book/forum or you can participate in a discussion. I see what choice you've made. And I have read Mark's Daily Apple, read it for about a year in order to educate myself and come to my own conclusions. My vision of the world is not so delicate or narrow minded as you may assume.

But like you've said you have no interest in a discussion. So thank you and have a nice day.

Page 109 the food pyramid base level is fruits and vegetables.  So you're right, eating a diet that's 80% meat isn't good, and it's not in the material either.

So.... Keep posting because anyone who has actually read it knows how ignorant you are.  I'm going to keep responding because I think it's a worthy read and doesn't deserve the uneducated slander you're applying.

[grantmeaname]

MustacheMatt,
-This is not a forum about book recommendations, it's a forum for recommendations made by readers of the site. We have a forum that's about books, and if you wanted to find it you could look for the forum with "book" in the title. Then you'd be pretty close.
-You failed to jump down Madgeylou's throat when she introduced evidence supporting your position that wasn't from the book.
-You're using ad hominem arguments rather than engaging with matchewed's arguments. What, specifically, did he say that you disagreed with? Not "why is he a bad person", but "what argument did the poster make that you disagree with"?
-Gonna leave this here.

Storypage, here is the book I'd recommend to start with. If your library doesn't have it yet, you can always request that they purchase it.

[MustacheMatt]

MustacheMatt,
-This is not a forum about book recommendations, it's a forum for recommendations made by readers of the site. We have a forum that's about books, and if you wanted to find it you could look for the forum with "book" in the title. Then you'd be pretty close.
-You failed to jump down Madgeylou's throat when she introduced evidence supporting your position that wasn't from the book.
-You're using ad hominem arguments rather than engaging with matchewed's arguments. What, specifically, did he say that you disagreed with? Not "why is he a bad person", but "what argument did the poster make that you disagree with"?
-Gonna leave this here.

Storypage, here is the book I'd recommend to start with. If your library doesn't have it yet, you can always request that they purchase it.

There's a description under reader recommendations and it includes books.  I can see you are not the forum police by your avatar, so I'm wondering what this adds to the current discussion about people who don't read or try what was recommended or even read the description of the forum they are posting under.

I will split hairs with you that the original posts title doesn't discriminate between website or book, I did assume it was about the book.

There was a very informative prior post about observations, and that's a post I can respect. 

Thank you for the book recommendation.

[grantmeaname]

I'm not a moderator, no. You just materially misstated something and I figured I would correct it. This is not a forum about books any more than the DIY forum is about building bicycles. Yes, the description does mention it. No, it is not the exclusive topic of conversation, and no, you are not welcome to piss all over people who haven't read the book as if that disqualifies what they have to say.

[Russ]

There's a description under reader recommendations and it includes books.  I can see you are not the forum police by your avatar, so I'm wondering what this adds to the current discussion about people who don't read or try what was recommended or even read the description of the forum they are posting under.

I will split hairs with you that the original posts title doesn't discriminate between website or book, I did assume it was about the book.

There was a very informative prior post about observations, and that's a post I can respect. 

Thank you for the book recommendation.

Alright, forum police here. What Grant's post adds to the conversation is a much needed push away from negativity and personal attacks, and toward productive discussion and understanding. I hope we can all agree that learning about all sides of a discussion and exploring each side's strengths and weaknesses respectfully is more productive than cherry-picking responses and calling names.

With respect to whether this is a book discussion or a diet discussion or whatever, it is common for threads to change focus from the original post. Whether or not the OP was about the book, the conversation now seems to be about the scientific merit of the diet itself. While I agree that reading the book could be useful to promote understanding, I also think it's unreasonable to require everyone to read the book before they're allowed to have an opinion. Surely, for example, a voter can have an opinion of a law without reading the entire bill. Anyway, if you'd like to use the book for support, feel free to paraphrase or summarize and we'll take your word for it. Even better, if the book cites any studies or outside sources (if so, I haven't heard any yet but feel free to prove me wrong) those would be great information to share in support of your position.

[matchewed]

So.... Keep posting because anyone who has actually read it knows how ignorant you are.  I'm going to keep responding because I think it's a worthy read and doesn't deserve the uneducated slander you're applying.

So now because I disagree I'm ignorant, uneducated, and a slanderer. Thank you and have a nice day.

There was a very informative prior post about observations, and that's a post I can respect. 

Translation - someone said something I agree with so yay. Someone else said something I disagree with so boo.

Now if we could get back to the points.

Mark's dietary recommendations are narrow. He paints grain as a health bogeyman which it is not for the vast majority of the population (I would also argue that his ideas are very modern western civilization centric and ignores the rest of the world which may not have the luxury of eating so many varied fat and meat sources). He also paints aerobic exercise as a similar bogeyman (seriously? when 36% of adults are considered inactive http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_242.pdf [page 11] maybe it's time to not harp on any exercise if you want for the love of all that's holy let them all take up jazzercise for all I care). He attributes both to the cause of general inflammation which is just a scare tactic.

What Mark does well though is move people away from highly processed foods which do have several health risk factors. I don't disagree with the overall message that he is communicating. I disagree with the particulars.

All of that and I never mentioned you once... funny how that works.

[Storypage]

Storypage, here is the book I'd recommend to start with. If your library doesn't have it yet, you can always request that they purchase it.

Thanks! Looks academic, so I will probably need to get it interlibrary loan. It does look interesting. I did however order Paleofantasy, by Zuk. That's a more popular library item and just published so my library will be buying it.

I'm also reading a couple pro paleo books. I could never do paleo because it doesn't fit my ethics, but I'm all for people following whatever eating plan they need to attain a healthier lifestyle. If following some new fad diet and its guru does it for them, then all power to them. Me, I prefer a high plant, low animal product diet. I feel it is better for me, better for the planet, and better for animals.

[MustacheMatt]

So.... Keep posting because anyone who has actually read it knows how ignorant you are.  I'm going to keep responding because I think it's a worthy read and doesn't deserve the uneducated slander you're applying.

So now because I disagree I'm ignorant, uneducated, and a slanderer. Thank you and have a nice day.

There was a very informative prior post about observations, and that's a post I can respect. 

Translation - someone said something I agree with so yay. Someone else said something I disagree with so boo.

Now if we could get back to the points.

Mark's dietary recommendations are narrow. He paints grain as a health bogeyman which it is not for the vast majority of the population (I would also argue that his ideas are very modern western civilization centric and ignores the rest of the world which may not have the luxury of eating so many varied fat and meat sources). He also paints aerobic exercise as a similar bogeyman (seriously? when 36% of adults are considered inactive http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_242.pdf [page 11] maybe it's time to not harp on any exercise if you want for the love of all that's holy let them all take up jazzercise for all I care). He attributes both to the cause of general inflammation which is just a scare tactic.

What Mark does well though is move people away from highly processed foods which do have several health risk factors. I don't disagree with the overall message that he is communicating. I disagree with the particulars.

All of that and I never mentioned you once... funny how that works.

Saying that an 80% meat diet is part of the primal blueprint is incorrect, it was used to discount the topic by another poster.  My quoted response above was specific to him by using the word "you" and I'm not sure how that offends you.  You can disagree with the material all day long and that's a wonderful part of an open forum, however if you're going to just make things up for the sake of arguing like he did then we won't get very far.

I do indeed have respect for your prior post without sarcasm.

To add to the exercise point, he was specific about intensity for different purposes in the book.  55-75% heart rate for fat burning, and higher intensity for short durations once a week to stimulate different body responses.  He explains why chronic high intensity exercise leads to more carbohydrate cravings, and that's why the type of exercise chosen would matter.

Also in the conclusion is the suggestion that if the reader does nothing else according to the primal blueprint, he hopes that they at the very least at more play to their lives.  Is the website so much different?  If so I'm glad I went to the book first for context.

In regards to geographic limitations, should that preclude people from living according to his blueprint if possible where they are?  I would venture to say that if it is a successful concept, and does provide results that it should be extended to others far and wide.  What a business opportunity to educate others in healthy living, and organic food choices!

[grantmeaname]

One relevant excerpt from Ancestral Appetite, which I got from my library today, starts on page 147. There's not much explicit treatment of the paleo diet, but the book on the whole is about variety and adaptability in dietary habits, so it's more of a refutation of the theory than the particulars. I'd link it but it's not on Google books - you can open it up on Amazon "look inside" but it's not linkable. I suppose I could scan my pages...