Diet

[todd_xxxx]

I don't think food combining is an issue at all. Much more important is the choice of foods to begin with.

[Lou Costello]

Everything in moderation .... including moderation.

Use smaller plates.

Avoid processed sugar and soda. Easy on the coffee. Treat pasta as a side dish, not the entre. Avoid salad dressing, squeeze fresh lemons on the lettuce instead.

A glass of wine each night - maybe a Maker's Mark bourbon on the weekend with a Monte Cristo #2.

Eat decent cuts of beef as well as fresh seafood (the Catholics had the right idea mandating seafood on Fridays). Grill or broil, don't fry. (Use the George Forman grill).

Instead of butter on bread, dip it in extra virgin olive oil (better than Metamucil). Avoid industrial strength white bread - find a real Italian bakery.

Eat fresh fruit. Drink lots of water.

Don't be a slave to the cell phone.

Enjoy your family and your life.

[fuzzysni]

[QUOTE=Lou Costello] Avoid salad dressing, squeeze fresh lemons on the lettuce instead. QUOTE]

Fresh lemon and lime juice in equal parts, good olive oil, fresh cracked pepper, perhaps a bit of Kosher salt, a good variety of greens and other tidbits...yum.

f.

[Lloyd]

Glycemic index is interesting, but not really useful in the real world, since people rarely eat one food at a meal. Once you mix potatoes and steak, what is the glycemic index now?

Here I've got to disagree, and point out that there's a mountain of peer-reviewed publications over a 20-year period which show controlled clinical studies that it does work very well. For your example meal of steak and potatoes, you use the amount of each eaten with the index of each to find the glycemic load of each component of the meal - add them together and you have the total glycemic load of whatever was just eaten. This is all well documented on the sites I linked above. Of course it only applies to carbs - perhaps there's a point here.

The idea is not to cause a big spike in blood sugar, thus creating a big insulin response that immediately puts you into the fat storing zone.

Here we are absolutely on the same page.

The paleo diet takes care of all that automatically by ensuring you aren't eating things like potatoes to begin with. All the trends in dieting, lots of fiber, low carbs, no processed foods, etc. are correct, but just a part of the overall picture, which is addressed by the paleo diet. Many of the foods we eat are simply foreign to our bodies and are responsible for the health problems we see everyday that were not seen in primitive man, and are not seen in animals or societies (like Eskimos) that still follow a primitive diet. Obesity is not seen in animals in the wild and is very prevelant among captive and domestic animals. Likewise, the "primitive" societies have very low rates of obesity, and "modern" man is overrun with it.

Not being familiar with the paleo diet, I had to go and read, and came to the first substantive description on Balzer's page http://www.earth360.com/diet_paleodiet_balzer.html Once upon a time, I might have bought into his logic. However, critical evaluation of the evidence for macroevolution as an explanation for the presence of humans on this planet has left me shocked and dismayed re. the state of science. Darwinian evolution seems to require more faith than the Biblical creation story. Speaking purely as a scientist who has looked long and hard at the case for evolution, I maintain that it's a crock of rancid feces, and it stinketh. Let's not open that one here, please. One could as easliy write that because God created only raw foods in the Garden, one should only eat raw foods - in fact, it's already been done.

A little off-topic, but I hope that the lecture linked below will help illustrate why simple, direct experiment and observation is always more desirable than half-baked theories built on bad "science."

http://www.crichton-official.com/spe...s_quote04.html

[PaulDmitrios]

I've just made it through some info on the different diets mentioned here. Thanks for all the info and links! Some of them seem to be more an "eating prinicple" than a diet per se, and I like that. I'm trying to learn as much about the nutritional process as about diets and food combos. The paleo-diet is intriguing. The problem of grains for the human body is one I'd never even considered, but I guess not many others have either, and thus America looks the way it does.

The whole idea of eating naturally (the less processed the better) is one that never occurred to me, but seems like a no-brainer now that I ponder it.

I like the idea of a diet being able to (without gratuitious supplements) be easy to digest, provide an adequate energy level throughout the day, and enable me to not just maintain but build muscle as my workouts change and improve.

Most recently, I have been eating smaller meals throughout the day - fruits for breakfast (along with my beloved coffee and I'm weaning myself of caffeine :( ), a small lunch of veggies (usually spinach, edamame, more fruits and maybe a little rice and or meat of some kind) and big din-din of lots of meats and veggies. I'm trying to snack on fruits and nuts. My energy levels have improved, especially in my afternoon slump. Alcohol 1x a week on average (my Scot and Slav heritage won't let me abstain completely!)

I have noticed that too much meat really slows me down. I don't know if it's getting harder for me to digest or what. After a big meat meal, I can barely keep my eyes open, regardless of if it's at 10am or 6pm. So I've taken to avoiding it when I know I have to be "on," like at a homeless shelter or at the jail.

[todd_xxxx]

Once upon a time, I might have bought into his logic. However, critical evaluation of the evidence for macroevolution as an explanation for the presence of humans on this planet has left me shocked and dismayed re. the state of science. Darwinian evolution seems to require more faith than the Biblical creation story. Speaking purely as a scientist who has looked long and hard at the case for evolution, I maintain that it's a crock of rancid feces, and it stinketh. Let's not open that one here, please. One could as easliy write that because God created only raw foods in the Garden, one should only eat raw foods - in fact, it's already been done.

I don't at all wish to discuss evolution. I would ask that you read over this: http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...erview1a.shtml
Beyond that, whether you believe in evolution or not, the paleo diet just plain works. It makes sense from a "common sense" standpoint, and my own experiences proved much more successful than I would have dreamed. Within a week or two, it cured me of chronic hives that I had to treat with meds daily for a very long time. I dropped a large amount of bodyfat, in spite of making no attempt to regulate, or even pay attention to, calories, fat grams, etc. and when dropping bodyfat was not even a goal. You know those times after lunch when you can barely hold your head up? Gone. I sleep less hours at night and never feel tired. I can see my abs more clearly than I have since I was a high school wrestler at 145 lbs, and I'm 41 and weigh 205-210 at 5'9". This would sound like a commercial except that I'm not selling anything and I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't experienced it myself.

[todd_xxxx]

Here I've got to disagree, and point out that there's a mountain of peer-reviewed publications over a 20-year period which show controlled clinical studies that it does work very well. For your example meal of steak and potatoes, you use the amount of each eaten with the index of each to find the glycemic load of each component of the meal - add them together and you have the total glycemic load of whatever was just eaten.

Actually, I think you proved my point that it isn't practical in the real world. Steak and potatoes was just a quick example. Let's look at a more realistic meal that the average American might eat. Let's try four slices of deep dish pepperoni pizza, three breadsticks, a 32 oz coke, and a bowl of ice cream. What is the glycemic index? How about a healthier example: a piece of salmon with lemon juice, two scoops of green beans, a scoop of rice, a small salad, a glass of milk, and an apple. What number do you come up with? Well, let's see, I need to know the exact weight of each item (is that before or after cooking?)..... What about the oil I cooked the salmon in? Does that count? What exactly went into the salad? What is the glycemic index of the salad dressing? White rice or brown? Which type of brown rice? Was that milk whole or 2%.........................I think you see my point. You quickly have people looking at what they are eating and just trying to come up with a "best guess".

[Lloyd]

I'm in no position to argue about whether or not paleo works, and happy to accept your statement that it does. Even better, I will try it myself. What I disagree with is the thought process used to explain it. If someone proposed a diet based on being abducted by aliens and told by them what to eat, most people wouldn't pay very much attention - this is the quandary I'm in, the thought process that leads to the hypothesis is important.

Glycemic loading:
4 slices pizza - 80
3 breadsticks - 30
32 oz. coke - 120
50g ice cream - 6
total GL - 236 (ie. the equivalent of eating just over half a pound of raw table sugar).

salmon - 0 (no carbs in lean meat and fish)
lemon juice - 0
green beans - 0
150 g rice - probably about 45, depending on variety
lettuce - 0
12 oz. milk - 4.9
1 raw apple - 5.9
total GL - 55 (23% of the previous example, almost entirely from the rice.

Curiously, the serving sizes listed in the databases are books etc. used for finding the GL are close to normal serving sizes. ;) Oil used to fry the fish doesn't matter, not carbohydrate. Lettuce is zero. Based on the rest of the meal we might assume a dressing like fuzzysni posted above, or a light vinagrette: zero. Whole or 2% milk really doesn't matter because only the fat content of the milk changes, not carbohydrate - and you can see that the GL is very low anyway.

Rice, as I mentioned earlier, shows a considerable range from one variety to another; none of it's really low glycemic (like the fish or the apple, for example) and some is pretty high. Correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't adherents to the paleo diet also consider it to be generally not so bueno? Clearly it's the only food in the second meal that's a significant source of concern to either of our approaches.

So in a best guess at the GL of a meal, an educated person might be off by 10-20%. That's a long, long way from a factor of four. The point that I tried to make earlier is that it's fairly trivial to survey the empirical data, observe the trends, and make intelligent choices based on quantified and well-understood principles.

It sounds like if we went into the same restaurant, we'd probably order about the same thing.

[todd_xxxx]

Oil used to fry the fish doesn't matter, not carbohydrate. Lettuce is zero. Based on the rest of the meal we might assume a dressing like fuzzysni posted above, or a light vinagrette: zero. Whole or 2% milk really doesn't matter because only the fat content of the milk changes, not carbohydrate - and you can see that the GL is very low anyway.

Certainly the oil, the dressing, the fat in the milk matter. For exactly the same reason the steak counts in the steak/potatoe meal. Butter is 100% fat. Are you saying that if I ate a cup of table sugar the glycemic index would be the same as if I ate a cup of table sugar and a stick of butter?

Correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't adherents to the paleo diet also consider it to be generally not so bueno? Clearly it's the only food in the second meal that's a significant source of concern to either of our approaches.

You are correct. Rice is a no-no on the paleo diet.

So in a best guess at the GL of a meal, an educated person might be off by 10-20%.

I'll answer that with a quick quote from the link you yourself posted about bad science. "And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." " :)

It sounds like if we went into the same restaurant, we'd probably order about the same thing.

I think that is probably true. From your posts, it looks as though you would also make good "common sense" choices. Therein lies the rub however. If a person doesn't have your good sense and strictly follows the glycemic index, it may find them sitting down to a meal of cheese, slices of salami, and a few pieces of bacon. Following the glycemic index alone (or Atkins for that matter), this person is right on track. Common sense tells us that sodium nitrite and nitrate, among other chemicals involved in the processing are less than ideal. Just looking at the number of obese people in this country will tell you how dependable it is to rely on common sense.

[Marc "Crafty Dog" Denny]

Concerning that last line, I am reminded of a conversation I had in Europe at a table with many people from many countries. The subject wandered to the stereotypes associated with each country (Gemans prompt, Italian women hot, that sort of thing.) I asked for the stererotypes of Americans.

"Fat people in shorts and white socks" came the answer.

It certainly is quite impressive to travel ot other countries and realize how fat we have become , , ,