Mat, I cannot help but be skeptical of the paleo diet. White rice (polished rice) for instance has only been around for 150 years. Domesticated grains were key to the rise of civilization. Prior to the rise of agriculture 12,000 years ago, humans were omnivorous hunter-gatherers. We can only speculate as to what they ate. Moreover we are biologically different. I think of paleo as a throwback to the Victorian notion of the noble savage instead of having any basis in science. IMO the noble savage concept is just romantic nonsense. Human civilization as we know it is not possible without agriculture and domesticated grains. You might find this critique interesting. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-half-baked-how-hunter-gatherer-really-eat/ The outline of paleo diet you gave in your blog is largely consistent with the USDA recomendations for a healthy diet. Where it departs is the avoidance of whole grains and the inclusion of white (polished) rice instead which like white potatoes has relatively little nutritional value but elevates blood sugar levels rapidly.
Scientific American may have a convincing name but they took research out of context. The reason the white rice is better than the brown (which is in my article) is because the brown has the grain which has the anti-nutrients that inhibit the body from absorbing nutrients. White rice, while void of nutrients, can serve as energy for athletes and is considered a safe starch since it doesnt have harmful properties. Yes, if one overeats it then there is a hormonal spike, excess calories, etc. But for hard training athletes, it should be fine in moderation. Like Sushi. Here are comments from people way smarter than me on the whole topic: http://robbwolf.com/2013/06/22/paleo-fantasy-time-reading-research/ http://thepaleodiet.com/rebuttal-to...y-of-sciences-june-2013-papers-early-edition/
Mat, just to be be clear. The first paragraph of my critque is not based on the Scientific American article. It is based on my understanding of history and nutrition, and points which I do not think are controversial. Take corn for instance. Any corn you buy will be a product of agriculture--domestic corn. It wasn't a food available to hunter-gatherors. And take rice. White and brown rice are the same rice except for processing. The white rice is "polished" which removes the husk with the nutrients. The last paragraph was not judgmental like the first. It simply compares the description on your blog to the USDA recommendations and noting two differences. You seem to be under the impression that athletes don't have health problems because they are active. This is not true. Regular exercise and good diet will lower health risks for everyone, but they don't eliminate the risk. I never really understood that until the first player on my O-30 team was diagnosed with heart disease and had by-pass surgery. He was only 50 and lean and fit. Finally while there are general truths about diet and nutrition, these are not universially true. For instance not everyone will lose weight on a starvation diet. Some people will actually gain weight. So what works well for some people won't work for everyone. Apparently you are saying that the husks contain "anti-nutrients." I will have to look that up. What I expect to find is "papers" funded by the companies selling polished rice advocating that polished rice is healthier. I want to make one more point. Athletes today are much less active than past generations. When I was in my 20s I worked 10 hour days doing heavy manual labor and then played sports in the evenings. Nobody does heavy manual labor anymore. People don't lift heavy steel forms, 100 lb bags of salt, or bales of hay all day long any more. (These are all jobs that my friends had after high school.) Most athletes are sedentary when not training.
Your comment about corn is the argument in favor of the paleo diet. Foods that come from the age of agriculture are to blame for many of the weight issues and diseases today. Corn is not always bad, but like you said, it is the way it is prepared and presented that is the issue. Grains can be eaten as well if they are soaked and prepared properly, but even then like Mark Sisson says, its still not as nourishing and powerful of a food as quality meats and other options. Plus soaking and preparing grains is a pain in the ass. I am definitely not under the impression that athletes don't have health problems because they are active. Where did I say that? They will likely have better tolerance of certain carbohydrates as long as they partition them well. In other words, eat an appropriate amount at the correct times. Like on non- training days that may not be the best time to have high glycemic carbs and in some cases any heavy duty carb intake at all. My suggestion is a paleo diet for athletes that includes healthy starches such as yams, sweet potatoes, some rice, fruits, veggies, and some corn products when prepared well (sprouted corn tortillas for ie.) but with a base of getting ample protein and healthy fat with veggies. So base is veggies, then quality meats, eggs, fish, fowl, then safe starches and carbs as needed for performance (lets throw in healthy dairy here like raw milk and full fat yogurts), then things like nuts and oils. Topping it off is stuff like red wine, dark chocolate, and things people indulge in. Beans, grains, gluten containing products, and commercial dairy products are to be mostly avoided. USDA base is all brown. Bread, cereal, pasta, etc.
The basic root is that the human body is biologically designed to reply better to the Caveman/Paleo diet. However, with the starting of agriculture, the contemporary civilized society has become extremely dependent on the grain meal. The Paleo has no source to enhance sugar in the body. It has no sugary ingredients, no grains, and of course, no processed foods. ( Belgium and Netherlands )