• Welcome to Crohn's Forum, a support group for people with all forms of IBD. While this community is not a substitute for doctor's advice and we cannot treat or diagnose, we find being able to communicate with others who have IBD is invaluable as we navigate our struggles and celebrate our successes. We invite you to join us.

Contradictory Diet Advice Everywhere

More of a rant than a question. But...

But how does everyone make diet decisions? Between SCD, GAPS, FODMAP, Paleo and my naturopaths lgG and lgE blood tests I can pretty much only eat chicken and fish and maybe some nuts and red wine.

The really frustrating thing is that all these diets have competing theories and I can't put together a logical plan in my own head any more (I like logic). I feel like there are whole groups of foods out there that I probably can and/or should be eating but I am not because they fall under one diet or the other.

The obvious answer is to just listen to my body and see if things bother me but because the idea behind all of this is that some foods either help or hurt in unseen and unfelt ways that seems like a risky game to play.


Generally annoyed.
 

David

Co-Founder
Location
Naples, Florida
Join the annoyed club, my friend. The more I learn about diet and inflammatory bowel disease the more I realize just how incredibly complicated it all is. I also have come to realize that our food supply is absolutely terrible.

Let's take lettuce for example. Lettuce is supposed to be an extremely healthy food, right? Eat a salad and you're doing good. Of course, many with IBD can't eat lettuce. Others can. Why? And why if I eat lettuce one day and then three weeks later do I have different reactions?

Because all lettuce if different. You can eat the exact same type of lettuce but if one lettuce was grown hydroponically or one lettuce received more fertilizer than usual, then its nitrate level will be off the charts. So one lettuce is healthy for people and the other can lead to a chain reaction in your body that is extremely unhealthy.

And that's the VERY simplistic Cliffs note version. There are MANY MORE potential variables.

It's insanity.

I'm at the point where I basically eat turkey, all organic fruit and vegetables (no lettuce of course and am working to cut out other high nitrate offenders) and grass fed beef liverwurst. I'm making progress but good god is it annoying and frustrating. I'm also working to grow as much of my own food as I can because I don't trust our food supply.

I feel like the canary in the coal mine died long ago and we keep mining.
 

my little penguin

Moderator
Staff member
not to be the bearer of Bad news
but IgG and IgE testing done by anyone other than a board certified allergist is not going to tell you a whole lot about what your body is reacting too.
IgG in particular.Everyone makes IgG its actually suppose to be there.

I see patients every week who have had IgG testing for food allergy, in which their blood was tested for IgG antibodies instead of IgE antibodies (the antibodies typically associated with allergies). These patients often come in on extremely restricted diets because they had tested positive to so many things. This is no surprise though because a normal immune system is supposed to make IgG antibodies to foreign proteins, and a positive IgG test to a food is therefore a sign of a normal immune system rather than a sign of food allergy.
from:
http://www.kidswithfoodallergies.or..._alternative_food_allergy_tests_and_therapies


As far as the other diets well you can only try and "see" if they work for you since this disease is SOOO... different for everyone.

w
Ds is currently on FODMAP...really not sure if its working.
 
Last edited:
anyone other than a board certified allergist
Board certified anything really doesn't carry much weight with me at this point. But I agree in principal. Not super useful for sure.


Well I suppose it's good to know that I'm not the only one who doesn't know what to make of the entire situation.

It'll be an interesting few months here trying to find a solid base to work off of and move forward from.
 
I can so relate. Eat dairy, don't eat dairy, gluten or gluten free. I have a pantry full of half tried stuff. I feel like I am starving and I dream of Big Macs. This is a hard disease and I'm still not past the feeling for myself stage.
Not much help, although sometimes I find comfort in knowing I am not the only one out there.
 
Its also very hard to combine building up strength while being on a diet. I remember once coming out of hospital with a laughable diet sheet - if anyone else saw it they would say you call this a diet!! I was suppose to eat cakes, buns etc. I must actually dig it out again if I can still find it!
I think we can try and use diets as guidelines, it might help us to identify our own individual trigger foods better. And yes it is all very well to eat healthy but like you say what we have in the shops is shocking! i spent all day walking around tesco yesterday looking for spinach, not even a canned one there! And every single thing has added salt which I am trying to avoid because I have read that salt can cause the moon face we get while on prednisolone, and thus far i have not had as bad as a moon face and I put it down to cooking everything myself and looking at the ingredients of every single thing.

Anyway i am looking at the scd diet myself and the paleo one, just simply for ideas as to what I could have been eating that was very bad. I notice potatoes is out on scd but i never eat alot of them in the first place. So I mean we can maybe just use them to see what were were eating a lot of - like i was eating a lot of bread. i am trying spelt bread now instead because I heard it is easier to digest. But it really is all trial and error and what will be miracle diet for one of us could sicken the other. Crohn's seems to have very little research about diet, every article you read says no real evidence of there being a link of diet with crohn's but ....here are some tips. I have never done so much research as I have in the last week and it really is shocking what they don't really know.
 
That's the really frustrating part. The lack of almost any research into any of these things. They're really only just starting to do research on the gut biome now. Hopefully that will help us understand.
 
But how does everyone make diet decisions? Between SCD, GAPS, FODMAP, Paleo and my naturopaths lgG and lgE blood tests I can pretty much only eat chicken and fish and maybe some nuts and red wine..
I guess i'm lucky, i went straight from diagnosis to diet and haven't looked back.
It took a few months to tweak the diet for me, and i have a few cheats that i pay for (coffee)

But i don't get the problem.

SCD, GAPS, FODMAP, Paleo are all basically the same diet varying in detail and not much more.

They all remove foods that disrupt gut microbai and lead to leaky gut.
They vary on details (due to the different theories behind the diets) but all seem to agree on grain (gluten) and sugars and dairy.

Everyone has inflammation in their guts ALL the time, that's normal
It's only when it gets to be above a level that our immune system can clean up that it becomes a problem so all the diets aim to reduce the toxic foods to a level that we can handle.

' "how capable the gut is of healing on its own?"... Well, if someone has leaky gut and they continue to eat foods containing gluten, lectins and casein, those substances slip through the wall of the gut and can wreak havoc around the body. Unless they stop eating them, the gut doesn't have a chance of 'healing on its own'.' quote from someone that i found sometime

The Comparison: The Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD), GAPS Diet (Gut & Psychology Syndrome), and The Maker’s Diet
http://www.kitchenstewardship.com/2...-gut-psychology-syndrome-and-the-makers-diet/


Correct me if i'm wrong but the main IgA foods are gluten, dairy and yeast so it ties in to the paleo/scd/gaps/makers foods

Real food prepared properly
 
SCD, GAPS, FODMAP, Paleo are all basically the same diet varying in detail and not much more.
True. I'd also add low-residue in there too as many paleo fanatics avoid any extra fiber and it's popular with IBD types.


My issue is that anything beyond gluten, GM and/or unfermented soy, random chemical ingredients, factory farmed meat and processed sugar is a huge gray area.

Some diets recommend onion and garlic as good for the gut. Others as terrible for it.

Is fiber good or bad? I have no idea. Soluble or insoluble fiber? Both? No idea.

Casein, whey or lactose issues? Different opinions everywhere. Contradictory studies abound.

Non-gluten grains and starches like rice, quinoa, yam and sweet potato? Couldn't tell you.

Should I eat fruit? No clue. Eggs? No clue. Nightshades. No clue.


Adding garlic and onions back to my diet at this point would be a massive flavor improvement. So the "details" are less like details and more like strategic victories.
 
Casein, whey or lactose issues? Different opinions everywhere. Contradictory studies abound.
Whey concentrates are high in lactose, but whey isolates are not, isolates are higher protein per gram than concentrates and also more expensive.

There's 4 types of whey isolates (and many in between):

Ion exchange, Micro filtration, Hydrolised and Cross-flow microfiltration

Ion exchange is the cheapest. Ion exchange gets out the lactose and fat, but it also "denatures" the protein because of the chemicals they use to filter them.

Micro filtration doesn't denature the protein as much as Ion exchange and it also removes the lactose.

Cross-flow microfiltration (CFM) whey, it combines methods, it filters out all the lactose, it keeps 90+% protein, and the protein aren't denatured.

Hydrolised whey is "predigested" whey, that has been broken down in usable peptides so it's more' easily absorbed.
 
Last edited:
oh, there is another one, but have to look it up, they used to make that kind but stopped cause ion exchange was cheaper

(added it)
 
Last edited:
Whey concentrates are high in lactose, but whey isolates are not, isolates are higher protein per gram than concentrates and also more expensive.

There's 4 types of whey isolates (and many in between):

Ion exchange, Micro filtration, Hydrolised and Cross-flow microfiltration

Ion exchange is the cheapest. Ion exchange gets out the lactose and fat, but it also "denatures" the protein because of the chemicals they use to filter them.

Micro filtration doesn't denature the protein as much as Ion exchange and it also removes the lactose.

Cross-flow microfiltration (CFM) whey, it combines methods, it filters out all the lactose, it keeps 90+% protein, and the protein aren't denatured.

Hydrolised whey is "predigested" whey, that has been broken down in usable peptides so it's more' easily absorbed.

It is not localized in the small intestine. It can be anywhere from your esophagus to the rectum.
 

From WebMD

What is Crohn's disease?
Crohn's disease is a lifelong inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Parts of the digestive system get swollen and have deep sores called ulcers. Crohn’s disease usually is found in the last part of the small intestine and the first part of the large intestine. But it can develop anywhere in the digestive tract, from the mouth to the anus.

Ulcerative colitis is found in the intestines only.
 
thanks sorry, yes that's not what it means, in the small intestine it is localised to specific spots in the small intestine, if it was an unregulated autoimmune response it should involve the whole small intestine and that's not the case, there are skip lesions which goes against the autoimmune theory, I know it is also in the colon..off topic sorry
 
This is the most confounding aspect in dealing with IBD, CD etc. how is it possible that what we eat does NOT affect CD? Yet, I have seen 3 GIs and not one has ever discussed diet and blew me off when I brought it up. So I have come to the conclusion on my own that diet may not directly affect flare up etc but diet totally affects long term health and therefore Crohn's related issues. So totally unscientific and illogically I have moved toward a basic diet that has been working pretty good the last few months. I basically try to use organic fruits and vegetables and meats. I totally believe lemon and lime juice are the anti-oxidant for me. I try to mix fresh squeezed juice into my daily beverage intake, be it water, seltzer or smoothies. Additionally, onions work for me and accompany everything I make and eat.
That's a small sampling of what so far has been working. Things that don't work are, regrettably, lettuce and green leaf things like Broccli Rabe and spinach, anything heavy with sugar, anything wheat based, and those rich, creamy sauces.

Two more thoughts, stress is the main trigger for my flare ups, I have no clue hoe to reduce stress, and I am perplexed by our friends across the pond having the enteral treatment while it seemingly doesn't exist here in the states. I mean what is up with that?

Keep picking Trevor
 
This is the most confounding aspect in dealing with IBD, CD etc. how is it possible that what we eat does NOT affect CD? Yet, I have seen 3 GIs and not one has ever discussed diet and blew me off when I brought it up. So I have come to the conclusion on my own that diet may not directly affect flare up etc but diet totally affects long term health and therefore Crohn's related issues. So totally unscientific and illogically I have moved toward a basic diet that has been working pretty good the last few months. I basically try to use organic fruits and vegetables and meats. I totally believe lemon and lime juice are the anti-oxidant for me. I try to mix fresh squeezed juice into my daily beverage intake, be it water, seltzer or smoothies. Additionally, onions work for me and accompany everything I make and eat.
That's a small sampling of what so far has been working. Things that don't work are, regrettably, lettuce and green leaf things like Broccli Rabe and spinach, anything heavy with sugar, anything wheat based, and those rich, creamy sauces.

Two more thoughts, stress is the main trigger for my flare ups, I have no clue hoe to reduce stress, and I am perplexed by our friends across the pond having the enteral treatment while it seemingly doesn't exist here in the states. I mean what is up with that?

Keep picking Trevor
My Dr. said stress is the enemy of colitis, not ulcerative or crohns, just colitis. There are differences.
If stress affected crohns, I'd be in a constant flareup. :soledance:
 
I'm very glad to see this thread as I have been struggling with this so much over the last few months myself! It was so interesting to read hugh's comment about the common thread between the most popular diets: wheat, dairy, and sugar. For the past month I have been on a diet that excludes these things and I have been feeling great! The only dairy I eat is natural, organic yoghurt (not home-made...yet?) and I have added elements of macrobiotics to my diet as well. Specifically this includes: 1) chewing food very thoroughly, 2) incorporating seaweed and/or miso soup daily, and 3) juicing (mostly vegetables with a tiny bit of fruit).

I have tried to be really strict with the 'no sugar' part which means not even eating fruit - other than banana and the occasional small portion of raisins. I also started out by not eating any raw vegetables at all - everything was steamed with kombu - but recently have started to eat small amounts of raw veggies to see how that goes for me.

I really feel so much better since cutting out wheat, dairy, and sugar - and it made intuitive sense to me because those items showed up on food sensitivity testing and also I know they add to an acidic gut environment (which fosters bad bacteria and inflammation).

My issue now is struggling with 'natural sugars' such as those found in fruits. I am not sure whether small doses of fruits upset the balance or not.

I highly recommend cutting out wheat, dairy, and sugar; thoroughly chewing every bite; eating cooked vegetables and brown rice and/or soba noodles and/or quinoa; incorporating yoghurt and/or miso soup. It has worked SO well for me so far!!!
 
I forgot to mention, I also take digestive enzymes (it's an "IBS formula" with slippery elm as well) with every meal and a probiotic supplement.
 
Just to chime in here- I did a very strict SCD diet for over 6 months in attempt to not progress onto the next level of medication (for me it was Humira). I stopped having "the big D" but my flare just kept on progressing. I ended up having a colonoscopy and what I saw was shocking.

My last colonoscopy was three years prior and my doctor had basically told me that my crohn's was 'dormant'. There were signs of where it had been, but nothing was active. Fast forward 2 years and the never-ending flare began (it seemed that way to me). Why did it start? Who knows...I did have some life changes (new job, etc...) but life continues even if you have IBD. I was becoming prednisone dependant and was desparate for an alternative to taking Humira. SCD stopped my constant trips to the bathroom, but the damage was still occuring.

I'm not saying that diets (like SCD) don't work- but I've seen my colonoscopy photos. I was not healing while on SCD at all- in fact I was just getting more and more inflammed and infected (just without diarrhea). I now have what my doctor calls "fryable tissue" througout my intestines with large areas where absorption is impossible due to the damage. And I'm now on Humira (I started it 6 weeks ago).

So I think that it's way too basic to say this or that way of eating "works" or even "cures". Congrats to folks that have had success on diet and minimal meds, but I have seen first that my version of the disease is a tricky little you-know-what.
 
Yeah, well, I kinda think it has to do with SCD being pretty broad. I can imagine person A doing SCD having a completely different diet than person B. Yes, maybe they both avoid complex carbs, but in the end their diets could differ immensely. SCD says nothing about micronutrients, only carbs, nothing else.

If a diet is ever going to be proven to help for crohn, it will have to be monitored by a study (shame so few diet studies are done).
 
Just to chime in here- I did a very strict SCD diet for over 6 months in attempt to not progress onto the next level of medication (for me it was Humira). I stopped having "the big D" but my flare just kept on progressing. I ended up having a colonoscopy and what I saw was shocking.
It is a shame that SCD only works for some people, I had improvements on SCD but had much better gains on paleo.
Have you been though every part of your diet to check for additives? They can be a problem.
This article has a few more suggestions on SCD
http://scdlifestyle.com/2011/03/what-to-do-when-the-scd-diet-isnt-working/
but they are basically - cut dairy, eggs, nuts, and honey/sugar/dried fruit.
 

nogutsnoglory

Moderator
Responses below:

True. I'd also add low-residue in there too as many paleo fanatics avoid any extra fiber and it's popular with IBD types.

Low residue is not similar to these diets. Low res can include white flour and dairy and lots of sugary things. Paleo, SCD, and GAPS are not low res diets but can be tailored to be if necessary.

My issue is that anything beyond gluten, GM and/or unfermented soy, random chemical ingredients, factory farmed meat and processed sugar is a huge gray area.

Some diets recommend onion and garlic as good for the gut. Others as terrible for it.

Probably very individual. I have read its fine for taste but not to eat whole.

Is fiber good or bad? I have no idea. Soluble or insoluble fiber? Both? No idea.

Soluble fiber is great it bulks up the stool and should only be avoided if obstructed. Insoluble the (peel mainly) is bad. Basically peel fruit and cook veggies to destroy the harsh fibers.

Casein, whey or lactose issues? Different opinions everywhere. Contradictory studies abound.

With paleo, SCD and GAPS they are mainly against dairy. Why incorporate this when there are other great foods. Again trial and error.

Non-gluten grains and starches like rice, quinoa, yam and sweet potato? Couldn't tell you.

Grains are full of anti nutrients that contribute to leaky guy. Nothing wrong with starchy vegetables unless you believe it helps bad gut bacteria. This I'm not sure same with fruit.

Should I eat fruit? No clue. Eggs? No clue. Nightshades. No clue.

Fruit yes in moderation. Eggs maybe without the white. Nigh shades no as they have been shown to be bad in many diseases.


Adding garlic and onions back to my diet at this point would be a massive flavor improvement. So the "details" are less like details and more like strategic victories.
 
Great thread.

Over the years I have heard a lot of crazy diet theories. I have come up with a few tricks for eliminating the dumb ones.

1) Diets that hate on an entire macronutrient group. When I was growing up fat was the enemy. Then it was carbs. Then I was a vegan I was reading stuff that said people way overeat protein, and your body doesn't really need that much. Please. You need fat, carbs, and protein to survive and thrive.

2) Any theory based on "what our ancestors used to eat". You can use this line of argument to justify any diet you want. If you want to gorge on meat, just claim that animals were plentiful and fish were jumping into the boats before people hunted them all. Of if you want to be vegetarian claim that hunting was a lot of work and our ancestors mostly ate plants that couldn't run away.

SCD fits into both of these categories.

The one thing I know I can do when having real trouble is to go on a diet of just gatorade and instant oatmeal. And when I'm just feeling a little crappy I eat more bread, butter and sugar, because that's really the best way to get some calories in the minimum amount of food volume. Sometimes my gut just needs a rest. Those "bad bacteria" should be having a field day on that stuff if that theory held any water.

When people say this diet worked for them, I think what really happened is that they got control over the food they were eating and in the process eliminated the stuff that was really making them sick. By sticking to whole foods you are reducing the number of different ingredients you are eating and reducing the probability that you eat something that really does make you ill. You also avoid the packaged junk food with millions of mangled ingredients.

I think the main thing you can do to help yourself is to strictly control the food you intake and listen to your body. Yes it sucks that the medical community only cares about inventing a magical pill that will cure crohn's disease so they can charge you a million dollars for it. But we have to survive now.
 
Great thread.

Over the years I have heard a lot of crazy diet theories. I have come up with a few tricks for eliminating the dumb ones.

1) Diets that hate on an entire macronutrient group. When I was growing up fat was the enemy. Then it was carbs. Then I was a vegan I was reading stuff that said people way overeat protein, and your body doesn't really need that much. Please. You need fat, carbs, and protein to survive and thrive.

2) Any theory based on "what our ancestors used to eat". You can use this line of argument to justify any diet you want. If you want to gorge on meat, just claim that animals were plentiful and fish were jumping into the boats before people hunted them all. Of if you want to be vegetarian claim that hunting was a lot of work and our ancestors mostly ate plants that couldn't run away.

SCD fits into both of these categories.

The one thing I know I can do when having real trouble is to go on a diet of just gatorade and instant oatmeal. And when I'm just feeling a little crappy I eat more bread, butter and sugar, because that's really the best way to get some calories in the minimum amount of food volume. Sometimes my gut just needs a rest. Those "bad bacteria" should be having a field day on that stuff if that theory held any water.

When people say this diet worked for them, I think what really happened is that they got control over the food they were eating and in the process eliminated the stuff that was really making them sick. By sticking to whole foods you are reducing the number of different ingredients you are eating and reducing the probability that you eat something that really does make you ill. You also avoid the packaged junk food with millions of mangled ingredients.

I think the main thing you can do to help yourself is to strictly control the food you intake and listen to your body. Yes it sucks that the medical community only cares about inventing a magical pill that will cure crohn's disease so they can charge you a million dollars for it. But we have to survive now.
I'm a bit confused
"I think what really happened is that........and in the process eliminated the stuff that was really making them sick."
isn't that what the diet is all about?

I know SCD is a bit weird, I wouldn't say it 'hates on' carbs, It severely restricts them,
It is based on old ideas and may have a few glitches, There was a clinical trial done on a SCD based diet last year and all participants improved, The interesting thing was that some rice was allowed, but no gluten and yet everyone improved.
Maybe SCD works for some because one of the many things eliminated is enough to allow the body to heal, maybe it's two things?, everybody can play around with the diet and see if it works better or worse

"You also avoid the packaged junk food with millions of mangled ingredients."
Amen to that

"Any theory based on "what our ancestors used to eat". You can use this line of argument to justify any diet you want."

No you can't, but i get what you mean.
It's probably easier to think in terms of "what our ancestors did not eat"
go back 100 years
No GM crops, no fast foods, no HFCS, no pesticides, no plastics, no Vegetable oils,

God knows how long this list could be, and it doesn't begin to address new processes for producing 'food-like' product from traditional crops, like processed cereals, or irradiation, or microwaves

And the there is the quantities of some 'food'. we used to eat in small amounts, like going from 1kg of sugar a year to 50 kg a year over 300 years

It's a big complicated mess, - or it's simple

Just Eat Real Food
 

Gianni

Moderator
Great thread.


2) Any theory based on "what our ancestors used to eat". You can use this line of argument to justify any diet you want. If you want to gorge on meat, just claim that animals were plentiful and fish were jumping into the boats before people hunted them all. Of if you want to be vegetarian claim that hunting was a lot of work and our ancestors mostly ate plants that couldn't run away.




I don't think you understand the line of argument for ancestral diets. It isn't about "claiming" whether or not your ancestors ate meat. It is about finding out your own personal lineage and precisely figuring out what the diet most likely was based on climate, ecology, the food chain, fossil records, lineage etc. Indigenous people who live according to their ancestors are the healthiest peoples on the planet. From the Vilcabamba people of ecuador, The Tarahumaras of Mexico, and the Hunzas of Northern Pakistan just to name a few. The reasoning behind this is that their ancestors had grown accustomed to a diet and through thousands of years of evolution, the diet is directly connected to their health. If suddenly these indigenous people were removed from their diet, health problems will ensue. It’s much how the native americans’ health has deteriorated after adopting a western meat heavy diet instead of staying true to their roots and sticking to a plant heavy diet. Now that’s not to say that plants are the only way for a person to reach optimal health, for example eskimos’ ancestors relied on a heavy fish/meat diet and if they were to suddenly adopt a strong plant and herb diet, there would be repercussions.

So no you can't make an argument for both. Let's say i was of eskimo decent. Well there wasn't much vegetation for my ancestors so i would stick to a fish heavy diet in order to achieve PERSONAL optimal health.


It’s actually interesting in 1939 Dr. Weston Price published a detailed study in which he traveled around the globe and studied the dental hygiene of the indigenous populi. Now dental hygiene is a key indicator of overall health seeing as it is one of the only ways to get a good look at the digestive tract. Dr. Price noted that the indigenous peoples had substantially more healthy teeth than those living in the modern nations. He took pictures of many of the native peoples and let me tell you these people could be on the crest white commercials today. Their teeth are stunning and many of them didn’t even have methods of brushing their teeth.

Truth of the matter is, most of us have abandoned our ancestral diet. Thats why the United States is the sickest nation in the world. We may be able to get a man on the moon and build skyscrapers but 750,000 people will die from cancer this year and 400,000 people will die of heart disease.

If you need a more modern example look at Japan. They consistently live extremely long and have some of the lowest cancer rates in the world. Yet they smoke more than the United States and are subject to even more environmental chemicals than the average american. They are able to ward off cancer because they have kept their immune systems strong through diet. Their ancestors had developed the diet based on their surroundings and their bodies were able to find strength in their food. Now I promise you as time progresses and systems of agriculture change in japan (as they are now) and they abandon their diets, they will get sick.

Furthermore if you simply look at anthropology studies and records the majority of humans didn't start eating meat until we became homo sapiens some 200,000 years ago. And in only a small percentage of cases did humans begin eating meat since homo erectus some 2 million years ago. They have deduced this by looking at the fossil records and rates of extinction of the large tertiary mammals like the saber tooth tiger. They became extinct because humans started to take a large section of their food supply.

Anyways Trevor i think it is "logical" to investigate your lineage and maybe have an idea of what your ancestors ate, it can be very important in choosing the best diet for you.

As for me my family is italian and native american so i adopted a 80% raw vegan diet.

Hope this all helps
 
Great thread.

Over the years I have heard a lot of crazy diet theories. I have come up with a few tricks for eliminating the dumb ones.

1) Diets that hate on an entire macronutrient group. When I was growing up fat was the enemy. Then it was carbs. Then I was a vegan I was reading stuff that said people way overeat protein, and your body doesn't really need that much. Please. You need fat, carbs, and protein to survive and thrive.

2) Any theory based on "what our ancestors used to eat". You can use this line of argument to justify any diet you want. If you want to gorge on meat, just claim that animals were plentiful and fish were jumping into the boats before people hunted them all. Of if you want to be vegetarian claim that hunting was a lot of work and our ancestors mostly ate plants that couldn't run away.

SCD fits into both of these categories.
I disagree. SCD doesn't hate on an entire macronutrient group. Carbs are allowed on SCD- hence the "Specific" Carbohydrate Diet. What many don't understand is that the carbs that we are lead to believe are healthy and necessary (i.e. healthy whole grains, pastas, breads, etc.) are, in fact, highly processed foods that humans have not evolved to easily digest. Grains were introduced into the human diet only 10,000 years ago. That's just a drop in the bucket in evolutionary history and not enough time for human genetics to significantly change and adapt to eating these foods. Grains contain a large number of anti-nutrients and the proteins in grains are very difficult for humans to digest. Add in the fact that many of the grains used widely today, for example, wheat, is not the same wheat consumed even 100 years ago. It has been modified through genetic selection. Not to mention all of the additives, perservatives, and chemicals that are added to processed grains. These are the reasons why the SCD does not include grains in the diet. But there are still plentiful carbs to be had on the SCD in forms of fruits and vegetables.

You can scoff about the ancesteral theories, but it all has to do with genetics and the capability of the human digestive system to digest certain foods. It is based in science.
 
Just Eat Real Food
That's been my conclusion as well the past few weeks. Granted there's a bit more to it than that but as a general rule that's about as simple as it gets.

It's tough. Living alone and cooking for one on a budget but I've made big improvements the last few weeks thanks to diet.
 
I disagree. SCD doesn't hate on an entire macronutrient group. Carbs are allowed on SCD- hence the "Specific" Carbohydrate Diet.
Well ok. Half of a macronutrient group. My point is that its not easy getting all the carbs you need out of fruit and even harder from vegetables. It reminds me of the zone diet which made me weaker than I have felt in my entire life, without doing anything for my crohn's symptoms.

You can scoff about the ancesteral theories, but it all has to do with genetics and the capability of the human digestive system to digest certain foods. It is based in science.
It isn't science. Science is based on eliminating erroneous hypothesis. Creating erroneous hypotheses is called mythology. Our brains are constantly spinning stories to explain the world around us. If grains caused crohn's then it would be a worldwide pandemic. What about the rural chinese subsisting on rice for thousands of years? Myth Busted.

It is about finding out your own personal lineage and precisely figuring out what the diet most likely was based on climate, ecology, the food chain, fossil records, lineage etc. Indigenous people who live according to their ancestors are the healthiest peoples on the planet.
Another perfectly reasonable story. But very hard to prove or disprove. And what does that mean for those of us with mixed heritage?

"I think what really happened is that........and in the process eliminated the stuff that was really making them sick."
isn't that what the diet is all about?
I don't have a problem with the basic idea of building your diet around fruits, veggies and meat. I have been eating this way for years. I have no doubt that if someone who eats like the average american and has CD and switches to a minimalist diet based on whole foods their symptoms will improve. My problem is with the crazy theory about how complex carbs cause CD. Reaching the right conclusions from the wrong reasons is dangerous. It is much better to know what you don't know.
 
I haven't had a big mac in years!!! I do get McNuggets after my remicade treatments, and inhale a 10pc easily. Not sure why but that's what I crave post infusion. As far as confusing diet advise goes, literally listen to your gut. I know what WORKS FOR ME. And it gets frustrating when people assume something works for ALL. I can't do gluten, but some of my patients with CD/UC swear that white bread and pasta get them through a tough flare. We are all diferent, same with our disease process. Don't get me wrong, I do support elimination diets and food logs to pinpoint your own triggers. The Paleo diet worked for a while with me, but then the high fat/low carb started irritating my gut. So I added rice and potatoes (my fav!) What makes it more difficult, in my mind, is Drs don't have much input on the situation. I do realize that there isn't enough "science/research" on the matter. But still, any type of diet support from your GI would be beneficial. Im a nurse, and I find that Im the only one that gives IBD patients diet advice. I love doing it, but I wish there was more support from a medical standpoint. Its alot easier to write an Rx than to give diet counseling, unfortunately. Sorry for the rant on your thread, I guess Ive been holding that back for a while!! I hope you guys find what works for you, even if it means trial and error :)
 

Gianni

Moderator
Another perfectly reasonable story. But very hard to prove or disprove. And what does that mean for those of us with mixed heritage?
Can't prove it? Well maybe not but i presented very strong evidence in my last post. That evidence can't just be ignored it proves that these indigenous diets are keeping people healthy and living long like the Japanese and how their diets have kept them living and thriving as i said in my first post on page 1. And whats the alternative? Immunosuppressant drugs that are PROVEN not to cure you or even help you for very long as our bodies get used to it.

Also look what i wrote about on Dr Weston Price and his work on indigenous populi and their dental health in my last post on page 1. That is very strong supportive evidence that indigenous diets are indeed healthy and is what humans should strive for.

As for trying to figure out ancestral diets for "muts". I am too a "mut" but i still had two predominant heritages in native americans and Italians which each made of 25% of myself. That only accounts for 50% of my background but it is better than eating whatever i want. I adopted a plant based diet and i can honestly tell a huge difference so if 50% of my background can find a huge difference for me i think that leaves other "muts" a good chance of finding a diet that works for them.

Gianni
 
Can't prove it? Well maybe not but i presented very strong evidence in my last post. That evidence can't just be ignored it proves that these indigenous diets are keeping people healthy and living long like the Japanese and how their diets have kept them living and thriving as i said in my first post on page 1.
The Japanese? Have you looked at their healthcare statistics? They're not much better off than we are at this point.

Indigenous diets lack chemicals, refined sugars, GM crops and processed foods. Not sure it has anything to do with their ancestors adapting to a specific diet.
 

Gianni

Moderator
Yes the Japanese. I have looked at their healthcare statistics, actually wrote a paper on it. They are much better off than the U.S. Their cancer rates are phenomenal for a developed country. They have the least incidence of Breast Cancer among developed countries and they show strong numbers across the board in most degenerative diseases.

Indigenous diets incorporate a diet in which envelopes hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. If a body was built on a certain diet, it can grow stronger on the same diet. Its when people switch their diet, that problems start to occur. It is much how native americans today are twice as likely to develop heart disease than the average white person. Native americans developed a strong plant based diet, when the systems of food changed in the U.S. and native americans abandoned indigenous diet and adopted a meat heavy western diet, the cholesterol intake proved to be too much.
 
Japan's farmers also get money back on sick animals. What this means in practice is that in Japan if one of your cows has paratuberculosis, you tell the government, the governement will tell the farmer if the animal needs to be killed, and the farmer will get 80% of the money back that the cow is worth from the government after it's killed.

In Europe and the US: the government requires you to say didly squat, you can sell the cow to anyone (further spreading sick cows from herd to herd) and you get 0 money back from the government, which means that a cow that is dying is simply turned into hamburgers.

Japan's livestock is thousands time healthier than the one in the West, they also have very firm import rules, because they know very well their livestock is healthier than the one from the West.
 
Native americans developed a strong plant based diet, when the systems of food changed in the U.S. and native americans abandoned indigenous diet and adopted a meat heavy western diet, the cholesterol intake proved to be too much.
I do not know any paleo proponents that would agree with that statement. Besides the fact that it's a huge and inaccurate generalization regarding Native American diets it's not the western meat that a paleo person would see as a problem. And many, many native American diets were meat-based prior to western intervention.

I agree that Japan has advantages but perhaps you're thinking of Okinawans or other specific groups within the Japanese population? The main Japanese population, while better overall, still has plenty of cancer. Stomach and liver especially. And strokes are much more common.
 
Indigenous diets incorporate a diet in which envelopes hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. If a body was built on a certain diet, it can grow stronger on the same diet. Its when people switch their diet, that problems start to occur.
Hold on for one second. It sounds like there are three different theories all kind of jumbled together here.

1) If you eat like people ate before "civilization" (> 5,000 years ago) you will be healthy.
2) If you eat like your ancestors ate you will be healthy. I'm not an expert on indigenous people around the world but I doubt there is a group of people eating the same diet for more than 5,000 years, anywhere in the world. So this is a theory that competes with the first theory.
3) If you eat the same diet for your entire life and never make substantial changes you will be healthy.

So you're conflating evolutionary, ancestral, and personal time scales in your theory. Which one are you saying we should believe in?

There are other problems with your argument like survivorship bias. If you go to an island where indigenous people have lived for thousands of years, and find them to be "healthy", does that mean that they don't get sick, or does that mean the sick ones died young? I would have died in my teenage years without modern medicine and I suspect the same is true for a lot of us.

Then there is the issue of how you define "health". Is it dental health? Cancer rates? Chronic illness like CD? If not for the diabetes and obesity epidemic caused by over consuming sugar the us would be considered one of the more healthy countries in the world. But I suspect we would still have lots of CD. Just because sugar causes one set of ailments doesn't mean it causes them all. If I could trade in my CD for obesity I would do it in a second, because obesity can be cured by lifestyle changes whereas CD cannot.
 

Gianni

Moderator
Hold on for one second. It sounds like there are three different theories all kind of jumbled together here.

1) If you eat like people ate before "civilization" (> 5,000 years ago) you will be healthy.
2) If you eat like your ancestors ate you will be healthy. I'm not an expert on indigenous people around the world but I doubt there is a group of people eating the same diet for more than 5,000 years, anywhere in the world. So this is a theory that competes with the first theory.
3) If you eat the same diet for your entire life and never make substantial changes you will be healthy.

So you're conflating evolutionary, ancestral, and personal time scales in your theory. Which one are you saying we should believe in?

There are other problems with your argument like survivorship bias. If you go to an island where indigenous people have lived for thousands of years, and find them to be "healthy", does that mean that they don't get sick, or does that mean the sick ones died young? I would have died in my teenage years without modern medicine and I suspect the same is true for a lot of us.

Then there is the issue of how you define "health". Is it dental health? Cancer rates? Chronic illness like CD? If not for the diabetes and obesity epidemic caused by over consuming sugar the us would be considered one of the more healthy countries in the world. But I suspect we would still have lots of CD. Just because sugar causes one set of ailments doesn't mean it causes them all. If I could trade in my CD for obesity I would do it in a second, because obesity can be cured by lifestyle changes whereas CD cannot.
I don't know where your getting any of this in my arguments, but I'll adress them.

1) Yes i did say that
2)There are many populi that still eat ancestral diets 5,000 years plus old. There are indigenous populi all throughout asia and south america and the northern parts of canada that still eat their ancestral diet and are extremely healthy. Such populi's include the Vilcabamba people of ecuador, The Tarahumaras of Mexico, and the Hunzas of Northern Pakistan just to name a few. Look up the studies of Dr. Weston Price.

3). No this is complete opposite of what I'm saying. You can't eat high fat, highly processed foods your whole life and be healthy, Of course not. And still you cant eat high plant based diet your whole life and be healthy if your ancestors had a meat heavy diet. Our genomes were built on diet and made stronger through diet we can't suddenly in one generation change our eating habits or there will be consequences, like there are now.

As for the island part: If you were to find an indigenous populi sustaining themselves off of their ancestors diet you would find them healthy, as not being sick. Humans weren't meant to get sick. I'm guessing you didn't grow up in your indigenous environment so you weren't sustaining yourself how your genome sustained itself for hundreds of thousands of years. So you got sick and needed medical intervention. I'm not saying that modern medicine is all bad. I think disease control is horrible and the numbers show it. They are great at pain management, infant mortality, dealing with broken bones, dealing with heart attacks, strokes etc.

And no take away diabetes and obesity, and this country is still one of the sickest. 750,000 people will die from cancer this year 400,000 from heart disease. And why would you take away diabetes and obesity, it is a reason why are country is sick and it absolutely has to do with diet.

Do i have to define health? Just because i tangent off and talk about dental health doesn't mean my whole post is on dental health. I noted that dental health is a key indicator of overall health. I think its pretty obvious what overall health would entail. If the body can heal itself one way, why can it not the other way? It can heal a bruise, cut, infection why not crohns. Its at least worth a try. I don't know why people are so inclined to trust an institution of just a century old research to tell you that you are diseased for life. I'll consult mother nature on this one, mother nature who has kept humans extremely strong and thriving for millions of years. We have everything we need on this earth to remain healthy, but i guess it makes sense to people that because doctors got 8 years of education they can manipulate your body around and suppress an immune system that they know nothing about. I'll stick to what makes sense.

Gianni
 

nogutsnoglory

Moderator
Great thread.


2) Any theory based on "what our ancestors used to eat". You can use this line of argument to justify any diet you want. If you want to gorge on meat, just claim that animals were plentiful and fish were jumping into the boats before people hunted them all. Of if you want to be vegetarian claim that hunting was a lot of work and our ancestors mostly ate plants that couldn't run away.




I don't think you understand the line of argument for ancestral diets. It isn't about "claiming" whether or not your ancestors ate meat. It is about finding out your own personal lineage and precisely figuring out what the diet most likely was based on climate, ecology, the food chain, fossil records, lineage etc. Indigenous people who live according to their ancestors are the healthiest peoples on the planet. From the Vilcabamba people of ecuador, The Tarahumaras of Mexico, and the Hunzas of Northern Pakistan just to name a few. The reasoning behind this is that their ancestors had grown accustomed to a diet and through thousands of years of evolution, the diet is directly connected to their health. If suddenly these indigenous people were removed from their diet, health problems will ensue. It’s much how the native americans’ health has deteriorated after adopting a western meat heavy diet instead of staying true to their roots and sticking to a plant heavy diet. Now that’s not to say that plants are the only way for a person to reach optimal health, for example eskimos’ ancestors relied on a heavy fish/meat diet and if they were to suddenly adopt a strong plant and herb diet, there would be repercussions.

So no you can't make an argument for both. Let's say i was of eskimo decent. Well there wasn't much vegetation for my ancestors so i would stick to a fish heavy diet in order to achieve PERSONAL optimal health.


It’s actually interesting in 1939 Dr. Weston Price published a detailed study in which he traveled around the globe and studied the dental hygiene of the indigenous populi. Now dental hygiene is a key indicator of overall health seeing as it is one of the only ways to get a good look at the digestive tract. Dr. Price noted that the indigenous peoples had substantially more healthy teeth than those living in the modern nations. He took pictures of many of the native peoples and let me tell you these people could be on the crest white commercials today. Their teeth are stunning and many of them didn’t even have methods of brushing their teeth.

Truth of the matter is, most of us have abandoned our ancestral diet. Thats why the United States is the sickest nation in the world. We may be able to get a man on the moon and build skyscrapers but 750,000 people will die from cancer this year and 400,000 people will die of heart disease.

If you need a more modern example look at Japan. They consistently live extremely long and have some of the lowest cancer rates in the world. Yet they smoke more than the United States and are subject to even more environmental chemicals than the average american. They are able to ward off cancer because they have kept their immune systems strong through diet. Their ancestors had developed the diet based on their surroundings and their bodies were able to find strength in their food. Now I promise you as time progresses and systems of agriculture change in japan (as they are now) and they abandon their diets, they will get sick.

Furthermore if you simply look at anthropology studies and records the majority of humans didn't start eating meat until we became homo sapiens some 200,000 years ago. And in only a small percentage of cases did humans begin eating meat since homo erectus some 2 million years ago. They have deduced this by looking at the fossil records and rates of extinction of the large tertiary mammals like the saber tooth tiger. They became extinct because humans started to take a large section of their food supply.

Anyways Trevor i think it is "logical" to investigate your lineage and maybe have an idea of what your ancestors ate, it can be very important in choosing the best diet for you.

As for me my family is italian and native american so i adopted a 80% raw vegan diet.

Hope this all helps
Very interesting! I have never heard of this theory about eating per your evolution per your genetic make up and background. Is there a particular book or diet concept that advocates for this? I'd love to learn more and also know what advocates of this thinking would suggest I eat since I am a mutt.

To add another obstacles, how far back does one need to go to eat their ancestral diet? I my trace back to Europe but what if my true ancestors are from Asia? Who knows!
 

Gianni

Moderator
Very interesting! I have never heard of this theory about eating per your evolution per your genetic make up and background. Is there a particular book or diet concept that advocates for this? I'd love to learn more and also know what advocates of this thinking would suggest I eat since I am a mutt.

To add another obstacles, how far back does one need to go to eat their ancestral diet? I my trace back to Europe but what if my true ancestors are from Asia? Who knows!
Hello! Glad to see your interest. There are books regarding evolutionary diets like "The NEW evolution diet" (this one supports a more paleo diet) and then there are articles that support more of a vegetarian primal diet like this. I don't agree with everything from that article but it brings up very good points. Other than articles i haven't read many books on the matter but i would suggest you look up the works of Dr. Weston Price, it is all very intriguing.

As for you being a mut. Many of us are and so am I. I was able to find predominant lineages and oh how i wish i was just one. But even so all humans, according to anthropologists today, came out of Africa and migrated every which way. So seeing as Africa is right on the equator and seeing as there is strong evidence that all of Africa used to be just one giant rain forest(and then the climates changed and savannah and deserts were created so apes could not climb in trees anymore so were forced to walk around on ground level, thus creating the standing apes and eventually humans) we can deduce that all humans at one point in evolution consumed a plant heavy diet. So if you find yourself a deep mut you can find solace in knowing that your earliest ancestors were all probably from Africa.

Gianni
 

David

Co-Founder
Location
Naples, Florida
As far as I can tell you guys are debating in a positive manner and not making it personal. I know this can be a subject where tempers flare so just wanted to thank you all for keeping it supportive :)
 
There are many populi that still eat ancestral diets 5,000 years plus old.
My point was that there is a profound difference between the idea that we should eat like paleolithic, pre-agrarian humans did, and the idea that each person should eat according to his own ancestry.
Look up the studies of Dr. Weston Price.
Well, on his wikipedia page it says:
A 1981 editorial by William T. Jarvis published in Nutrition Today was more critical, identifying Price's work as a classic example of the "myth of the healthy savage," which holds that individuals who live in more technologically primitive conditions lead healthier lives than those who live in more modern societies. The review noted that Price's work was limited by a lack of quantitative analysis of the nutrition of the diets studied, and said he overlooked alternative explanations for his observations, such as malnutrition in primitive societies and overindulgence in the Western diet, rather than the diet itself, as a cause for poorer health. The review makes the assertion that Price had a preconceived positive notion about the health of primitive people, which led to data of questionable value and conclusions that ignored important problems known to afflict their societies, such as periodontal disease.[26]
Now there is probably a lot more to the story of Dr. Price than that paragraph, but that critique pretty much sums up how I feel about these arguments as well. You seem to have an ax to grind with "civilization" and are out collecting evidence that coheres with your theory while ignoring evidence that doesn't.

I'm guessing you didn't grow up in your indigenous environment so you weren't sustaining yourself how your genome sustained itself for hundreds of thousands of years. So you got sick and needed medical intervention.
You still aren't addressing the survivorship issue. You just assume I got sick because I have deviated from the ancestral ways. But if crohn's had nothing to do with diet and I lived on that island, and suddenly got it, I would have died and when you arrived on the island you would have found everyone healthy just the same. With any disease of affluence, you have the problem of not knowing whether affluence created the disease, or does affluence merely provide the means to survive it?

You can't eat high fat, highly processed foods your whole life and be healthy, Of course not.
Yet many people do. Just not you and I. If the diet was that poisonous we wouldn't all be eating this way right?

Do i have to define health? Just because i tangent off and talk about dental health doesn't mean my whole post is on dental health. I noted that dental health is a key indicator of overall health.
Well you don't have to define health but you have to be specific about what you are talking about. If I went to a non-GI doctor and didn't mention my crohn's symptoms he would probably say I was healthy. My physique is athletic, my blood pressure and heart rate are low. My teeth, eyes, ears, nose are all healthy. My blood is pretty normal as far as vitamins and stuff go. Even if you are on the verge of death its quite common for people with CD to go modern doctors and be told they are healthy. Just look at all the people on these boards having a hard time getting diagnosed. My point is that indicators of overall health like teeth are not necessarily that useful as evidence in a discussion of how a person with crohn's should eat.

I don't know why people are so inclined to trust an institution of just a century old research to tell you that you are diseased for life. I'll consult mother nature on this one, mother nature who has kept humans extremely strong and thriving for millions of years.
Hey just because I disagree with you on some points doesn't mean I agree with everything the medical community has said, or how they conduct their research. But if mother nature had her way I would have been dead a long time ago.

Hey David! Nothing personal here. In fact I would not spend my time engaging in a debate with someone online unless they had my respect.

Cheers,

Brian
 
I still think all the noise about "Contradictory Diet Advice" is more smoke than fire,
There seems to be little contradiction from the 'for' side. just the question of meat,
( and that covers a spectrum from no meat to almost all meat, with another spectrum of animals, fish and bird, with a huge range of cooking technique and methods and - as an ideal, all agreeing on the same points,
-not burnt and not poisoned, preferably from a healthy happy animal killed by surprise after a wonderful life, rather than dropped on hard concrete and tormented and poisoned.......
budget allowing)

The other differences seem to be a matter of degree, high fat, low fat, cooked vs. raw, fasting ,etc.
The commonality is far greater than the contradiction, and i can sum it up in four words

Just Eat Real Food -

But to round out the mythology of it all......

To a broad extent the 'healthy diet' debate splits neatly between two crowds,

-The Paleo and The Pyramid

the Paleo
If you go back far enough there were a lot of things we didn't eat,
each year you go back, (particularly in recent years) will greatly reduce the likelihood of many 'modern' diseases.

The Pyramid
We got a committee of scientists, lobbyists,civil servants and politicians, and we decided that this is what you should eat and how often, and all those other things don't affect your health, like pesticides and radiation and refining and additives and chemicals and GM They're good for you,


So eliminates everything made in a factory for a start (howls of protest, and i know, some factories are ok, they are exceptions to the rule)
Cutting out wheat and sugar is the beginning,
Going SCD is a bit further,
Going paleo is another step (eliminating many potentially damaging foods)
and tracing your ancestors is for when you want to take it up another level (for me anyways. some people would probably find the ancestry easy but i'm a mut's mut's mut :)

There are those who don't want to consider it because it "isn't scientific" (what rot, are you waiting for a front cover of Time magazine so that you know it's a scientific fact? (sarcasm, :) ))
Dismissing something because it doesn't fit a preconceived view of the world is no more scientific than embracing something because it does.

Testing it makes sense, but if you're after a large expensive trial then you'll be waiting for a long time (there is a trial going on at the moment for a celiac disease drug that affects intestinal permeability and hopes to control an immune disease by regulating the absorption of wheat protein through the intestinal wall. My prediction is that this will spill over into treatment for other immune disorders but will create unforeseen side effects. (but it will make some people very very rich, and that's what it is all about)

So do your own test
 
Last edited:

Gianni

Moderator
My point was that there is a profound difference between the idea that we should eat like paleolithic, pre-agrarian humans did, and the idea that each person should eat according to his own ancestry.
Not really. Both diet have the same idea- that our ancestors diets are what is healthiest for us. Those who supports a paleolithic diet believe to go back to our most recent primitive ancestors and learn from that diet. Others believe in going back further. I like both sets of Ideas but seeing as I am a mut i feel like it is safer for me to go back further instead of gambling on my ancestors having a meat heavy diet.

Now there is probably a lot more to the story of Dr. Price than that paragraph, but that critique pretty much sums up how I feel about these arguments as well. You seem to have an ax to grind with "civilization" and are out collecting evidence that coheres with your theory while ignoring evidence that doesn't.
There is a lot more to the story than a wikipedia page you are correct. If you are to trust critiques and investigative journalism you also have to see if there were an pre conceived notions by the critiquer. Mr. Jarvis is continuously bashing ancestral diet and naturopathic medicine. He constantly negatively bashes those who do investigative work in the field of nutrition as if he's protecting his own ground. You have to be willing to delve a bit deeper than just reading a pissed off old mans critique. But yes maybe he did have some preconceived notions going into the study (as many researchers do) but that doesn't make his findings any less true. He has pictures of all the locals and has documented them all and either way I believe he has provided great evidence that at least should be discussed. I don't have an axe to grind mentality with civilization. Maybe the modern food system, but its not secret that it is messed up, im sure most people would agree with me on that. Please bring substantial evidence disproving plant based or ancestral diets and i'd be glad to respond, such evidence does not include a biased man's critique.

You still aren't addressing the survivorship issue. You just assume I got sick because I have deviated from the ancestral ways. But if crohn's had nothing to do with diet and I lived on that island, and suddenly got it, I would have died and when you arrived on the island you would have found everyone healthy just the same. With any disease of affluence, you have the problem of not knowing whether affluence created the disease, or does affluence merely provide the means to survive it?
Okay i see your point. However many indigenous populi don't experience the disease that affluent populations do. Now i get your point that if someone died with a disease we may not know, but many indigenous populi keep records of the living and dead. They have cameras, they keep records, they write down medical problems etc. Many indigenous populi are extremely advanced. The Native Americans didn't become less Native American when they picked up a gun and put down their bow n arrows or started driving cars. There are still populations that eat as their ancestors did but still live modern lives ( who will go see a medical doctor). Also many medical doctors will go to these primal indigenous villages and perform physical exams and record the data. Seeing as many of modern diseases are un heard of to indigenous populi, I think it speaks volumes that affluence in these cases has created the disease. Autism, Alzheimers, Osteoporosis, Fibromyalgia, Parkinson's, Diabetes, R.A., and IBD just to name a few of probably 200 others that are unheard of in indigenous populations.

Yet many people do. Just not you and I. If the diet was that poisonous we wouldn't all be eating this way right?
Yes many people do, and many people are sick. The U.S. is the sickest nation in the world and you think its just a coincidence? "if the diet was that poisonous we wouldn't all be eating this way right?" Who is going to stop you from eating it, the fast food conglomerate that makes billions off of us eating it? FDA and other forms of government sure aren't as the fast food industry makes up a massive portion of the economy. And lets just say the FDA decides that fast food is bad and wants to remove it from the market, the FDA will then lose all of its credibility so why would they do anything? And if you were asking why would we personally eat something that is poisonous, its human nature to seek out the most caloric dense food. It is how our ancestors found the most calories in the fruits and vegetables. Its our instinct to find caloric dense food and find pleasure in it. Now when we started artificially making everything and drenching everything in super concentrated calorie oils of course naturally as humans we all found comfort in it. But it is proving to be extremely destructive. The main point here is yes many people eat like this and many people are sick.

Well you don't have to define health but you have to be specific about what you are talking about. If I went to a non-GI doctor and didn't mention my crohn's symptoms he would probably say I was healthy. My physique is athletic, my blood pressure and heart rate are low. My teeth, eyes, ears, nose are all healthy. My blood is pretty normal as far as vitamins and stuff go. Even if you are on the verge of death its quite common for people with CD to go modern doctors and be told they are healthy. Just look at all the people on these boards having a hard time getting diagnosed. My point is that indicators of overall health like teeth are not necessarily that useful as evidence in a discussion of how a person with crohn's should eat.
Why be specific, health is health... If you have crohns guess what you are not healthy. If you are sick, you are not healthy, you have a simple cavity, you are not healthy. The body isn't compartmentalized, if the body is healthy everything is healthy. The body doesn't heal selectively. If you had crohns and R.A., lung cancer, colon cancer (God Forbid) your body wouldn't heal just one or two at a time, it heals them all. "My blood is pretty normal as far as vitamins go" but your blood isn't normal... blood is the ultimate indicator and if you are sick anywhere you can find it in the blood. I'm sure your WBC wasn't normal, probably had vitamin deficiencies when you first were diagnosed. And im not talking about "teeth", I'm talking about teeth, gums, tongue, throat, lips... the whole mouth region. The body is one unit thats why the mouth, being a good indicator of health, is useful evidence in showing how anyone should eat no matter what the disease is. Problems persist if the body isn't healthy, while you have crohns and might think other parts are healthy... other parts of the body start to get sick thats why you see joint pain, eye problems, gum problems, thyroid problems, mental health problems, frequent illnesses etc. If our immune system is sick, its sick everywhere and the immune system fights off so much so all of those areas are at risk. The main thing is the body is compartmentalized.. for example, Erectile Dysfunction is a key indicator of heart disease in men. If there is blood flow problem in one part of the body theres blood flow problems in all of the body.

Anyways with all this said i do appreciate the lively debate. :)

Gianni
 
As a new member, I do love the debates and will utilize this information to formulate my own opinion as obviously you all have done. Please keep it coming as with each response I am learning more and more. Knowledge is Power! and Power defeats!
 

nogutsnoglory

Moderator
It's hard to know what original man ate because paleo advocates and raw vegan advocates maintain there side is correct. While I am paleo I'm more inclined to believe the raw vegan theory because the original man could not have caught wild animals nor be able to cook them. Traps and fire were only much later.

The argument though goes on because original man in cold climates wouldn't have much or any access to fruits, veg, nuts and seeds. Maybe prehistoric man did not live in these cold climates.

All very confusing and probably cannot be truly answered. I agree that the common theme is eat real food.
 
It's hard to know what original man ate because paleo advocates and raw vegan advocates maintain there side is correct. While I am paleo I'm more inclined to believe the raw vegan theory because the original man could not have caught wild animals nor be able to cook them. Traps and fire were only much later.

The argument though goes on because original man in cold climates wouldn't have much or any access to fruits, veg, nuts and seeds. Maybe prehistoric man did not live in these cold climates.

All very confusing and probably cannot be truly answered. I agree that the common theme is eat real food.
You are right, It is hard to know what early men ate,
But it is so easy to know what they didn't eat,

Early man would have been mainly raw vegan, but would almost certainly have includes insects. All our 'cousins' eat meat - insects and grubs that is.

So Raw Vegan with Bugs is probably the optimal diet _:rof:

Early man would have been able to scavenge meat and catch small animals.
It is thought by some that this was essential for the growth and development of our brains - and enable us to become 'human' (Cordain's video - below), and it is what enabled many of our ancestors to live through the ice age.
Chimps hunt and eat smaller monkeys (raw).

Paleolithic diets are always varied and specific to the location and conditions, if there was fruit we ate it, if there was meat we ate it.

this is a good site for an intro,
http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4446

and for a paleo lecture (albeit a low-fat lecture) you can't go past Cordain
Loren Cordain - Origins and Evolution of the Western Diet: Health Implications for the 21st Century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dw1MuD9EP4
 

Gianni

Moderator
You are right, It is hard to know what early men ate,
But it is so easy to know what they didn't eat,

Early man would have been mainly raw vegan, but would almost certainly have includes insects. All our 'cousins' eat meat - insects and grubs that is.

So Raw Vegan with Bugs is probably the optimal diet _:rof:

Early man would have been able to scavenge meat and catch small animals.
It is thought by some that this was essential for the growth and development of our brains - and enable us to become 'human' (Cordain's video - below), and it is what enabled many of our ancestors to live through the ice age.
Chimps hunt and eat smaller monkeys (raw).

Paleolithic diets are always varied and specific to the location and conditions, if there was fruit we ate it, if there was meat we ate it.

this is a good site for an intro,
http://tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4446

and for a paleo lecture (albeit a low-fat lecture) you can't go past Cordain
Loren Cordain - Origins and Evolution of the Western Diet: Health Implications for the 21st Century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dw1MuD9EP4
That was an awesome video, thanks hugh.
 
Okay, so it may be hard to determine exactly what the paleolithic man ate (the precise percentage of protein, fat, carbs), let alone your specific ancestors. But we certainly know what they didn't eat. They didn't eat packaged foods with ingredient lists as long as my arm. They didn't eat man-made chemicals that are altered in a laboratory to taste like real food. Prior to the agricultural era only 10,000 years ago, they didn't eat processed grain products that result in the breads and pastas that we eat today. They certainly didn't eat the genetically selected "super grains" that we eat today. They didn't even eat those products they way they are today 100 years ago. They didn't eat genetically modified foods. They didn't eat foods that are sprayed with chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides. They didn't eat anything that had preservatives and food additives in them.

When you look at it from the perspective of what our ancestors didn't eat, it becomes quite simple. Of course diet would have varied depending on where in the world you lived in the paleolithic times. The native people that lived near the Arctic Circle would have a diet that was based almost exclusively on fat and protein and very low or nonexistent on carbs from fruit and vegetables. Someone that lived in a tropical climate may have a very different nutritent composition. But they would all share the same characteristics in that they were eating real food. It's a shame that people don't even understand what real food is anymore. Here's a hint: it's not produced in a factory or laboratory (and has no ingredients that are) and it doesn't come in a package.
 
Very sell said Katybuckeye!

I would like to add that the meat they ate, even 50 years ago, did NOT have antibiotics and steroids pumped into it. And the animals were not factory farmed, unable to receive sunshine, fresh air, and exercise. I used to be a vegetarian and then vegan, but have found I need some animal fat in my diet to stay healthy. However, I try to only eat organic, free range chicken, turkey, and occasionally beef. It's more expensive, but I figure it's a good investment in my health and hopefully will help lower my health care bills in the future.
 
I agree, Ginny. I used to be a vegetarian too. I now only eat local, organic meat. The factory farming in this country is truly horrifying.
 

Gianni

Moderator
Unfortunately "free range" isn't what most people think it is. USDA guidelines yield that chickens must have access to outside but it doesn't specify how large the area, the duration of time, or the quality of ground. So by simply having a door on the side of the coop and a fenced area of dirt patch large enough for 1 chicken to go outside, the farmers will be able to stamp free range on their products. And that is often what they do.

That regulation only is enforced on poultry, according to the USDA.

other meat, egg, milk products are all unregulated and requires only producer testimonials.

Someone that lived in a tropical climate may have a very different nutritent composition. But they would all share the same characteristics in that they were eating real food.
I absolutely agree that it is most important to eat real food. I do think it is necessary, though, to take it a step further and investigate exactly what our ancestors did eat. Our bodies read the DNA of the food we eat and that is how they know what to do with that particular food. So by giving the body something it has seen before in the past, it can find all the benefits from it. If given something the genome is not used to, the body may react as if it is a foreign invader or not find much benefit from the food at all.

Gianni
 
Unfortunately "free range" isn't what most people think it is. USDA guidelines yield that chickens must have access to outside but it doesn't specify how large the area, the duration of time, or the quality of ground. So by simply having a door on the side of the coop and a fenced area of dirt patch large enough for 1 chicken to go outside, the farmers will be able to stamp free range on their products. And that is often what they do.

That regulation only is enforced on poultry, according to the USDA.

other meat, egg, milk products are all unregulated and requires only producer testimonials.



I absolutely agree that it is most important to eat real food. I do think it is necessary, though, to take it a step further and investigate exactly what our ancestors did eat. Our bodies read the DNA of the food we eat and that is how they know what to do with that particular food. So by giving the body something it has seen before in the past, it can find all the benefits from it. If given something the genome is not used to, the body may react as if it is a foreign invader or not find much benefit from the food at all.

Gianni
I agree with you about the free-range issue. I only buy local eggs and meat, so I can physically go to the farm and inspect it if I want. That eliminates any concerns about the lack of regulation to the term "free-range", etc.

I understand what you are saying about taking it a step further. For many of us, that is difficult to do. I can only trace my ancestors (from very different parts of the world) back a few generations. Beyond that, my family just isn't that knowledgable.
 

Gianni

Moderator
I agree with you about the free-range issue. I only buy local eggs and meat, so I can physically go to the farm and inspect it if I want. That eliminates any concerns about the lack of regulation to the term "free-range", etc.

I understand what you are saying about taking it a step further. For many of us, that is difficult to do. I can only trace my ancestors (from very different parts of the world) back a few generations. Beyond that, my family just isn't that knowledgable.
I also am a mut. But i refused to just play roulette and pick a random diet, so I deduced that all humans came from Africa and seeing as Africa was once basically a giant forest, our ancient diet must have been insects and plants and maybe the occasional small game. So vegan it is cause insects don't sound very appetizing:ylol:
 
Top