Short version of Taubes’ recommendations, which are essentially the same as Atkins, LCHF, Paleo, and other low-carb plans:
Minor correction: The paleolithic diet does actually allow potatoes and other tubers, as well as honey and fruit sugar (as those are all foods that were eaten prior to agriculture). They argue specifically against eating agricultural staples such as legumes, grains, and possibly dairy...not carbohydrates in general.
Potatoes I can see, given the paleo diet’s motivations. Fruit and honey I find much more questionable, especially honey. But I suppose if you limit yourself to honey you’ve personally harvested from wild beehives without the benefits of modern technology like bee suits, you’ll probably be fine. :-)
The research on all of this is weak. There’s enough to justify elevating some form of low-carb to the null hypothesis. However I’m not aware of any studies that attempt to distinguish between the various flavors of low-carb diets like paleo vs. Atkins.
However I’m not aware of any studies that attempt to distinguish between the various flavors of low-carb diets like paleo vs. Atkins.
The main difference is that the organizing principle of LCHF/Atkins is just that—replacing carbohydrate with fat, sometimes even to the point of ketosis. Studies that compare fat/carb ratio in diets to health factors are applicable to the whole carb vs. fat debate.
The organizing principle of the Paleo memeplex is that there are a few key things about modern lifestyles that negatively impact health—some popular targets include shoe-wearing, chairs, sit-down toilets, sedentary lifestyles, and most famously high grain consumption.
It’s true that the paleo diet ends up being relatively low carb, since grains are the major carbohydrate source...but the central claim doesn’t actually make any testable predictions about carb/fat ratios. Rather, the major testable prediction of the Paleo diet is that the human body is ill equipped to digest ]large amounts of grain.
So the relevant studies would be those that look at the effects of grains and components such as phytates, gluten, lectin...etc, on leaky gut syndrome, digestive gut flora, inflammation, nutrient absorption, and such—there wouldn’t be much overlap between these studies and carb/fat ratio studies.
There’s enough to justify elevating some form of low-carb to the null hypothesis.
Maybe? It’s difficult to make broad prescriptive claims in nutrition, and I’m not sure “low fat” and “low carb” are precise enough categories. My guess would be that both low fat and low carb win out over the standard diet simply because cutting out either one is likely to cause some calorie reduction and a compensatory increase in vegetable consumption.
The argument from the Paleo-memeplex would be the “null hypothesis” for diet should be based off of what we ate prior to agriculture. In the absence of evidence, evolutionarily novel foods are guilty until proven innocent, while ancestral foods are innocent until proven guilty. (Of course, the question of what exactly constitutes an evolutionarily novel food is not simple)
Fruit and honey I find much more questionable, especially honey. But I suppose if you limit yourself to honey you’ve personally harvested from wild beehives without the benefits of modern technology like bee suits, you’ll probably be fine. :-)
Hehe—well, as a sweetener it’s certainly an improvement on straight sugar and as a calorie source it’s an improvement over starch.
Not sure what the objection to fruit would be, though. Fruit juice, maybe, since it’s easy to over-eat when your food is in liquid form.
Advocates of the Paleo diet would claim that that the ideal diet has near zero grain content. Sugar, on the other hand, is not intrinsically harmful...it’s just that we frequently overdose. The ideal diet does contain some sugars.
I think that the null hypothesis has to be based on the actual studies that have been done, not on poorly founded hypotheses about what our ancestors did and did not eat in the ancestral environment.
Fruits are probably only an issue for those of us trying to lose weight. However most of the fruits we eat have been bred over hundreds of years or more to be larger and sweeter (i.e. contain more fructose) than natural fruits. And some fruits are higher in starches than others, so if you’re trying to lose weight and failing, it’s worth cutting these out. Not all fruits are equal here. Berries are likely better for you (or at least less bad) than apples and bananas, for example. Again, this is not not really worth worrying about unless you want to lose weight.
I suspect a low fat diet actually does not win out over a standard diet, because low fat diets replace fats with carbs. Even worse, in practice they replace fats with simple carbs: pasta, bread, and the like. Low fat sweets are the worst of all because they replace fat with sucrose. Sugar and other simple carbs (and maybe all carbs) affect how your body stores and releases fat. The real story is much more complex than simply eating less and exercising more. You have to consider how and why our bodies produce and respond to insulin, glucagon, and other hormones that control fat storage and metabolism.
Minor correction: The paleolithic diet does actually allow potatoes and other tubers, as well as honey and fruit sugar (as those are all foods that were eaten prior to agriculture). They argue specifically against eating agricultural staples such as legumes, grains, and possibly dairy...not carbohydrates in general.
Thanks. I stand corrected.
Potatoes I can see, given the paleo diet’s motivations. Fruit and honey I find much more questionable, especially honey. But I suppose if you limit yourself to honey you’ve personally harvested from wild beehives without the benefits of modern technology like bee suits, you’ll probably be fine. :-)
The research on all of this is weak. There’s enough to justify elevating some form of low-carb to the null hypothesis. However I’m not aware of any studies that attempt to distinguish between the various flavors of low-carb diets like paleo vs. Atkins.
The main difference is that the organizing principle of LCHF/Atkins is just that—replacing carbohydrate with fat, sometimes even to the point of ketosis. Studies that compare fat/carb ratio in diets to health factors are applicable to the whole carb vs. fat debate.
The organizing principle of the Paleo memeplex is that there are a few key things about modern lifestyles that negatively impact health—some popular targets include shoe-wearing, chairs, sit-down toilets, sedentary lifestyles, and most famously high grain consumption.
It’s true that the paleo diet ends up being relatively low carb, since grains are the major carbohydrate source...but the central claim doesn’t actually make any testable predictions about carb/fat ratios. Rather, the major testable prediction of the Paleo diet is that the human body is ill equipped to digest ]large amounts of grain.
So the relevant studies would be those that look at the effects of grains and components such as phytates, gluten, lectin...etc, on leaky gut syndrome, digestive gut flora, inflammation, nutrient absorption, and such—there wouldn’t be much overlap between these studies and carb/fat ratio studies.
Maybe? It’s difficult to make broad prescriptive claims in nutrition, and I’m not sure “low fat” and “low carb” are precise enough categories. My guess would be that both low fat and low carb win out over the standard diet simply because cutting out either one is likely to cause some calorie reduction and a compensatory increase in vegetable consumption.
The argument from the Paleo-memeplex would be the “null hypothesis” for diet should be based off of what we ate prior to agriculture. In the absence of evidence, evolutionarily novel foods are guilty until proven innocent, while ancestral foods are innocent until proven guilty. (Of course, the question of what exactly constitutes an evolutionarily novel food is not simple)
Hehe—well, as a sweetener it’s certainly an improvement on straight sugar and as a calorie source it’s an improvement over starch.
Not sure what the objection to fruit would be, though. Fruit juice, maybe, since it’s easy to over-eat when your food is in liquid form.
Advocates of the Paleo diet would claim that that the ideal diet has near zero grain content. Sugar, on the other hand, is not intrinsically harmful...it’s just that we frequently overdose. The ideal diet does contain some sugars.
I think that the null hypothesis has to be based on the actual studies that have been done, not on poorly founded hypotheses about what our ancestors did and did not eat in the ancestral environment.
Fruits are probably only an issue for those of us trying to lose weight. However most of the fruits we eat have been bred over hundreds of years or more to be larger and sweeter (i.e. contain more fructose) than natural fruits. And some fruits are higher in starches than others, so if you’re trying to lose weight and failing, it’s worth cutting these out. Not all fruits are equal here. Berries are likely better for you (or at least less bad) than apples and bananas, for example. Again, this is not not really worth worrying about unless you want to lose weight.
I suspect a low fat diet actually does not win out over a standard diet, because low fat diets replace fats with carbs. Even worse, in practice they replace fats with simple carbs: pasta, bread, and the like. Low fat sweets are the worst of all because they replace fat with sucrose. Sugar and other simple carbs (and maybe all carbs) affect how your body stores and releases fat. The real story is much more complex than simply eating less and exercising more. You have to consider how and why our bodies produce and respond to insulin, glucagon, and other hormones that control fat storage and metabolism.