View Single Post
Old 05-18-2013, 11:00 AM   #12
Senior Member
Max Brawn
Tannhauser's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,429
Training Exp: 30+
Training Type: Other
Fav Exercise: Anything overhead
Fav Supp: Creatine. C'est tout.
Reputation: 440650
Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!Tannhauser is one with Crom!

This report has been out for a while now. I remember looking at it some months ago. The article BtB quoted from doesn't name the source, but if you look here you can get information on how the comparison was done. It's interesting reading.

In fact, the report had some good stuff to say about paleo: see here. For example: the expert assessment is that a typical paleo user is going to have a great sodium to potassium ratio, and plenty of fibre.

Originally Posted by bruteforce View Post
Wait, why is eating meat, veggies, and fats while eschewing processed poisons bad again?
As I understand it, they are comparing diet plans or commercial diets meant to achieve specific purposes - such as weight loss or heart disease control. So they aren't comparing paleo with a typical twinkie-loaded US or European diet. I haven't looked at the diets in detail, but my guess is that none of them are big on processed food. It's just that, in the view of the panellists, it fell short compared to other options, such as the mediterranean diet.

Originally Posted by Dray View Post
Is this because more "ornery folk" would be more likely to have more trouble following a paleo diet, by any chance?

"No burgers, no fries, no coke, no icecream, no pizza... you ****ing kidding me?!"
Yes, to some extent. The diets are compared in ability to achieve fat loss, and an important component of that is whether people find them easy to stick to. Here are the categories:

rated each diet in seven categories: how easy it is to follow, its ability to produce short-term and long-term weight loss, its nutritional completeness, its safety, and its potential for preventing and managing diabetes and heart disease.
Originally Posted by OHDL View Post
Who's funding this research i wonder?
Originally Posted by SecondsOut View Post
the captains of industry
The comparison is run by US News and World Report, which has been around for 80 years and makes rankings and comparisons its bread-and-butter. A little digging reveals that it was employee-owned until 1984 when it was taken over by Mortimer B Zuckerman, whose money comes from real estate and publishing.

Originally Posted by RGRthat View Post
1st "Critics of the diet also claim it's short on fibre owing to the lack of complex carbohydrates"
What the hell, do these people not know that you can get fiber from somewhere other than bread.

2nd I like how they say "good fats" like they fail to ackowldge that some are required for life

3rd Is anyone reminded of the 8 yr old girl who sent a video to dr oz?
I think it's safe to say that these people know a fair bit about fibre, good fats and so on. See here

Take a look at the original report and you'll see that the diet actually isn't criticised for lack of fibre.

Lastly, there was a bit of argument with one of proponents of the diet - Loren Cordain. The claim was that the experts had ignored research supporting the paleo diet. But the rebuttal pointed out that the available research was small scale, not very good, or both.
230 strict press @ 220; bodyweight+187 X 4 dips @ 180; 403 front squat @ 210; 10 000 push-ups.

Ignoring irrelevant credentials since I was 17.
Tannhauser is offline   Reply With Quote