Saturday, March 7, 2015

eroding paleo principles

I just read another both-sides-of-the-story piece, basically trying to point out that paleo is as wrong as Conventional Wisdom.  Rather, i started to read it -- it was just another yoyo attempting to rationalize an irrational interpretation, and these modern-day Quixotes don't deserve being treated seriously.

He was talking about grains and legumes ... AS USUAL.  It's amazing that people are so attached to their goddam BEANS that they create elaborate excuses for exonerating them from their KNOWN shortcomings.

If one can't afford (or can't GET, in certain times and places) animal protein, legumes are the next best thing.  BUT....

[sigh]  How many times does it have to be repeated???  Preparation means almost EVERYTHING when it comes to healthfully consuming them, and grains too.  Some grains and legumes i can eat in small quantities, and cope with better than i can certain green-superfood-vegetables.  Eating them in the quick-and-dirty forms in which they're found in most Western diets, though, is a highway to misery.  AND they're so high in carbohydrate content, i have to make allowances for their ingestion.  I'm willing to make that trade from time to time ... but absolutely NOT, if most other people are doing the cooking.

Antinutrients MUST be disabled or grains and legumes can be deleterious to human health, as compared to animal products.  THAT is what "paleo" is all about to me -- realizing that "neolithic" foods have issues connected with them, and making allowances for those problems, either by eschewing them altogether or by going the extra distance to deal with them.

All we have to do, to quickly assess the validity of arguments against any WoE (way of eating), is to watch for hyperbolic expressions like "eliminate a whole food group" or "promotes eating disorders."  People INCLINED to eating disorders can develop one in any dietary scheme they choose, whether it be fruitarian, raw, vegetarian, vegan, calorie-restriction, eating-everything-in-moderation ... or paleo.  And the fact that "food groups" are illogical philosophical constructs, NOT ACTUAL NUTRITIONAL DEFINITIONS, should discredit the rational faculties of anyone arguing about them.

14 comments:

  1. GD BEANS, indeed. I'm telling you, when I was a kid, I did not like them. As an adult, well, I cannot eat them. Massive trouble those beans. I might have a fork full if some beans got near my fajitas at a Mexican restaurant (lard! yum!).

    They don't go to waste, I bring them home for the kid. Along with the rice and cheese. For me, no dice.

    Yes! Preparation and minding how you respond to it all. Once I read in Refuse to Regain that legumes weren't recommened and I knew my prior gut reaction to them, no problemo getting them out of my diet. Beans, beans the toot-i-fruit..... ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol -- no kidding about that last part! :-) this is why a "paleo" diet should be the default, with "neolithic" foods only added in when tolerance is established.

      Delete
  2. Adequate preparation of grains and legumes... pass them through a pig, then eat the pig....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if at all possible, ABSOLUTELY! :-D

      Delete
  3. Grains ..... Legumes always the whys and wherefores.

    But in my hairdressers recently I read a great article about 'Eat Like A Caveman' it showed brilliant recipes which were pretty much my choices! LCHF so similar so healthy.

    So lets just aim to eat real whole foods and cut out the processed ... what a great start.

    All the best Jan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. can't go wrong with that!!! :-)

      Delete
  4. I cut out a whole "Food Group" thirty five years ago...Celiac Disease will do that for you. If I listened to the "nutritionists and dietitians" I would have kept on eating them because DEFICIENCIES! That oddly I don't have...no beans for me either I don't do well with them. What i do lack is disease anywhere in my body.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. precisely! that "you'll have deficiencies if you cut out grains" argument is our "insane perpetrator" ;-) ... or have I been watching too many Crossing Jordan reruns?

      Delete
  5. It is appropriate to say about food as well that there are many shades of gray. Sure, beans are better than wheat and a still-cut oatmeal for a breakfast is better than a pastry, and cold pizza is better than the freshly baked one, but the shade of gray could be still too dark. I am a fun of a buckwheat for the people who have no need in a carbs limitation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there's definitely a hierarchy when it comes to nutritious foods! :-) we here are lucky enough to be able to be able to eat what suits us best -- I try to remember that fact, with gratitude!

      Delete
  6. Legumes taste like cardboard without stock, salt, spices, fat, or tomato. Unless you have a stockpile of them from high-carb days, why would want to eat them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. true, it's the additives that make legumes attractive! that said, I STILL like to add a little to my family chili recipe -- it doesn't taste the same without. :-) J, too, is a fan of lentils, and the whole family likes lentil/split pea soup. for those reasons I've taken pains to learn to make legumes as "user friendly" as possible.

      Delete
    2. Tsk, tsk, tsk!!! Now, Tess, real chili DON'T HAVE BEANS!!!
      (& refer to the cowboys-around-the-campfire scene from "Blazing Saddles" as to why I don't eat 'em any more ;-)
      (Gotta blog about last week's visit to SIL/discussion of the "gluten-free craze"... It was very humorous: imagine the question shouted before every bite: "Is THAT GLUTEN-FREE??!!??")

      Delete