In a recent Princeton study rats that had access on HFCS did a lot worse than on eating sugar. We all know that carb metabolism is a bit different in humans and rodents yet this still makes us wonder.

I think researchers’ explanation that the fructose in HFCS has quicker effects on the liver is worth looking more closely. I do not think that the fructose question is done yet.

That study by Davis is not just a “statin study”, but a quite modified TLC diet (without grains) and with potent additional agents like niacin, Vitamin D and Omega 3 supplementation. By all means, wheat cessation was not the most important factor according to Davis himself – it was another important paleo factor Vitamin D:

http://www.trackyourplaque.com/library/fl_06-027faseb.asp

Here is an extract:
“After 12 y of follow-up, all-cause mortality in the whole cohort was roughly half that in the population of England and Wales(standardized mortality ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42, 0.51). After adjusting for smoking, body mass index, and social class, death rates were lower in non-meat-eaters than in meat eaters for each of the mortality endpoints studied . . .”

And don’t bother giving me that low-carb crap that low cholesterol causes cancer or depressive illness, because it doesn’t stack up, and in any case I would quote this to you — and at least one of the authors you will recognise:

Optimal low-density lipoprotein is 50 to 70 mg/dl: lower is better and physiologically normal. O’Keefe JH Jr, Cordain L, Harris WH, Moe RM, Vogel R. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Jun 2;43(11):2142-6.

And, by the way, you are trying to cheat. That reference from Davis et al is nothing about wheat, but a statin study and coronary calcium score, which is nothing to do with our discussion.

You still have nothing, and, in fact, you have demonstrated admirably the paucity of the science on which you base your dietary preferences.

“The study is just about meaningless because of the difference in energy intake.”

Fulltext with the tables you missed above:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7628r66r0552222/fulltext.pdf

The weight difference between Mediterranean and paleo was an almighty 1,2 kg, so your calories argument simply fails. It must be the _quality_ of the calories, otherwise why the paleo group lost twice (5,8 cm versus 2,9 cm) of their waist circumference ? Moreover, there was no relationship between weight and AUC or between waist circumference and AUC.

We both should know that people generally suck at counting calories. You do believe in laws of thermodynamics, don’t you ? So again, it pretty much must have been the quality of calories.

Regarding metabolic changes, dairy is generally known to be insulinogenic, yet I think that since the absolute consumption of protein was the same, we again must look at grains. At least partially grain-related leptin resistance may well be one piece of the puzzle:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118993411/abstract

It’s rather amusing that you say the diet in pig study was “ridiculous”, since current US nutritional guidelines recommend rather comparable consumption of grains daily (9-11 servings).

I’d guess the rematch between paleo and Mediterranean would again show MD blow hard, esp if Lindeberg or anyone up to it would be more vary of carb content while adding (grass-fed) ruminant flesh to the diet. We could do it with fish-based if we like, too, since northern, lighter skinned dwellers ate it a lot more anyway (according to Cordain et al. AJCN 2000 paper).

I dont’ base my assumptions on labels like “standard paleo diet recommendations”. I base them on presumable health effects.

There already are studies that show how people even on vegetarian diets fare better when taken off grains. In addition, we have a convincing showcase against adherence of vegan based diet when put against more paleo-like diet:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/9/969

Grains simply offer no superior nutrition value whatsoever that couldn’t be gained through proper paleo-esque omnivory diet. It’s of no use even discussing about a [rather redundant] sorghum study as a proof for evolutionary grain based diet. Agriculture simply meant that people’s health and stature went down the toilet. Perhaps many of them simply became crack-heads because of wheat’s powerful opioids, who knows ? Brewing beer of grains also seems a good theory to me, when compared to the laughable “grains improved our nutritional status” argument. Opium also became very popular, even tough though its nutritional value is abysmal. Lots of animals get stoned just for the pleasure of it. I claim that humans are no different.

Autoimmune disease connection alone is in my opinion a reason enough to avoid grains and their disastrous effect by mass agriculture put the final nails in the coffin.

I bet you already have read Lindeberg’s recent paper on grains & leptin resistance:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6823/5/10

On wheat’s WGA as insulin analogue:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2M-47N64XS-1V&_user=10&_coverDate=12/31/1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1402807533&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cb90bb9ed0df290d3203b16e61567f25

Dr Davis paper here:

http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/22/1_MeetingAbstracts/1092.15

I’m sure that modern strains of wheat are far worse than older strains like Einkorn in many ways and that wheat can be made nutritionally tolerable by soaking and fermenting procedures which are seen in various cultures, yet the main point remains – why bother ?