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 ?

1. The pig study is completely ridiculous. Comparing an unbalanced diet of mostly grains with a more balanced diet, even if Paleo constructed, tells us nothing – especially in a pig!

2. Regarding the Lindberg et al study, here is the crucial point of this study.

“Energy intake was 25% lower in the Palaeolithic group
(p=0.004; Table 6) despite similar quantities of consumed
food (by weight; Table 5). After adjustment for energy
intake, the improvement of AUC Glucose –120 was still
larger in the Palaeolithic group (p=0.02; Supplementary
Table 2), while the larger waist loss, and the tendency for
larger decrease of AUC Insulin0–120, compared with the
Consensus group, disappeared (Supplementary Table 3).”

The study is just about meaningless because of the difference in energy intake. All outcomes are suspect, even though the authors claim glucose AUC was still lower with Paleo. I could not find their referenced Supplementary tables 2 and 3. Ultimately, there is nothing here that proves anything about a Paleo diet other than it results in energy restriction, which may indeed be useful for weight loss and metabolic adjustment.

This is the same for all low-carb diet comparisons. Adjust for energy and dietary quality and there are no metabolic or health advantages.

If you really want a valid comparison, why not compare an energy matched Paleo and a high-fibre (0.5 gm/kg/bw/day) Mediterranean type diet. Ideally such a Paleo diet would also mandate a formal quantity of red and other meat, which is standard recommendation for most Paleo diets. Otherwise you end up with a vegan diet, which will probably out-perform both of the above.

By the way, when did Paleo diets start to adopt the consumption of potatoes? (Maybe when Richard Wrangham et al showed that we ate them in the Paleolithic?)

Regarding some cardiologist or other, let’s just stick to the science. If he’s published anything, let me hear it. If not, we all know that there are a zillion MDs, medical specialists, PhDs and others out there on the internet who are crazy as a snake on crack. I only take note of the science. Let me hear it. So far, you’ve got nothing.

http://thepaleodiet.blogspot.com/2009/12/dr-cordain-comments-on-new-evidence-of.html

bucklesnarf said…
“You are absolutely right. Why would paleoman NOT eat grains?”

Because they have mostly been quite hard to collect, mill, eat and digest. That’s why. Some grains may obviously have been a minor PART of the diet in some parts where there have been some to eat. Those parts have not been too common. In addition, all grains are NOT equal and have been evolving a lot more than humans have. The main reason is of course breeding. More gluten means more usages in making different foods and the same logic has major implications in present day food industry.

I recommend making a reality check on USDA (2010) food pyramid – you should eat 6-11 servings of grains every single day to stay “healthy”:

http://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/

Do you think that we have eaten grains nearly as much in any part of our evolution ? For other primates , pigs, guinea pigs and even parrots grain-based diet has been conclusively shown to be pro-atherogenic. Similarly, atherosclerosis can be developed on many lab animals that are fed low-fat high-grain diet. Early humans who started to cultivate grains got remarkably smaller in stature (with over 10% smaller skulls!) and seemed to be less healthier than hunter-gatherers.

The evidence is just so overwhelming. We even have intervention studies on pigs and humans – take grains out and we both get much healthier – even when compared to conventional Mediterranean diet:

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

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/39/abstract/%20

Sorghum in Mercader’s study does not contain gluten and it’s lectins are way different than the ones in wheat. There have been several healthy african hunter gatherer populations that have eaten sorghum for some time, yet became acquianted with diseases of civilization concurrently with wheat introduction in their diet. Sorghum IS from Africa. Sorghum can be eaten by celiacs. It IS therefore passable for “paleolithic” food. If you must.

So perhaps we should be talking about grains-that-are-out-of-Africa as a main problem.

I find intriguing that a cardiologist who evidently has reversed atherosclerosis with many of his patients considers total absence of wheat to be an absolutely vital part of his treatment regimen and can proof it:

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Wheat

If a food does not agree with you, don’t eat it. That’s not a Paleo diet, nor is it a rationale for a Paleo diet.

The quantity of carbohydrate in the diet is generally not a problem if eaten within energy constraints and mostly as a balanced diet of whole foods. The traditional Okinawan diet was more or less around 80% CHO – mostly sweet potato – and many similar diets are of similar or greater CHO content with excellent longevity in the populations.

The idea that high CHO consumption is unhealthy is a mythology perpetrated by vested interests and the naive, for the naive.

I am very wary of the agenda of this movement.

These paleo diet proponents seem to forget anthrolopolgy is an area of science with real scientists.

I love your blog!