todays budget and protien powders

Steve said:
Weston A Price isn't really "Paleo" - if you look at the leading figures in Paleo they generally have a very good scientific background.
There is considerable recent research that suggests grains can cause problems for some people, but even if that is not conclusive yet there are actually far better ways of getting the same nutrients, so what is there to loose by eliminating grains?

EDeadbeat said: Could go on about this but I may have bored anyone reading it enough. I have studied this for my dissertation so have a reasonable amount of resarch on it if anyone wants to read some sciencey stuff.

Tannhauser said:
I guess there's nothing the matter with eliminating grains - except that there's no substantive evidence that most people need to avoid them.
Incidentally, the paleo diet got voted joint bottom of a list of 25 diets by a pretty high-powered panel of dietary experts: http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3 There's a rebuttal from the infamous Loren Cordain around too, but the panel responded convincingly to those.

Steve said:
I'll happily admit that much of the science is beyond me.
However re grains - I'm pretty sure that there is also no substantive evidence that shows that they are essential and all the nutrient can in fact be got in larger quantities from other sources. If a person feels better not eating them then I'm not sure what would be gained by continuing eating them.
I must admit I'm very confused about the experts conclusions in US News - they really don't have a lot bad to say about the "Paleo" diet, but still rank it bottom.
There again I would certainly question the advice of any group of experts who rank the weight-watchers diet the 3rd best diet available. I've lost track of the number of people who've tried the weight-watchers diet and I can't think of a single one who has actually kept the weight off. It simply isn't a diet people can follow on an ongoing basis. They also rate the slim fast diet based on shakes and meal replacement bars ahead of diets based on real whole foods - it simply makes no sense at all to me and I would love to know exactly how they came to their conclusions

Tannhauser said:
Steve - yes, I'm sure you're right - there's no particular reason for retaining grains in the diet, and you can certainly find alternative sources of any nutrients they contain.
With regard to the scoring, I understand what you're saying about diets based around shakes and meal bars highly. The breakdown of scores is here: http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets/data
The explanation of the criteria, including weighting is here: http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/articles/2012/01/03/best-di...
The credentials of those involved are here:
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/experts
The diets can be ranked on different criteria. For example, if you rank the diets by 'heart health', the Slim Fast diet disappears down into oblivion.
Edit to add, here's a breakdown of what they didn't like about the paleo diet:
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/paleo-diet/reviews

Tannhauser said:
All this sort of stuff is common in other alternative dietary groups.
It is possible to find the odd contrarian who really does have some scientific credibility, but they seem pretty few and far between.
Suggest anyone whose read this far and is interested in cholestrol to check out [url=]http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-internationa... [/url]

terryhollands said:http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/vatonsportsdrinks

Guys get on and sign the petition.