Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday July 23 2019, @04:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the wait-a-few-years,-it-will-change-again dept.

The Paleo, or 'caveman' diet, consists of meat, vegetables, nuts, and limited fruit. It excludes grains, legumes, dairy, salt, and refined sugars and oils. Unfortunately in a recent study researchers also found it leads to reduced beneficial gut bacteria and twice the level of trimethylamin-n-oxide (TMAO), which is linked closely with increased risk of heart disease.

[Lead researcher Dr Angela Genoni] said the reason TMAO was so elevated in people on the Paleo diet appeared to be the lack of whole grains in their diet.

"We found the lack of whole grains were associated with TMAO levels, which may provide a link between the reduced risks of cardiovascular disease we see in populations with high intakes of whole grains," she said.

TMAO is produced in the gut, and gut bacteria change based on diet composition. In this case, the removal of whole grains, with "resistant starch and many other fermentable fibres that are vital to the health of your gut microbiome"

"Additionally, the Paleo diet includes greater servings per day of red meat, which provides the precursor compounds to produce TMAO, and Paleo followers consumed twice the recommended level of saturated fats, which is cause for concern.

The article conludes that "A variety of fiber components, including whole grain sources may be required to maintain gut and cardiovascular health."

Modified Paleo anyone?

Journal Reference
Genoni, A., Christophersen, C.T., Lo, J. et al. Eur J Nutr (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-019-02036-y


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday July 24 2019, @03:22AM (3 children)

    by Reziac (2489) on Wednesday July 24 2019, @03:22AM (#870581) Homepage

    Why assume that how calendars were reckoned didn't change across the several thousand years of the Old Testament??

    --
    And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday July 30 2019, @04:24AM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday July 30 2019, @04:24AM (#873003) Journal

    Sure, calendar changes could have happened. But a simple shift from a lunar to solar reckoning (which would be maybe a reasonable historical idea) doesn't explain the inconsistent trends in the Bible. That's all I'm saying.

    AND, if you look at the chronology I linked, you'll see a number of bizarre and weird overlaps that would have to span separate "reckoning" eras. It"s all a mess that's not easily explained by a couple different calendars.

  • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday July 30 2019, @04:53AM (1 child)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday July 30 2019, @04:53AM (#873017) Journal

    Also, for the record, most of these proposals result in ridiculous inconsistencies with even the most cursory examination. For example, if Methuselah's age is measured in lunar months, then his father Enoch would have fathered him (using the same conversion) when Enoch was roughly 5 years old. Seem likely?

    Also, you have to explain away simultaneous other reckonings, for example where Noah in his 601st year during the flood starts enumerating months during that "year" each of which appears to have 30 days.

    The more reasonable conclusion is that the trend for extreme ages gradually decreases, and this trend was either made up (by an author looking to emphasize the greatness of ancestors through exaggerated age, something seen in other chronicles in the near East during that time) or actually happened (if you are a true believer, who assumed the gradual pollution of lineage after Adam decreased longevity).

    Trying to come up with half-ass lunar/solar explanations is just not helpful nor reasonable. It's the worst kind of biblical apologetics, because it generally comes out of ignorance -- I mean, did you even take two minutes to think about the post you were supporting and whether it made ANY sense with the data from Genesis?

    • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday July 30 2019, @07:09AM

      by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday July 30 2019, @07:09AM (#873035) Homepage

      Not a believer myself, but it's an interesting exercise. I very much doubt that lifespans changed significantly. I think it's most likely a mix of lunar years, solar years, copying errors, bad translations, and occasional poetic hyperbole -- which would account for the galloping inconsistencies. Who knows what the originals said, or how much material got added or inadvertently mixed in by the obsessive copying that went on as soon as officialdom discovered writing (so there are copies of copies of copies of piles and piles of whatever anyone previously recorded, relevant or not.)

      There's an interesting example in... I think I was randomly perusing the book of Daniel ... where it's going along talking about some king did this or that, and suddenly there's an inventory of some peon's livestock, and how much tax they paid... and then it goes back to the history of whomever. Pretty obviously the peon's tax records got mixed into the stack, and through generations of copying became canon.

      --
      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.