paleo vs. calorie counting healthy foods

ndj1979

freqzinbigd wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

Paleo is the biggest joke ever. If you are going to do 100% paleo, then you need to study op on what our paleolithic brethren really ate = semi raw meat, grubs, insects, etc…

YOur sister in law is lowing weight because she is restricting entire food groups, which has lead to a drastic reduction in calories.

IMO you will be much happier enjoying all the foods you love, tracking your calories, and hitting macros…

I would be miserable if I could not eat brad..

with respect to fat loss Paloe is not superior to any other "method/tool" because at the end of the day fat loss = calorie deficit...

So you've never tried and have no experience with it but you're certain it's "the biggest joke ever"?

Sigh.

yes, because I have no desire to eat like a caveman and restrict whole food groups..

and the whole concept that eating like paleolithic man did 10,000+ years ago is somehow healthier is ridiculous..

but feel free to enlighten me as to where I am going wrong...

and you have to experience something to have an opinion on it?

freqzinbigd

psulemon wrote: »

freqzinbigd wrote: »

squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »

I eat mostly paleo. Probably about 80/20 right now, trying to get to 90/10. YOU STILL HAVE TO COUNT CALORIES. But for me (and many others), eating at a deficit is way way easier when I am on paleo. There are a ton of reasons why, and they can vary for the individual, and some people on this site will get angry when you bring it up, but there it is.

Try it out, keep counting calories, see if you like it and/or if it is sustainable for you. If so, go paleo! If not, try something else! Check out the paleo/primal group on here for more info. Good luck!

Thread winner.

I don't know how. Every person on that follows a fancy name diet or even a particular diet will say it's easier. I did 6 months of Paleo and you know how much I lost... 0 lbs. You know why, because it cut all the foods I loved and I binged. Do you which diet is the best? It's the one you can adhere to. For some it's paleo, others its low carb, vegetarian/vegan, IIFYM or etc... For me, it's 80-90% whole foods and the rest enjoyment.

At least you tried it. I don't think you have an unreasonable position at all.

People should generally try something different if what they're doing isn't working. If the only thing you've ever tried is "eat less, move more" then it doesn't make much sense to continue that.

I think it's terrible advice to tell people that can can eat anything they want so long as they count calories-- for a large percentage of the population (if not an outright majority) it's a recipe for failure. It works for some folks. Bully for them. If it doesn't you need to go find what does.

Which is the long way of what squirrelzzrule22 said.

Sam_I_Am77

ndj1979 wrote: »

and the whole concept that eating like paleolithic man did 10,000+ years ago is somehow healthier is ridiculous..

Not to mention how paleo-man ate is dependent upon the region of the world in-which he lived. Additionally, there is some indication that grains were consumed.

What it boils down to is basically what can somebody stick to for long-term weight management? If you can only do Paleo for a month or two before you get sick of it, why do it? At a basic level it is definitely about calories in/out, but there is something to not all calories are created equal. There is evidence of this in research related to the affect of low-glycemic & high-glycemic carbs on body-fat. Different food can impact our hormones differently which can affect our weight management. Bottom line, you can eat all of the "best" foods possible and still not lose weight if your calorie deficit isn't managed correctly. Exercise helps augment results as well.

RE Thermodynamics: A Scientific law is a law for a reason and doesn't suddenly cease to be relevant for one topic or another; unless we're talking about religion and then everything is out the window.

lemurcat12

freqzinbigd wrote: »

People should generally try something different if what they're doing isn't working. If the only thing you've ever tried is "eat less, move more" then it doesn't make much sense to continue that.

Counting calories appears to be working for OP, however, and she doesn't seem to think paleo would be personally appealing other than her sis in law is losing more quickly (and we don't have details about that, like is the SIL heavier or eating a low calorie diet as a result of her limitations beyond what might be recommended).

I did try paleo (and have no bad feelings towards it) because I found certain aspects personally appealing and I don't really like bread or cereal (with certain exceptions for really good bread) and can take or leave pasta and beans, for the most part. So I figured it might be an easy way to lower my calories with no meaningful sacrifice. That was the case, except I missed dairy badly and I couldn't explain to myself why I was giving up foods I don't think are bad for me and which caused some inconvenience (I'd like to be able to buy lunch at Pret or the like once in a while). Plus, I figured if the foods I was giving up weren't ones I cared about (because otherwise why give them up), I could manage not to eat an excessive amount of them without any special diet. So I decided just to limit my consumption of foods that don't add significantly nutrients and which I don't care much about. This, for me, means I still don't eat a lot of grains, although I eat them from time to time (and fresh, local corn in season will never be given up by me). Not a screed against paleo, but an explanation of where I'm coming from and elaboration on my advice to OP.

Mr_Knight

FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »

Counting calories is a lot more sustainable than eating low-carb.

Unfortunately, there is no actual evidence for this. And anecdotally, we see a LOT more people on MFP failing, than succeeding.

There is no one answer that works for everybody. Most of these conversations would go a lot more smoothly if people accepted that reality.

For me, personally, it's a combination of calorie counting, IF and restricting food groups/items PLUS significant exercise that works. And even then, every 6-8 months I need to take a 2-3 month maintenance break.

psuLemon

freqzinbigd wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

freqzinbigd wrote: »

squirrelzzrule22 wrote: »

I eat mostly paleo. Probably about 80/20 right now, trying to get to 90/10. YOU STILL HAVE TO COUNT CALORIES. But for me (and many others), eating at a deficit is way way easier when I am on paleo. There are a ton of reasons why, and they can vary for the individual, and some people on this site will get angry when you bring it up, but there it is.

Try it out, keep counting calories, see if you like it and/or if it is sustainable for you. If so, go paleo! If not, try something else! Check out the paleo/primal group on here for more info. Good luck!

Thread winner.

I don't know how. Every person on that follows a fancy name diet or even a particular diet will say it's easier. I did 6 months of Paleo and you know how much I lost... 0 lbs. You know why, because it cut all the foods I loved and I binged. Do you which diet is the best? It's the one you can adhere to. For some it's paleo, others its low carb, vegetarian/vegan, IIFYM or etc... For me, it's 80-90% whole foods and the rest enjoyment.

At least you tried it. I don't think you have an unreasonable position at all.

People should generally try something different if what they're doing isn't working. If the only thing you've ever tried is "eat less, move more" then it doesn't make much sense to continue that.

I think it's terrible advice to tell people that can can eat anything they want so long as they count calories-- for a large percentage of the population (if not an outright majority) it's a recipe for failure. It works for some folks. Bully for them. If it doesn't you need to go find what does.

Which is the long way of what squirrelzzrule22 said.

In all fairness, I don't need to try cocaine to understand it's not good for me (so the same extrapolation can apply to certain diets if you understand science). And while, my view aren't exact like NJD, i agree in concept. And in fact, I would suggest that Alan Aragon has some of the best justifications against paleo as well as many diets. Many diets inherently eliminate foods that are nutrient dense for no particular reason and if you are not careful, you can cause long term issues. Also, generally, most diets eliminate foods that have the smallest amount of allergies associated with it (ex - wheat vs shellfish).

Below is an article to expand on what I mean.

http://paleomovement.com/alan-aragon-paleo-critic/

edit: one last thing. I don't expect, and neither do many calorie counters, expect to be doing it for life. The expectation is doing it for a period of time in which you can teach yourself how to follow portion control. A perfect example of that is what I am doing now. I have been starving by the end of the dead, so what did I do? I cut out breakfast in favor of increased volume for lunch and dinner. This has enabled me to stay in my deficit. So when I want to maintain, all I have to do is add in breakfast again. I know I can maintain easy as long as I maintain my exercise because I know strategies to be able to do it.