Paleo Diet
Replies
-
goddessofawesome wrote: »It doesn't matter whether or not someone "evangelizes" what they want to do. If someone uses words phrases like "eating healthier" or "cutting down/out sugar" the mob comes out to lynch them and states how they've lost weight without eliminating anything and in fact eat cake and cookies all day long and they're still losing weight because "IIFYM!" And in a way are evangelizing what they do and how it's the best.
Hmm. I don't think that's accurate. First of all, no one claims to eat cake and cookies all day long. That's a strawman that "clean" eaters like to claim about people who favor moderation. Eating cake and cookies all day long is simply not moderate.
Second, I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to be one of the mean people who "attacks" those who try to eat healthy, so I have a personal interest here, and in that I (a) eat healthy, (b) say quite often that I favor eating healthy and even trying things like low carb and cutting out trigger foods, (c) also am quite open about the fact that I personally have found it helpful to cut out foods from time to time, and (d) say often that everyone cuts down on or limits foods when dieting, I am pretty sure that your account of these conversations here is not accurate.
And while I say to people who seem to be struggling because they assume one must diet by cutting out numerous foods that that's not necessary, that's not evangelizing what I do at all. For example, I don't do low carb or paleo, but I've said in this very thread that I think it can work for people. I just argue when people claim it's the One True Way to eat healthy or assert that not being vegan or eating sugar or whatever is inherently less healthy. I don't know why you give those posts a pass while getting upset when others simply say that they lost weight while eating whatever, so it doesn't have to be so hard.
And to be clear, I think a lot of people come here with assumptions (supported by our cultural ideas of dieting) that a successful diet requires extreme restrictions or following some specific plan and with the idea that they will have to be deprived while eating diet food. I think a sustainable plan can't be based on the idea of eating foods you don't like or deprivation, although again I also think eating healthy is a positive change. That's one thing I like about paleo done well--I think it tends to help people get enthusiastic about what they are eating (even if I think it's silly for most to exclude things like legumes).
0 -
I love that this post has just gone on and on and on. The person that started the post is a total troll. Left a random VAF (vague as F***) comment and then left the convo lol0
-
loveandchampagne wrote: »I love that this post has just gone on and on and on. The person that started the post is a total troll. Left a random VAF (vague as F***) comment and then left the convo lol
Welcome to MFP.
0 -
Ha!
I'm actually finding parts of it a pretty interesting conversation, though (although as I said before I'm weirdly interested in paleo).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Ha!
I'm actually finding parts of it a pretty interesting conversation, though (although as I said before I'm weirdly interested in paleo).
It's actually been one of the most well behaved and level discussions I've seen on a Paleo thread.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »It doesn't matter whether or not someone "evangelizes" what they want to do. If someone uses words phrases like "eating healthier" or "cutting down/out sugar" the mob comes out to lynch them and states how they've lost weight without eliminating anything and in fact eat cake and cookies all day long and they're still losing weight because "IIFYM!" And in a way are evangelizing what they do and how it's the best.
Hmm. I don't think that's accurate. First of all, no one claims to eat cake and cookies all day long. That's a strawman that "clean" eaters like to claim about people who favor moderation. Eating cake and cookies all day long is simply not moderate.
Second, I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to be one of the mean people who "attacks" those who try to eat healthy, so I have a personal interest here, and in that I (a) eat healthy, (b) say quite often that I favor eating healthy and even trying things like low carb and cutting out trigger foods, (c) also am quite open about the fact that I personally have found it helpful to cut out foods from time to time, and (d) say often that everyone cuts down on or limits foods when dieting, I am pretty sure that your account of these conversations here is not accurate.
And while I say to people who seem to be struggling because they assume one must diet by cutting out numerous foods that that's not necessary, that's not evangelizing what I do at all. For example, I don't do low carb or paleo, but I've said in this very thread that I think it can work for people. I just argue when people claim it's the One True Way to eat healthy or assert that not being vegan or eating sugar or whatever is inherently less healthy. I don't know why you give those posts a pass while getting upset when others simply say that they lost weight while eating whatever, so it doesn't have to be so hard.
And to be clear, I think a lot of people come here with assumptions (supported by our cultural ideas of dieting) that a successful diet requires extreme restrictions or following some specific plan and with the idea that they will have to be deprived while eating diet food. I think a sustainable plan can't be based on the idea of eating foods you don't like or deprivation, although again I also think eating healthy is a positive change. That's one thing I like about paleo done well--I think it tends to help people get enthusiastic about what they are eating (even if I think it's silly for most to exclude things like legumes).
There are a people on this site that will attack diets they don't agree with whether or not a post "evangelizes" or "demonizes" anything. If you look at some of these posts objectively, you must know this.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »It doesn't matter whether or not someone "evangelizes" what they want to do. If someone uses words phrases like "eating healthier" or "cutting down/out sugar" the mob comes out to lynch them and states how they've lost weight without eliminating anything and in fact eat cake and cookies all day long and they're still losing weight because "IIFYM!" And in a way are evangelizing what they do and how it's the best.
Hmm. I don't think that's accurate. First of all, no one claims to eat cake and cookies all day long. That's a strawman that "clean" eaters like to claim about people who favor moderation. Eating cake and cookies all day long is simply not moderate.
Second, I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to be one of the mean people who "attacks" those who try to eat healthy, so I have a personal interest here, and in that I (a) eat healthy, (b) say quite often that I favor eating healthy and even trying things like low carb and cutting out trigger foods, (c) also am quite open about the fact that I personally have found it helpful to cut out foods from time to time, and (d) say often that everyone cuts down on or limits foods when dieting, I am pretty sure that your account of these conversations here is not accurate.
And while I say to people who seem to be struggling because they assume one must diet by cutting out numerous foods that that's not necessary, that's not evangelizing what I do at all. For example, I don't do low carb or paleo, but I've said in this very thread that I think it can work for people. I just argue when people claim it's the One True Way to eat healthy or assert that not being vegan or eating sugar or whatever is inherently less healthy. I don't know why you give those posts a pass while getting upset when others simply say that they lost weight while eating whatever, so it doesn't have to be so hard.
And to be clear, I think a lot of people come here with assumptions (supported by our cultural ideas of dieting) that a successful diet requires extreme restrictions or following some specific plan and with the idea that they will have to be deprived while eating diet food. I think a sustainable plan can't be based on the idea of eating foods you don't like or deprivation, although again I also think eating healthy is a positive change. That's one thing I like about paleo done well--I think it tends to help people get enthusiastic about what they are eating (even if I think it's silly for most to exclude things like legumes).
There are a people on this site that will attack diets they don't agree with whether or not a post "evangelizes" or "demonizes" anything. If you look at some of these posts objectively, you must know this.
Attacking posts is a hobby if not a semi-profession for some, yes. Some people seem to have triggers they like to key in on right away for whatever reason. In the overall it is really the grease in the gears that keeps things moving along. As much as it can get annoying or tiresome it does, in the end, keep things more interesting than a compeltely factual site. So in the end it's the way it should be as long as everyone remembers that it's not life or death but just differences in oppionons.0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »I hate to continue reading this thread but Hornsby's comment is spot-on. Why does everybody need a label for diet? How about just being "healthy"? Why does it have to be a buzzword like "Paleo", or "Atkins", or "Mediterranean"; how about "healthy"? Everything doesn't need to be a buzzword or prefaced with a lowercase "e" or "i" to be good.
This is how I feel. I don't understand the desire for special named diets.
Well, I guess I'm somewhat convinced by Matt Fitzgerald's argument in Diet Cults.
I am in favor of eating a healthy diet, and try to do that.
Because "healthy" is also a label for a diet. According to all the posts that I've seen on the board any way.
Eh, there are a million different possible healthy diets, so I disagree.
I get that but what I consider to be a healthy diet might not be the same as what someone else considers healthy and because my view is different then I am therefore wrong. I've seen it a billion times on here.
I think generally-speaking so long as someone doesn't evangelize how their diet is the one everyone must follow (or ask for help in following some restriction, granted), that no one cares.
Ha! Good one.
Agreed.
It doesn't matter whether or not someone "evangelizes" what they want to do. If someone uses words phrases like "eating healthier" or "cutting down/out sugar" the mob comes out to lynch them and states how they've lost weight without eliminating anything and in fact eat cake and cookies all day long and they're still losing weight because "IIFYM!" And in a way are evangelizing what they do and how it's the best.
So what you are saying is that you actually have no idea of what IIFYM is?0 -
-
There are people who do anything. I don't know why this matters. If you think you see it, call it out when you see it, but that's not been happening here and it's not something I do.
I think people sometimes misread what's going on (for example, this idea that anyone claims to eat cookies and cake all day long), but pointing it out when you see it instead of arguing about it on some other thread would be nice.
It would also be nice if you'd acknowledge that a lot of times the arguments start because of posts like the OP's here--where people question assertions made generally about how everyone should eat, which seems not personal and a valid topic to discuss.0 -
If someone makes a ridiculous claim, then mockery is a reasonable response.
0 -
Thank God for free will. Paleo lifestyle is there for those who choose to follow it for whatever reason. It requires meals be made from scratch and some discipline. If you like cooking then maybe yeah, if you don't you will struggle. Vegetarianism is a lifestyle, if you like meat this will not work for you. Some people eat the sugar laden cereals and don't have a problem. Some people like to eat out, other want to know and control what goes into their food. Like all dietary lifestyles, we take from it what we want0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goddessofawesome wrote: »It doesn't matter whether or not someone "evangelizes" what they want to do. If someone uses words phrases like "eating healthier" or "cutting down/out sugar" the mob comes out to lynch them and states how they've lost weight without eliminating anything and in fact eat cake and cookies all day long and they're still losing weight because "IIFYM!" And in a way are evangelizing what they do and how it's the best.
Hmm. I don't think that's accurate. First of all, no one claims to eat cake and cookies all day long. That's a strawman that "clean" eaters like to claim about people who favor moderation. Eating cake and cookies all day long is simply not moderate.
Second, I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to be one of the mean people who "attacks" those who try to eat healthy, so I have a personal interest here, and in that I (a) eat healthy, (b) say quite often that I favor eating healthy and even trying things like low carb and cutting out trigger foods, (c) also am quite open about the fact that I personally have found it helpful to cut out foods from time to time, and (d) say often that everyone cuts down on or limits foods when dieting, I am pretty sure that your account of these conversations here is not accurate.
And while I say to people who seem to be struggling because they assume one must diet by cutting out numerous foods that that's not necessary, that's not evangelizing what I do at all. For example, I don't do low carb or paleo, but I've said in this very thread that I think it can work for people. I just argue when people claim it's the One True Way to eat healthy or assert that not being vegan or eating sugar or whatever is inherently less healthy. I don't know why you give those posts a pass while getting upset when others simply say that they lost weight while eating whatever, so it doesn't have to be so hard.
And to be clear, I think a lot of people come here with assumptions (supported by our cultural ideas of dieting) that a successful diet requires extreme restrictions or following some specific plan and with the idea that they will have to be deprived while eating diet food. I think a sustainable plan can't be based on the idea of eating foods you don't like or deprivation, although again I also think eating healthy is a positive change. That's one thing I like about paleo done well--I think it tends to help people get enthusiastic about what they are eating (even if I think it's silly for most to exclude things like legumes).
There are a people on this site that will attack diets they don't agree with whether or not a post "evangelizes" or "demonizes" anything. If you look at some of these posts objectively, you must know this.
that is an interesting comment coming from someone who nitpicks 90% of the posts on here....0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »My aim one day is to be 100% Paleo and I am not doing it for the "label" (whatever that means) I am doing it because I like the way it makes me feel. The recipes books are awesome.
I agree that lots of paleo recipes are awesome. You don't have to be paleo to use them, so I do from time to time, or just get ideas from them.
However, this is what I don't understand. Assuming you eat a perfectly healthy diet now, why aspire to be 100% paleo and drop foods like dairy and legumes that are healthy for most people or which make you feel good? What's the point? Just to fit a label or theory that doesn't seem to be well-grounded?
When I said I one day aim to be 100% Paleo, I was tired and cranky and left out the Primal part. I am still tired and cranky but I won't be dropping all dairy and will continue to drink minimal milk, cheese and yoghurt. Legumes aren't much of an issue for me as I don't eat a lot of them and anyway they don’t tend to have great nutritional profiles. They’re not bad but they’re not great. Snow peas & green beans are perhaps the only thing in the list that apply to me so I will probably just eat them on occasion, as I do corn. (is corn a legume?) The other night when I had corn, it was a small half cob. It was fresh and yummy and I will follow my gut instinct (pardon the pun) and eat food from nature.
I will continue to test out food and if my body feels fine with it, I will eat it. I am not good at doing things to fit a "label."0 -
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »My aim one day is to be 100% Paleo and I am not doing it for the "label" (whatever that means) I am doing it because I like the way it makes me feel. The recipes books are awesome.
I agree that lots of paleo recipes are awesome. You don't have to be paleo to use them, so I do from time to time, or just get ideas from them.
However, this is what I don't understand. Assuming you eat a perfectly healthy diet now, why aspire to be 100% paleo and drop foods like dairy and legumes that are healthy for most people or which make you feel good? What's the point? Just to fit a label or theory that doesn't seem to be well-grounded?
When I said I one day aim to be 100% Paleo, I was tired and cranky and left out the Primal part. I am still tired and cranky but I won't be dropping all dairy and will continue to drink minimal milk, cheese and yoghurt. Legumes aren't much of an issue for me as I don't eat a lot of them and anyway they don’t tend to have great nutritional profiles. They’re not bad but they’re not great. Snow peas & green beans are perhaps the only thing in the list that apply to me so I will probably just eat them on occasion, as I do corn. (is corn a legume?) The other night when I had corn, it was a small half cob. It was fresh and yummy and I will follow my gut instinct (pardon the pun) and eat food from nature.
I will continue to test out food and if my body feels fine with it, I will eat it. I am not good at doing things to fit a "label."
Corn is generally considered to be a grain. Which, I think, is what had so many people questioning why you stick to the paleo label while eating one of the big no-nos.
0 -
Sorry, multiple posts0
-
When I said I one day aim to be 100% Paleo, I was tired and cranky and left out the Primal part.
Primal isn't Paleo.
Primal isn't anything, in fact, other than a marketing slogan. What constitutes "primal" eating changes on a regular basis because the Daily Apple dude is - sorry to say - a charlatan who makes **** up as he goes along.
I mean, come on, the dude sells *supplements*, which is as far from any kind of reasonable definition of paleo or primal as you can get...
0 -
later0
-
Thank God for free will. Paleo lifestyle is there for those who choose to follow it for whatever reason. It requires meals be made from scratch and some discipline. If you like cooking then maybe yeah, if you don't you will struggle. Vegetarianism is a lifestyle, if you like meat this will not work for you. Some people eat the sugar laden cereals and don't have a problem. Some people like to eat out, other want to know and control what goes into their food. Like all dietary lifestyles, we take from it what we want
I agree. What we eventually choose depends on our lifestyle. It has to be sustainable and because I CAN'T eat wheat, do not feel well after eating a lot of added sugar but love using fresh produce in my cooking, the Paleo recipes work for me. And we definitely take from it what we want, that is human nature.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »My aim one day is to be 100% Paleo and I am not doing it for the "label" (whatever that means) I am doing it because I like the way it makes me feel. The recipes books are awesome.
I agree that lots of paleo recipes are awesome. You don't have to be paleo to use them, so I do from time to time, or just get ideas from them.
However, this is what I don't understand. Assuming you eat a perfectly healthy diet now, why aspire to be 100% paleo and drop foods like dairy and legumes that are healthy for most people or which make you feel good? What's the point? Just to fit a label or theory that doesn't seem to be well-grounded?
When I said I one day aim to be 100% Paleo, I was tired and cranky and left out the Primal part. I am still tired and cranky but I won't be dropping all dairy and will continue to drink minimal milk, cheese and yoghurt. Legumes aren't much of an issue for me as I don't eat a lot of them and anyway they don’t tend to have great nutritional profiles. They’re not bad but they’re not great. Snow peas & green beans are perhaps the only thing in the list that apply to me so I will probably just eat them on occasion, as I do corn. (is corn a legume?) The other night when I had corn, it was a small half cob. It was fresh and yummy and I will follow my gut instinct (pardon the pun) and eat food from nature.
I will continue to test out food and if my body feels fine with it, I will eat it. I am not good at doing things to fit a "label."
Corn is generally considered to be a grain. Which, I think, is what had so many people questioning why you stick to the paleo label while eating one of the big no-nos.
It is so funny that so much focus has been on the fact I ate corn. I had half a cob the other night so out of curiosity I just weighed half a cob, intact husk and all. 120gms complete. I even counted the corn bits, 20 x 20 round. 400 kernels. The last time I had corn was probably six months ago. Hardly worth the conversation, let alone counting it. It was a very tiny corn.0 -
When I said I one day aim to be 100% Paleo, I was tired and cranky and left out the Primal part.
Primal isn't Paleo.
Primal isn't anything, in fact, other than a marketing slogan. What constitutes "primal" eating changes on a regular basis because the Daily Apple dude is - sorry to say - a charlatan who makes **** up as he goes along.
I mean, come on, the dude sells *supplements*, which is as far from any kind of reasonable definition of paleo or primal as you can get...
My instinct on this one is that you are probably right. I think the word Primal was made up for the people like me so that we can continue having milk in our tea, cheese and yoghurt. 0 -
When I said I one day aim to be 100% Paleo, I was tired and cranky and left out the Primal part.
Primal isn't Paleo.
Primal isn't anything, in fact, other than a marketing slogan. What constitutes "primal" eating changes on a regular basis because the Daily Apple dude is - sorry to say - a charlatan who makes **** up as he goes along.
I mean, come on, the dude sells *supplements*, which is as far from any kind of reasonable definition of paleo or primal as you can get...
My instinct on this one is that you are probably right. I think the word Primal was made up for the people like me so that we can continue having milk in our tea, cheese and yoghurt.
:drinker:
0 -
Thank God for free will. Paleo lifestyle is there for those who choose to follow it for whatever reason. It requires meals be made from scratch and some discipline. If you like cooking then maybe yeah, if you don't you will struggle. Vegetarianism is a lifestyle, if you like meat this will not work for you. Some people eat the sugar laden cereals and don't have a problem. Some people like to eat out, other want to know and control what goes into their food. Like all dietary lifestyles, we take from it what we want
I agree. What we eventually choose depends on our lifestyle. It has to be sustainable and because I CAN'T eat wheat, do not feel well after eating a lot of added sugar but love using fresh produce in my cooking, the Paleo recipes work for me. And we definitely take from it what we want, that is human nature.
It is just amusing because you keep saying "paleo works for me" but it has been established that what you are doing is not Paleo ….but yet you keep saying you want to do Paleo...0 -
the "paleo" diet is anthropologically incorrect anyways
^^ This. And I'm an archaeologist, so do actually know a thing or two about what our ancestors ate. Like, y'know, that the Paleolithic is a REALLY long time period, and our ancestors were pretty geographically spread by the end of it (actually by the middle of it even). Oh, and Neanderthals ate legumes, there's archaeological proof of that, as well as proof of a whole bunch of other stuff on the 'paleo' 'naughty' list being eaten by our ancestors. And, and, and...Oh, and it's impossible to truly eat paleo anyway. That broccoli you're munching on? DIDN'T EXIST!!! Even the meat is different, because it's from domesticated animals (even if you go out and catch it 'wild').
Srsly, eat whatever you want, but don't do it because some 'expert' (who has no background in paleoanthropolgy, archaeology or any other discipline that actually studies these things) says it's the way we used to eat. And don't call it paleo (words have meanings people).
/rant off0 -
sandman1000 wrote: »0
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »the "paleo" diet is anthropologically incorrect anyways
^^ This. And I'm an archaeologist, so do actually know a thing or two about what our ancestors ate. Like, y'know, that the Paleolithic is a REALLY long time period, and our ancestors were pretty geographically spread by the end of it (actually by the middle of it even). Oh, and Neanderthals ate legumes, there's archaeological proof of that, as well as proof of a whole bunch of other stuff on the 'paleo' 'naughty' list being eaten by our ancestors. And, and, and...Oh, and it's impossible to truly eat paleo anyway. That broccoli you're munching on? DIDN'T EXIST!!! Even the meat is different, because it's from domesticated animals (even if you go out and catch it 'wild').
Srsly, eat whatever you want, but don't do it because some 'expert' (who has no background in paleoanthropolgy, archaeology or any other discipline that actually studies these things) says it's the way we used to eat. And don't call it paleo (words have meanings people).
/rant off
so your saying cavemen did not have coconut oil????0 -
Haha, well some of them may have, y'know, the ones who'd gotten to places where coconuts actually grow!! So I guess it depends which geographical region's paleolithic you're adhering to
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Haha, well some of them may have, y'know, the ones who'd gotten to places where coconuts actually grow!! So I guess it depends which geographical region's paleolithic you're adhering to
something tells me they would not have been able to break it down into cooking oil ...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions