Paleo Restart
kozinskey
Posts: 176 Member
Has anyone bought this program? What are your thoughts on it? I'm having trouble finding a review online that isn't sponsored by these guys.
More info: I'm really tempted by it because I do like the PaleoLeap recipes and I could use some short-term accountability, but I'm not willing to go 100% paleo. I'm good friends with dairy and oat bran. Is there room for flexibility in the program? Also, do they really mean it when they say it's a one-time fee?
More info: I'm really tempted by it because I do like the PaleoLeap recipes and I could use some short-term accountability, but I'm not willing to go 100% paleo. I'm good friends with dairy and oat bran. Is there room for flexibility in the program? Also, do they really mean it when they say it's a one-time fee?
0
Replies
-
-
complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate1
-
-
-
0
-
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
So it's ok to say your doing paleo bc it's closer to paleo than someone that has zero desire to do paleo??? That's your argument????
0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
And? Closer doesn't equal the same. Those things in your first paragraph are also closer to what pre-Industrial Revolution people ate. Why aren't we calling it the pre-industrial diet?
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things in your second paragraph within the context of a well-balanced diet.
0 -
The paelofantasy is strong you.YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Yeah! And if that caveman was here with us right now, he would also get to enjoy our buffet of diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, autoimmune disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and a host of neurological disease.
"Closely examining one group of modern hunter–gatherers—the Hiwi—reveals how much variation exists within the diet of a single small foraging society and deflates the notion that hunter–gatherers have impeccable health. Such examination also makes obvious the immense gap between a genuine community of foragers and Paleo dieters living in modern cities, selectively shopping at farmers' markets and making sure the dressing on their house salad is gluten, sugar and dairy free."
--snip--
The Hiwi gather and hunt a diverse group of plants and animals from the savannas, forests, rivers and swamps. Their main sources of meat are capybara, collared peccary, deer, anteater, armadillo, and feral cattle, numerous species of fish, and at least some turtle species.
--snip--
The Hiwi are not particularly healthy. Compared to the Ache, a hunter–gatherer tribe in Paraguay, the Hiwi are shorter, thinner, more lethargic and less well nourished. Hiwi men and women of all ages constantly complain of hunger. Many Hiwi are heavily infected with parasitic hookworms, which burrow into the small intestine and feed on blood. And only 50 percent of Hiwi children survive beyond the age of 15.
--snip--
Drop Grok into the Hiwi's midst—or indeed among any modern or ancient hunter–gather society—and he would be a complete aberration. Grok cannot teach us how to live or eat; he never existed. Living off the land or restricting oneself to foods available before agriculture and industry does not guarantee good health"0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Those foods in the second paragraph were never on the list of a balanced diet in the pre-industrial revolution, ghengis khan's empire, middle ages, roman empire, greek empire, ancient egypt, neolithic revolution, and the revolution of 5 guys named grok, smok, bok, lok, and oshbegok against 5 other guys with the same name around some bonfire 20,000 years ago.
So you're right, all those foods can be part of any balanced diet. It's the actual definition of a balanced diet that is a freakshow in light of everything that's come before us.
The foods on your list aren't the distinction between a paleo diet and the balance of a normal healthy diet. The difference between paleo and mainstream current nutritional advice is, of course, legumes, grains, and dairy. Paleo says those foods are bad for us and should not be part of a good balanced diet, whereas mainstream nutritional advice is that legumes and whole-grains are generally good for us and correlated with positive health outcomes, whereas eating a high percentage of meat is not, and dairy is more neutral (but generally fine for those who aren't lactose intolerant, which most people with ancestry from certain geographic areas are not).
One problem with the "paleo" label is that it's not really true that paleo people uniformly did not eat grains or legumes (there's a reason they started cultivating them, after all), and while they would have done so less pre agriculture, as they obviously soon became staple crops (and plenty of traditional diets based on these staple crops seem to be quite healthy), agriculture led over time to major changes in a huge number of the other crops we eat.
So to single out legumes and grains and dairy as bad for us seems to be based on weak evidence.
IMO, there are problems with the SAD, but it's not the presence of grains, legumes, and dairy, and it's also not the macro ratios (although there's no reason paleo should be low carb anyway--that's just a common claim on MFP).1 -
nakedraygun wrote: »
The paelofantasy is strong you.YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Yeah! And if that caveman was here with us right now, he would also get to enjoy our buffet of diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, autoimmune disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and a host of neurological disease.
"Closely examining one group of modern hunter–gatherers—the Hiwi—reveals how much variation exists within the diet of a single small foraging society and deflates the notion that hunter–gatherers have impeccable health. Such examination also makes obvious the immense gap between a genuine community of foragers and Paleo dieters living in modern cities, selectively shopping at farmers' markets and making sure the dressing on their house salad is gluten, sugar and dairy free."
--snip--
The Hiwi gather and hunt a diverse group of plants and animals from the savannas, forests, rivers and swamps. Their main sources of meat are capybara, collared peccary, deer, anteater, armadillo, and feral cattle, numerous species of fish, and at least some turtle species.
--snip--
The Hiwi are not particularly healthy. Compared to the Ache, a hunter–gatherer tribe in Paraguay, the Hiwi are shorter, thinner, more lethargic and less well nourished. Hiwi men and women of all ages constantly complain of hunger. Many Hiwi are heavily infected with parasitic hookworms, which burrow into the small intestine and feed on blood. And only 50 percent of Hiwi children survive beyond the age of 15.
--snip--
Drop Grok into the Hiwi's midst—or indeed among any modern or ancient hunter–gather society—and he would be a complete aberration. Grok cannot teach us how to live or eat; he never existed. Living off the land or restricting oneself to foods available before agriculture and industry does not guarantee good health"
I don't think that the poster was saying that there isn't a variety in hunter gatherer diets. But the commonality between them all (despite widely varying foods and macro ratios) is whole single ingredient real food. That's the point.
Yes, hunter gatherers have other problems, but not diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, autoimmune disease etc as described above.
Those hunter gatherer societies of today die by infection and trauma, same as paleolithic man. Not by a chronic disease of this side of the world. Real food doesn't cause trauma and infection for the most part. Other things caused death back then, like scraping your knee and not having antibiotics to treat the infection, a tiger biting one's head off, falling off cliffs, freezing to death, and of course, infant mortality.
The point of the paleolithic diet, or derivatives thereof, is to try to get the best of both worlds - the diet that is in line with a time when there weren't the chronic diseases of today (real food is accessible today), and the amenities of today that protect from tigers and lions and acute infections and water systems with parasites.
With respect to starvation, I'm not surprised. The ecosystem of today does not support the same amount of wildlife (aka food) that it did at a time when climate changes, pollution etc were not brought about by man.1 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »
Yeah! And if that caveman was here with us right now, he would also get to enjoy our buffet of diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, autoimmune disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and a host of neurological disease.
that may be the most ridiculous statement I have seen on here in a while.
why is modern mans life span almost three times that of our paleolithic brethren if we are dining from a buffet of diabetes, cancer, etc?????
1 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
And? Closer doesn't equal the same. Those things in your first paragraph are also closer to what pre-Industrial Revolution people ate. Why aren't we calling it the pre-industrial diet?
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things in your second paragraph within the context of a well-balanced diet.
I'm cool with pre-industrial revolution diet. Minus grains of course. I don't really care what the label is called.
A well-balance diet is labelled as such in the context of what people consider normal at the time. What is considered normal and well balanced now is defined by what is available and heavily includes what people can't get enough of.
Those foods in the second paragraph were never on the list of a balanced diet in the pre-industrial revolution, ghengis khan's empire, middle ages, roman empire, greek empire, ancient egypt, neolithic revolution, and the revolution of 5 guys named grok, smok, bok, lok, and oshbegok against 5 other guys with the same name around some bonfire 20,000 years ago.
So you're right, all those foods can be part of any balanced diet. It's the actual definition of a balanced diet that is a freakshow in light of everything that's come before us.
balanced diet = hitting macros and micros and making sure that one is getting majority of foods from nutrient dense sources…
You are saying that is a freakshow?
oh look a poster with an empty diary that doesn't care for anyone else to see what exactly his "superior paleo" diet consists of ….
0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »
Yeah! And if that caveman was here with us right now, he would also get to enjoy our buffet of diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, autoimmune disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and a host of neurological disease.
that may be the most ridiculous statement I have seen on here in a while.
why is modern mans life span almost three times that of our paleolithic brethren if we are dining from a buffet of diabetes, cancer, etc?????
Because that's not what killed paleolithic man.
Infant mortality, infection, trauma from predators tend to kill you sooner than the above conditions. Especially infant mortality no? Those are what killed paleolithic man. We are kind of protected from those things to a larger degree this day and age.
And the lack of those chronic diseases above isn't limited to the paleolithic era... They were all rare as hens teeth prior to the 1900s. They existed, but were very isolated case reports compared to today.
And the argument that we live longer to get these diseases today does not explain the 40 year olds with heart attacks, autoimmune disease affecting any age, higher incidence of cancer in 30 year olds, diabetes in teenagers (type II, not type I), and obese infants. Not to mention neurodegenerative diseases.
the other thing, is that paleolithic death causes were nice and quick. The other causes, aside from that monster heart attack, all take their sweet time.
from what I understand about the paleo diet, it isn't about preventing death, but more about preventing suffering.
Now, you could make an argument that life without deep and delicious cakes or McDonald's or whatever is also suffering. That would be a valid point. But you turn back the clock even no more than a hundred years, and those modern foods didn't exist. And many people seemed to be quite happy despite those things not being in their lives.2 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »I don't think that the poster was saying that there isn't a variety in hunter gatherer diets. But the commonality between them all (despite widely varying foods and macro ratios) is whole single ingredient real food.
That's not actually what defines the paleo diet. The whole foods thing is also of course true for the wide variety of traditional (not paleo) diets that existed post agriculture (as well as how many non paleo people choose to eat for the most part). Remember it's the staples that came about post-agriculture that paleo is saying are the problem: grains, legumes, and dairy. That's why it claims to be "paleo" and NOT pre industrial.
Also, I have no idea what you mean by "single ingredient," but paleo doesn't require people to eat based on single ingredients (luckily, or it would be much more unpleasant and restrictive than it is--as it is I think it can be a quite pleasant way of eating, depending on your preferences).
As I've said before, I have nothing at all against the paleo diet. I enjoyed it when I did it and think it can be an easy way for some people to eat in a healthful way. But the basic health claims (re the bad effects of agriculture on humans in general), as well as the specific claims about how paleo people ate are not accurate.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »BrownTown14 wrote: »I don't think that the poster was saying that there isn't a variety in hunter gatherer diets. But the commonality between them all (despite widely varying foods and macro ratios) is whole single ingredient real food.
That's not actually what defines the paleo diet. The whole foods thing is also of course true for the wide variety of traditional (not paleo) diets that existed post agriculture (as well as how many non paleo people choose to eat for the most part). Remember it's the staples that came about post-agriculture that paleo is saying are the problem: grains, legumes, and dairy. That's why it claims to be "paleo" and NOT pre industrial.
Also, I have no idea what you mean by "single ingredient," but paleo doesn't require people to eat based on single ingredients (luckily, or it would be much more unpleasant and restrictive than it is--as it is I think it can be a quite pleasant way of eating, depending on your preferences).
I myself am not arguing for the actual paleo diet, just that the premises are certainly better than the SAD.
With respect to legumes, dairy (esp full fat dairy from grass fed animals) and grains.....
Thoughts actually vary on this. The poster (not OP) was referring to primal, which is more permissive in this regard. However, omission of these foods is most relevant from an autoimmune standpoint. Things do become quite strict in that regard and paleo seemed to want to encompass that in it's diet dogma.
And when in comes to grains, that's a bit of a slippery slope as well. There was a bit of a decrease in health at the neolithic revolution, but grains were not the majority of the diet composition even back then, so they couldn't cause as much damage as they do now. The different story started in the mid 1900s. Grains really took front and center stage (and stage left and stage right) starting in the 70s, which is when hospital bills really started to take off as well.
When it comes to studies citing the benefits of whole grains, it should be pointed out that the control group is always those who ate the refined grains/junk food etc. Really, all they say is that Less Bad is better than good. The studies that show whole grain diets compared to no grain diets do have small number of participants, but all unanimously show better health markers (and weight loss) with no grains.
0 -
OP, if you are set on paleo, the groups are the best option. I tried paleo but I couldn't stick with it. It restricted too many foods that I enjoyed and there isn't much solid science or reason to why they restrict certain foods (like nuts). I much prefer focusing my efforts on nutrient dense foods and making smarter choices 80-90% of the time.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 900 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions