paleo?
Replies
-
what is it even????0
-
nakedraygun wrote: »
Well there you go. Paleo is no more special -- offers no other real magic -- more than any other heavily marketed fad diet with a catchy name that eliminate foods, groups of foods, or macronutrients. And what is the other commonality between these diets?homesweeths wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Eating "Paleo" is just elimination dieting. Nothing more, nothing less. You even acknowledge this fact by stating that paleo is just a "label." The claims of paleo and its alleged health benefits are not true and if, as you state that they only have a "surface knowledge" of the subject, how is illustrating that it is indeed "surface knowledge" makes one a "crusader."homesweeths wrote: »I just don't get the Crusaders Against Paleo on the boards here, who rail against it without even knowing what it is. It's not about dinosaurs or prehistoric peoples at all. (Only in their imaginations, I guess. They have a surface knowledge that makes them feel informed and educated enough, I suppose, to sneer at the concept.)
You are the one stating they have "surface knowledge" I guess you are a crusader too.
Welcome to the club.
Ah, but "paleo" is so much easier to type than "elimination dieting."
The dieters will fail eventually.
Besides, I don't understand why elimination dieters across all spectrums use MFP anyway? Do these diets not work without MFP? Why bother to track calories if the diet supplies all the necessaries for health and wellness?
This! I don't get it either. If you want to do any elimination diet or any fad diet like weight watchers, why use MFP. It really perplexes me.
If you are so put off by it, why do you use MFP, that perplexes me.0 -
Hahaha. That was actually clever, IMHO.tedboosalis7 wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Well there you go. Paleo is no more special -- offers no other real magic -- more than any other heavily marketed fad diet with a catchy name that eliminate foods, groups of foods, or macronutrients. And what is the other commonality between these diets?homesweeths wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
Eating "Paleo" is just elimination dieting. Nothing more, nothing less. You even acknowledge this fact by stating that paleo is just a "label." The claims of paleo and its alleged health benefits are not true and if, as you state that they only have a "surface knowledge" of the subject, how is illustrating that it is indeed "surface knowledge" makes one a "crusader."homesweeths wrote: »I just don't get the Crusaders Against Paleo on the boards here, who rail against it without even knowing what it is. It's not about dinosaurs or prehistoric peoples at all. (Only in their imaginations, I guess. They have a surface knowledge that makes them feel informed and educated enough, I suppose, to sneer at the concept.)
You are the one stating they have "surface knowledge" I guess you are a crusader too.
Welcome to the club.
Ah, but "paleo" is so much easier to type than "elimination dieting."
The dieters will fail eventually.
Besides, I don't understand why elimination dieters across all spectrums use MFP anyway? Do these diets not work without MFP? Why bother to track calories if the diet supplies all the necessaries for health and wellness?
This! I don't get it either. If you want to do any elimination diet or any fad diet like weight watchers, why use MFP. It really perplexes me.
If you are so put off by it, why do you use MFP, that perplexes me.
I know somebody WITH NO ACTUAL WEIGHT PROBLEM AT ALL who uses MFP to make sure she's getting enough vitamins and minerals. Shocker, right?
0 -
homesweeths wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
As far as snappy rejoinders go, meh.homesweeths wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »No one follows atracymckenziephillips wrote: »Does anyone follow a paleo lifestyle? I started about a week and half ago and feel so much better
No one follows a paleo lifestyle, not even self described paleos.
You've just demonstrated very clearly that you have no idea what you're talking about. Amazing how that works. And you probably felt very clever doing it!
You do realize that all that "paleo eating" is one giant waste of magical thinking. Paleo eaters are no more paleo then the men who eat powdered rhino horn to improve their erections.
No, "paleo eating" is a label. It has little to do with cavemen, that's just a catchy image to talk about how people ate before the dawn of food additives and large-scale, industrial farming.
My great-grandparents ate "paleo style" without the label. It was the norm, during their lifetime. .
No they didn't. Chances are they ate grains, legumes, and dairy -- none of which are considered paleoI just don't get the Crusaders Against Paleo on the boards here, who rail against it without even knowing what it is. It's not about dinosaurs or prehistoric peoples at all. (Only in their imaginations, I guess. They have a surface knowledge that makes them feel informed and educated enough, I suppose, to sneer at the concept.)
Actually, we know exactly what it is -- a fad diet that arbitrarily eliminates food based on bad science.
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »homesweeths wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »
As far as snappy rejoinders go, meh.homesweeths wrote: »nakedraygun wrote: »No one follows atracymckenziephillips wrote: »Does anyone follow a paleo lifestyle? I started about a week and half ago and feel so much better
No one follows a paleo lifestyle, not even self described paleos.
You've just demonstrated very clearly that you have no idea what you're talking about. Amazing how that works. And you probably felt very clever doing it!
You do realize that all that "paleo eating" is one giant waste of magical thinking. Paleo eaters are no more paleo then the men who eat powdered rhino horn to improve their erections.
No, "paleo eating" is a label. It has little to do with cavemen, that's just a catchy image to talk about how people ate before the dawn of food additives and large-scale, industrial farming.
My great-grandparents ate "paleo style" without the label. It was the norm, during their lifetime. .
No they didn't. Chances are they ate grains, legumes, and dairy -- none of which are considered paleoI just don't get the Crusaders Against Paleo on the boards here, who rail against it without even knowing what it is. It's not about dinosaurs or prehistoric peoples at all. (Only in their imaginations, I guess. They have a surface knowledge that makes them feel informed and educated enough, I suppose, to sneer at the concept.)
Actually, we know exactly what it is -- a fad diet that arbitrarily eliminates food based on bad science.
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf
Right. And so is Weight Watchers (a fad diet), I hear, from one of the commenters here. Tell me, is there any diet that is *not* a fad?
Edit: Every single diet I tried (and all were fad diets, if you define "fad" as popular or based on a gimmick) worked for me. As long as I could stick to it. Even calorie-counting. On a lot of them, including Weight Watchers, I was hungry all the time, and it got harder and harder to sustain my willpower over time, and harder and harder to get back on the horse when I fell off. And calorie restriction stopped working after I reached a certain age, and exercise stopped working, too. I had resigned myself to being 90 lbs overweight, years before pain drove me to try paleo. The so-called paleo fad is the only one that I have found to be something I can sustain, conceivably for the rest of my life.
But then, I am not a paleo fanatic. I don't insist that it's good for everyone, or that it will work for everyone. I only insist that it has worked, and continues to work, for me. (And even if I don't lose another pound, I have already "accidentally" lost half of that excess weight. Without trying. Merely as a byproduct of eliminating foods that cause me pain.) If my pain returns because it has stopped working, well, guess I'll have to try something else.
All I know is, eating whatever I want (which is the only "non-fad" I can think of, unless you can offer another that is eluding me at present) is not a viable option. For me, at least.
p.s. I arbitrarily eliminated foods based on that "bad science" (though when I look at hormone physiology, it actually makes sense somehow, at least with what I remember of my biology, biochemistry, and chemistry training), and lo-and-behold, it worked for me. So I'm glad it gave me a starting point. Over the holidays I added some of the old foods back in, because I was feeling so good, but... Let's just say my body agrees with paleo principles of eliminating legumes, dairy, and grains. Might just be a coincidence. I'm just relieved to have found something that has given me my health back.0 -
I feel amazing since going Paleo. Honestly I can't remember the last time I felt so good. The diet makes so much sense. Its going back to what man is supposed to eat and what he has eaten for centuries. All this processed crap people eat loses a significant amount of its nutrition during processing. Did you know people a few thousand years ago lived to age 700? Everything they ate was organic/unprocessed food that we are supposed to be eating.0
-
barrelroll1 wrote: »I feel amazing since going Paleo. Honestly I can't remember the last time I felt so good. The diet makes so much sense. Its going back to what man is supposed to eat and what he has eaten for centuries. All this processed crap people eat loses a significant amount of its nutrition during processing. Did you know people a few thousand years ago lived to age 700? Everything they ate was organic/unprocessed food that we are supposed to be eating.
Um. You're kidding, right? If you're not kidding, I'd love to see some sources. Like archaeological, or biological anthropology (I think that's the right term, but I can't quite recall.) On second thought, "archeology" isn't right. Maybe it's paleontology?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
homesweeths wrote: »barrelroll1 wrote: »I feel amazing since going Paleo. Honestly I can't remember the last time I felt so good. The diet makes so much sense. Its going back to what man is supposed to eat and what he has eaten for centuries. All this processed crap people eat loses a significant amount of its nutrition during processing. Did you know people a few thousand years ago lived to age 700? Everything they ate was organic/unprocessed food that we are supposed to be eating.
Um. You're kidding, right? If you're not kidding, I'd love to see some sources. Like archaeological, or biological anthropology (I think that's the right term, but I can't quite recall.) On second thought, "archeology" isn't right. Maybe it's paleontology?
Actually its in the most historically accurate book in existence...the Bible. Moses lived to be 950 years old and his father lived to be 777.
0 -
For the OP and anybody else wanting a very quick meal no matter what type of style you're eating.
Cook some ground beef. When it's about more than half way done, add in sliced up peppers (green, red, and yellow). Stir together, let cook, and go nom. It would probably be great over whatever you want it to be, but it's a quick and easy meal. Ta-da!
Also, I recommend NomNom Paleo for a cookbook. She's funny and has really good recipes in it.0 -
Paleolithic people ate tubers and veggies which no longer exist. They also engaged in cannibalism. Good luck with that!0
-
homesweeths wrote: »barrelroll1 wrote: »I feel amazing since going Paleo. Honestly I can't remember the last time I felt so good. The diet makes so much sense. Its going back to what man is supposed to eat and what he has eaten for centuries. All this processed crap people eat loses a significant amount of its nutrition during processing. Did you know people a few thousand years ago lived to age 700? Everything they ate was organic/unprocessed food that we are supposed to be eating.
Um. You're kidding, right? If you're not kidding, I'd love to see some sources. Like archaeological, or biological anthropology (I think that's the right term, but I can't quite recall.) On second thought, "archeology" isn't right. Maybe it's paleontology?
No, you were right with archaeology (and biological anthropology, also called bioarchaeology). Though fossilised early human and pre-human remains can also fall under paleontology (paleoanthropology). It gets a bit confusing (and that's coming from an archaeologist!). And no, there is no evidence of any humans ever having lived to 700 years old.0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Paleolithic people ate tubers and veggies which no longer exist. They also engaged in cannibalism. Good luck with that!
Not all Paleolithic people engaged in cannibalism....and who cares if there are tubers and veggies that don't exist anymore? There are plenty of veggies from back then that are still around today. I think you're taking the name of the diet to an extreme. To follow the Paleo diet you don't have to live in a cave or hunt animals with a spear. Its simply eating the basic foods our distant ancestors ate. Lean meat, fruit, nuts, vegetables, eggs, etc. Not all this processed garbage.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »homesweeths wrote: »barrelroll1 wrote: »I feel amazing since going Paleo. Honestly I can't remember the last time I felt so good. The diet makes so much sense. Its going back to what man is supposed to eat and what he has eaten for centuries. All this processed crap people eat loses a significant amount of its nutrition during processing. Did you know people a few thousand years ago lived to age 700? Everything they ate was organic/unprocessed food that we are supposed to be eating.
Um. You're kidding, right? If you're not kidding, I'd love to see some sources. Like archaeological, or biological anthropology (I think that's the right term, but I can't quite recall.) On second thought, "archeology" isn't right. Maybe it's paleontology?
No, you were right with archaeology (and biological anthropology, also called bioarchaeology). Though fossilised early human and pre-human remains can also fall under paleontology (paleoanthropology). It gets a bit confusing (and that's coming from an archaeologist!). And no, there is no evidence of any humans ever having lived to 700 years old.
According to the most historically accurate book in existence people did live to be 700+ years. Thats enough evidence for me.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »homesweeths wrote: »barrelroll1 wrote: »I feel amazing since going Paleo. Honestly I can't remember the last time I felt so good. The diet makes so much sense. Its going back to what man is supposed to eat and what he has eaten for centuries. All this processed crap people eat loses a significant amount of its nutrition during processing. Did you know people a few thousand years ago lived to age 700? Everything they ate was organic/unprocessed food that we are supposed to be eating.
Um. You're kidding, right? If you're not kidding, I'd love to see some sources. Like archaeological, or biological anthropology (I think that's the right term, but I can't quite recall.) On second thought, "archeology" isn't right. Maybe it's paleontology?
No, you were right with archaeology (and biological anthropology, also called bioarchaeology). Though fossilised early human and pre-human remains can also fall under paleontology (paleoanthropology). It gets a bit confusing (and that's coming from an archaeologist!). And no, there is no evidence of any humans ever having lived to 700 years old.
Oh, thank you!
I'm aware of the creationist view that man's lifespan before the Flood was hundreds of years, but I thought that was attributed to the thick (mist canopy?) layer protecting the earth from radiation from space. It came down with the rain, I think I remember, which is why lifespans decreased afterward. (Kind of like today's concern about the ozone layer.) It's one explanation for long lifespans and the larger size of animal and plant fossils.
Some people have used those pre-flood lifespans to argue in favor of vegan eating. I've never heard it used to argue for paleo before. In the biblical account, meat eating didn't start until after the flood.
I was asking about physical evidence. Thanks for your professional answer.0 -
barrelroll1 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »homesweeths wrote: »barrelroll1 wrote: »I feel amazing since going Paleo. Honestly I can't remember the last time I felt so good. The diet makes so much sense. Its going back to what man is supposed to eat and what he has eaten for centuries. All this processed crap people eat loses a significant amount of its nutrition during processing. Did you know people a few thousand years ago lived to age 700? Everything they ate was organic/unprocessed food that we are supposed to be eating.
Um. You're kidding, right? If you're not kidding, I'd love to see some sources. Like archaeological, or biological anthropology (I think that's the right term, but I can't quite recall.) On second thought, "archeology" isn't right. Maybe it's paleontology?
No, you were right with archaeology (and biological anthropology, also called bioarchaeology). Though fossilised early human and pre-human remains can also fall under paleontology (paleoanthropology). It gets a bit confusing (and that's coming from an archaeologist!). And no, there is no evidence of any humans ever having lived to 700 years old.
According to the most historically accurate book in existence people did live to be 700+ years. Thats enough evidence for me.
Which book are you referring to?
0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »barrelroll1 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »homesweeths wrote: »barrelroll1 wrote: »I feel amazing since going Paleo. Honestly I can't remember the last time I felt so good. The diet makes so much sense. Its going back to what man is supposed to eat and what he has eaten for centuries. All this processed crap people eat loses a significant amount of its nutrition during processing. Did you know people a few thousand years ago lived to age 700? Everything they ate was organic/unprocessed food that we are supposed to be eating.
Um. You're kidding, right? If you're not kidding, I'd love to see some sources. Like archaeological, or biological anthropology (I think that's the right term, but I can't quite recall.) On second thought, "archeology" isn't right. Maybe it's paleontology?
No, you were right with archaeology (and biological anthropology, also called bioarchaeology). Though fossilised early human and pre-human remains can also fall under paleontology (paleoanthropology). It gets a bit confusing (and that's coming from an archaeologist!). And no, there is no evidence of any humans ever having lived to 700 years old.
According to the most historically accurate book in existence people did live to be 700+ years. Thats enough evidence for me.
Which book are you referring to?
The Bible0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions