Paleo or no Paleo there lies the question.
Heamous
Posts: 50 Member
I have a few of my friends that want to start to do paleo, but they said that a lot of people are telling them that Paleo is bad for your health and bad to lose weight as well.
What do you guys think:
What do you guys think:
0
Replies
-
I think if it's something you want to do, you might try it.
It's utterly unnecessary.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »I think if it's something you want to do, you might try it.
It's utterly unnecessary.
my feelings exactly. The emphasis of whole food is good, but some of the "reasoning" is just laughable.0 -
Tried it for 9 months and the only thing I learned is that when I restrict foods, I tend to crave them more. I really don't like plans with a lot of rules. I rather just focus on getting 80-90% of my calories from whole sources (fruits, veggies, meats, fish, dairy, whole grains) and throw in some treats.
Besides, Paleo restricts a lot of good nutrient dense foods which is mind blowing like beans and nuts.0 -
I can't fathom how it would be worse for your health than the western pattern (AKA SAD) diet.I have a few of my friends that want to start to do paleo, but they said that a lot of people are telling them that Paleo is bad for your health and bad to lose weight as well.
What do you guys think:
If you want to try it, try it.
It's not necessary in any way for weight loss.0 -
I have a few of my friends that want to start to do paleo, but they said that a lot of people are telling them that Paleo is bad for your health and bad to lose weight as well.
What do you guys think:
Paleo is not for everyone, but I don't think I've ever heard someone say it's bad for your health...0 -
You need a calorie deficit. What you comprise that of is up to you. If you eat too much meat or too much anything you won't lose a gram.
I eat protein heavy on occasion and carb heavy on other occasions. I do whatever I need to do to stay under calories (most of the time).0 -
As long as you are still getting proper nutrition and don't have any medical reason not to try it (I'd suggest checking with your physician if you have any active medical diagnoses) I can't see why it would be bad for your health.
But, it is a very restrictive diet. I would suggest giving due consideration to how sustainable you think the diet would be for you. Will you be able to stick to it until you reach goal? Do you plan to follow it after you reach your goal? If not, what is your plan for maintaining the loss? I think the answers to questions like these should guide your decision.0 -
I have a few of my friends that want to start to do paleo, but they said that a lot of people are telling them that Paleo is bad for your health and bad to lose weight as well.
What do you guys think:
It is not bad for your health and if eating the diet in a calorie deficit will be as successful for weight lose as any other diet.
If they are interested and they are free thinking adults they should give it a try.
It will either suit them or it won't.0 -
What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.0 -
Are you going to stick to this for a lifetime? My advice is never give up anything for a diet that you can't or won't give up forever.
Losing weight is actually the easier part. Keeping it off is harder. You need to build up good habits now or you'll regain when the diet ends.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Are you going to stick to this for a lifetime? My advice is never give up anything for a diet that you can't or won't give up forever.
Losing weight is actually the easier part. Keeping it off is harder. You need to build up good habits now or you'll regain when the diet ends.
Spot on! I feel more and more that the best diet is just eating the foods you like, but keeping the calorie intake at the maintenance level for the weight you want to be.0 -
I'm all for not eating grains if one truly needs to not eat grains, but not eating grains because our ancestors did not is not a rationale that holds up.
Thirty thousand-year-old evidence of plant food processing
For Evolving Brains, a ‘Paleo’ Diet of Carbs
The Importance of Dietary Carbohydrate in Human Evolution
0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Are you going to stick to this for a lifetime? My advice is never give up anything for a diet that you can't or won't give up forever.
Losing weight is actually the easier part. Keeping it off is harder. You need to build up good habits now or you'll regain when the diet ends.
QFT. Any change to your diet you make now needs to be one you can live with the rest of your life. It's perfectly fine to try things, but there is no magic food or diet that will make you lose weight. All the fad diets out there worked for someone, and if you feel it might work for you and you'll be getting the nutrition you need from it, then try it. But if you try and find you don't like it and can't imagine living with it the rest of your life, it's not for you.
If you're looking for some direction to try, my suggestion is to focus on slowly lowering the amount of calories you eat by adjust the amount of food you eat. It helps to swap out some servings of 'junk' food (high calorie, low nutrition foods) with better nutrition choices, but you don't have to cut out all the things you like. Just learn what an actual portion of those foods is and work them into your day if you want them.0 -
Tried it for 9 months and the only thing I learned is that when I restrict foods, I tend to crave them more. I really don't like plans with a lot of rules. I rather just focus on getting 80-90% of my calories from whole sources (fruits, veggies, meats, fish, dairy, whole grains) and throw in some treats.
Besides, Paleo restricts a lot of good nutrient dense foods which is mind blowing like beans and nuts.
Exactly. If you're struggling with food, adding more rules won't make your struggle easier. It will make it even more difficult.0 -
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.
0 -
As if.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
As if.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.
excellent answer, as always.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.
What does it say about # 4?
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?0 -
My personal friends that are eating Paleo diet always go back to stuffing their faces with bread, grain etc....Just an observation. I find it funny when we go out to dinner and they hog the bread basket. To each their own. I think a little bit of all foods makes it easier.0
-
I'm not fond of restricting foods for the sake of restricting them. The rationale behind the Paleo diet isn't based on anything vaguely resembling a real Paleo diet.
That being said, there's nothing inherently unhealthy about the food, the main thing about any diet used for weight loss will be creating a calorie deficit.
OP, if you want to go Paleo to create your calorie deficit, go for it. There's no harm in it, but there's really no need to do it either.
I've done Paleo in the past. I've done lots of different named diets in the past. I've found it far easier to just ... eat. I like a wide variety of nutritious foods and needlessly restricting grains or beans or dairy just made me miserable. Eating them in portions which fit within my calorie goals makes me happy and makes losing weight feel effortless. I don't feel like I'm "on" a diet. My diet is what I eat. How much of it I eat controls my weight.
0 -
mattyc772014 wrote: »My personal friends that are eating Paleo diet always go back to stuffing their faces with bread, grain etc....Just an observation. I find it funny when we go out to dinner and they hog the bread basket. To each their own. I think a little bit of all foods makes it easier.
Easier is such a personal thing. Easier for you does not necessarily mean easier to someone else.0 -
mattyc772014 wrote: »My personal friends that are eating Paleo diet always go back to stuffing their faces with bread, grain etc....Just an observation. I find it funny when we go out to dinner and they hog the bread basket. To each their own. I think a little bit of all foods makes it easier.
Yup. I've experienced this to some extent myself - didn't follow any particular diet, ate very balanced, just had a lot less bread for 18 months... now I'm craving grains
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »mattyc772014 wrote: »My personal friends that are eating Paleo diet always go back to stuffing their faces with bread, grain etc....Just an observation. I find it funny when we go out to dinner and they hog the bread basket. To each their own. I think a little bit of all foods makes it easier.
Easier is such a personal thing. Easier for you does not necessarily mean easier to someone else.
True....Hence why I said I think. You really need to find your own path in all aspects of life.0 -
Right, because the uncertainties over #1 isn't an ongoing debate even among those who support paleo. If you're under the mistaken belief that there is a "the" paleo that's going to give a single answer to that question, you should branch out in your nerd reading, because it simply isn't true.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As if.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.
excellent answer, as always.
0 -
I think names for ways of eating are not always very helpful. I try to eat low carb high fat as I feel better that way. I also try not to eat refined foods and that principle is loosely Paleo. I also think that make one change at a time and rather than being extreme. It is making drastic changes too quickly that can make people feel unwell and give 'diets' a bad name I think.0
-
BeccaColliesBurton wrote: »I think names for ways of eating are not always very helpful. I try to eat low carb high fat as I feel better that way. I also try not to eat refined foods and that principle is loosely Paleo. I also think that make one change at a time and rather than being extreme. It is making drastic changes too quickly that can make people feel unwell and give 'diets' a bad name I think.
Not every diet is for everyone, which is why if someone tells you 'i cut this out and lost weight', you take it with a grain of salt. (unless that's what you're cutting out XD). Everyone has to work out the best eating plan for themselves, and changing a few things at a time or slowly easing onto a diet plan is a good way to see if it will work well for you.0 -
I have a few of my friends that want to start to do paleo, but they said that a lot of people are telling them that Paleo is bad for your health and bad to lose weight as well.
What do you guys think:
If it appeals to them, there's nothing unhealthy about it (it can be done in an unhealthy way, but that's like everything else). If you keep a calorie deficit while doing it, it's a perfectly good way to lose weight.
However, it has no health benefits or weight loss benefits over just eating a healthy diet with a calorie deficit. And as others have mentioned, the "paleo" rationale isn't convincing and it excludes foods which many find to be quite healthful or helpful, like legumes and dairy, whole grains.0 -
I tried it and found it too restrictive. I didn't lose weight any better either. Some people love it, but you can't be a lover of variety and do it long term IMO.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
As if.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.
Anyone else immediately think of clueless?0 -
Finally.DeguelloTex wrote: »
As if.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.
Anyone else immediately think of clueless?
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
- 426 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