Paleo or no Paleo there lies the question.
Replies
-
Calorie control is what matters for weight control, but if there are things you liked about paleo that you can stick with long-term, why not keep up with those and then figure out what else you need to keep from overeating (what habits tend to maybe contribute to that). Not saying it's easy -- I agree that maintenance is the hard part!
I did paleo briefly, and some of the things I liked about it are things I still do (and generally did before too)--stuff like eating lots of vegetables, cutting down on grains since I don't tend to love them (this is also why cutting them out seemed pointless for me), doing lots of home cooking, focusing on where my meat comes from and seasonality when possible (this is more for ethical reasons and because it makes cooking at home more interesting, but still). Another thing I always mean to do is eating more organ meats, and my gardening is so-so, but these are all things I like that paleo encourages and that work for me, even though I happen to believe that whole grains, legumes, and dairy are healthy and am not interested in cutting out all sugar.0 -
I do not consider myself to be paleo. It's not a label I ascribe to myself but I think I am fairly close to a paleo diet.
To me, it seems like a healthy way to eat. Eat fresh fruits and veggies, grass fe meats, wild seafood, eggs, nuts, seeds and healthy fats. Sure, that might be a problem for people who "need" their bread or skim milk (I eat cheese and cream therefore am not paleo) but there is nothing wrong (meaning unhealthy) with eating that way. I am sure it is mostly beneficial for those who follow it in the long term.
I have a good friend who has basically eaten a paleo diet for a good decade. It helped her health. She is not anal or judgemental about anyone else's diet nor does she force it on others. Just looking at her one can tell that it is a healthy diet for her.
It's not a weight loss plan, IMHO. It is a way work towards optimizing one's health.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.
1. My roots are northeastern European. Big game and less edible plant options (than down south) would have been common. It's working for me.
2. What foods would have caused cancer back then?
3. I read that agriculture didn't really hit northern Europe until the Romans tried coming north. That would be roughly 2000 years ago. I could be wrong.
4. You are probably right.
Someone mentioned celiac disease. Funnily enough it is most common in those of northern European decent.
1. People tend to assume their ancestry - genetic tests often end up a surprise for many.
2. The point is who would know? Few people lived long enough to get to an age where cancer was likely to happen.
3. People have eaten sedges for 4 million years. Also, odd that Northern Europeans have some of the highest rates of lactase persistence if they didn't have agriculture (at least herding style) until very, very recently.
1. That is possible. I certainly LOOK northern European and am certain my ancestors were in northern Europe (Germany, Poland, Siberia) since the 1700's). I guess if you want to back far enough, we all came from Africa (based on my beliefs).
2. Exactly.
3. But did they farm the sedges as one of their main sources of food? My guess is they used the sources they found and perhaps tried to nuture and protect those sources as their abilities and knowledge allowed. I was not really thinking of the raising of animals as agriculture when I wrote my previous response. My mistake.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
1. My roots are northeastern European. Big game and less edible plant options (than down south) would have been common. It's working for me.
As far back as paleo times? Given population migrations, I suspect none of us really know. I suppose you can do one of those deep DNA test things, but it's still going to be extremely incomplete, and chances are we are all mixes.
Also, chances are the foods currently available to us bear no real resemblance.
My ancestry is pretty much northwestern European, to my knowledge (which is incomplete, again) and that seems to correctly predict that I do well with dairy--which the paleo folks would have me dismiss.
Any diet that suggests that plant foods like fruits and veg are unhealthy because some climates made them difficult to get much of the year (hmm, much like the climate I currently live in) is, IMO, not very well supported or thought-out. However, most definitions of paleo I've seen -- and why I do think it's usually reasonably healthy -- are very pro such foods, suggesting that you should start by getting at least half of your plate from vegetables, for example.
Not authentic to the name, given food choices, but not a bad way to eat.
Of course I can't be sure. There could be mixing. My ancestry has been northeastern European for about 300years. If a line of my ancestors came from tropical areas like SE Asia, or Africa, the DNA has probably been fairly diluted by now.
I assume the paleo diet is based on paleolithic Europe. It's marketed by a bunch of white people and seems to be aimed at us. There weren't a lot of corn and poataoes, or mangos or tomatoes for us back then. It doesn't mean those foods are bad for us, just that we didn't evolve while using them. It's not the end of the world if someone chooses to skip pineapple every week, it's just a personal choice. More for others who don't subscribe to the idea of moderating the fruits that did not grow naturally, year round near their ancestors.janejellyroll wrote: »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.
2. What foods would have caused cancer back then?
I believe that grilling meat has been linked to cancer. Presumably this link also would have existed in paleolithic times.
Good point.3. I read that agriculture didn't really hit northern Europe until the Romans tried coming north. That would be roughly 2000 years ago. I could be wrong.
"This suggests the Neolithic people had relatively little plant food in their diet and instead were consuming large amounts of meat. It could also mean they were eating a lot of animal by-products, like milk and cheese, as these are indistinguishable from meat itself using stable isotopes. " - England. http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba12/BA12FEAT.HTML
Interesting link. Thanks.0 -
I do not consider myself to be paleo. It's not a label I ascribe to myself but I think I am fairly close to a paleo diet.
Based on how you've described your diet, doesn't seem like it. There's nothing inherently low carb about paleo -- they tend to be wild about vegetables (stressing that they should be half of a plate, just like normal nutrition advice) and big on some starchy veg like sweet potatoes and plantains which would be killer on keto. Most seem to be pro fruit, and Robb Wolf has been saying how being affiliated with low carb is the biggest mistake paleo made, so I don't see him promoting a carnivorous or near carnivorous diet. There are some who are more on the low carb side, of course.
And true paleo would be anti butter and cream and most bacon and other processed meats (see Loren Cordain), which keto is not.0 -
From a marketing perspective Paleo has to be one of the most success diets ever.0
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »From a marketing perspective Paleo has to be one of the most success diets ever.
How so?0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »From a marketing perspective Paleo has to be one of the most success diets ever.
How so?
Most googled diet 2013, 2014 and is up near the top so far for 2015.
Whether you like or dislike the diet its now a well known 'global' brand - that's pretty impressive.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »From a marketing perspective Paleo has to be one of the most success diets ever.
How so?
Most googled diet 2013, 2014 and is up near the top so far for 2015.
Whether you like or dislike the diet its now a well known brand - that's pretty impressive.
But other diets have been as well known. Atkins for example. They even had Atkins menu items at chain restaurants.
Weight Watchers is another one that has been popular forever. Might not be most googled but I'm willing to be it is more popular/well known than Paleo.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »From a marketing perspective Paleo has to be one of the most success diets ever.
How so?
Most googled diet 2013, 2014 and is up near the top so far for 2015.
Whether you like or dislike the diet its now a well known brand - that's pretty impressive.
But other diets have been as well known. Atkins for example. They even had Atkins menu items at chain restaurants.
Weight Watchers is another one that has been popular forever. Might not be most googled but I'm willing to be it is more popular/well known than Paleo.
That's correct that's why i said 'one of' rather than 'the'.
I think the brand success of weight watchers and Aitkins have both been phenomenal.
Also some food chains are cashing in and adding paleo friendly options to their menus too.0
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