Why the special (Paelo, Low Carb, Primal) diets?

xvolution

People follow diets like these for two main reasons: 1) It works for them, or 2) they have a medical condition where eating this way helps with that condition.

An example of the latter is for those who need to eat less sodium due to blood pressure/other issues. A paleo diet tends to be low in sodium content.

lemurcat12

NotSoPerfectPam wrote: »

I have been doing a Whole30 for 18 days. It sucks. Rides suck, running sucks. The diet is just stupid, and I don't find any validity to their claims. (you can eat white potatoes but you can't eat beans)

They used to say no potatoes either, but eventually couldn't come up with a reason for it that passed the laugh test. (The reason they were giving when I looked at it was that people might have french fries/chips, but is that a reason to say that roasted potatoes are verboten? Give a reason for no french fries if you want that to be the rule (even homemade).) I'm even good with that, since I can see that part of it was get away from easy "junk food" options.

No legumes is dumb too, granted, but the whole thing is extra super hardcore paleo, so you can't expect legumes to be permitted, as the diet generally doesn't.

But, I've lost 7 pounds in those 18 days, which is a nice loss for me on about 1700 calories a day. I was eating closer to 1500 and not losing anything. (though you aren't supposed to weigh yourself or track your calories on a whole30, another stupid thing)

Well, it's not supposed to be a diet, it's supposed to be about eating more healthfully (although that is not always the case, IMO, I don't think their rules would make my own diet more healthy), and seeing if you have any food sensitivities. (Being curious about that and also liking a challenge is why I considered doing it, but then I decided the most challenging parts -- no dairy or potatoes (at that time) were rules that I thought were based in no good reason, so I did not, did my own thing.) Anyway, I get the attraction to the challenge and wanting to finish it, even if you are finding it stupid.

I'm going to keep it up till the end of the 30 days because my kids are looking at me regarding the commitment. If they weren't around, I'd stop. Though I do tell them it's stupid. Anyway, it's not clear why I'm losing weight (some of it is water weight).

If you are accidentally going lower carb (easy to do on Whole30 or even regular paleo) or cutting out higher sodium foods (if you were eating less whole foods based before, for example), water weight is likely the reason. Another is that some ways of eating can be easier to underlog and some to overlog, and a whole foods based diet can be less calories on paper because I think higher fiber foods often tend to be, as does meat.

tlflag1620

I had a very hard time adhering to simple calorie counting. I felt too hungry to consistantly create the necessary deficit long enough to reach my goal. I tried LCHF and it was like someone flipped a switch. Suddenly I could eat a lot less, without all the hunger. This allowed me to remain in a deficit long enough to lose the weight I needed to lose, plus some additional "vanity" lbs that I never thought I could lose!

I see it as working smarter, rather than harder. So yes, I am doing a "special" woe (not a "diet", I've been eating this way for over three years, and most of that time I've been in maintenance, so I don't regard LCHF as a "diet" anymore) to make weight management easier for me. Why would I want to take the harder path?* You don't get bonus points for suffering.

* I realize many people find straight calorie counting easier than doing a LC diet, and in that case, they are working smarter, not harder, if they stick with just calorie restriction. It's all about finding what is easiest for you, so you can stick with it long term. Again, weight loss shouldn't make you miserable. If it does, you might want to rethink your approach.

biggsterjackster

Low carb is not a diet for me. I eat like this for the rest of my life. Protein keeps me way more satisfied than carbs. It's a lifestyle for me, nothing forced for a few weeks.

lemurcat12

I actually distinguish between low carbing and special diets, like paleo (which also can be a "lifestyle," of course, or "clean eating").

My problem with paleo and other such (which is not to say it doesn't work for people, as it clearly does, for some, and I did it for a bit myself) is that I don't see anything achieved by it that wouldn't be better achieved by thinking through and coming up with your own personal way to eat (which wouldn't make sense to call paleo, IMO). Grains don't work for you, even whole grains? Lactose intolerant? Cut out grains and dairy. But the particular rules that work for me (since I don't agree that the opposite of a special diet is thinking ONLY about calories) are not at all the same as the paleo ones -- I think it's important to eat protein at each meal (normally, I make exceptions), to eat mostly whole foods, to eat lots of vegetables at every meal (when possible), etc., but I also think it's important to get protein from non animal sources for a good amount of my meals (meaning legumes), that potatoes are a lovely addition to my diet and so are whole grains, that worrying about eating too much summer fruit if everything else is met is pointless FOR ME, that I care about eating seasonally and what happens to be available from the farm I subscribe to is more important to me than macro percentages, etc.

But low carb isn't really that regimented. It's just saying "this is the macro ratio that feels most satiating and works best for me, I will usually eat to it, with whatever foods I choose." While I don't care that much about specific macros, I don't think watching macros is the same thing as following a specific diet that bans specific foods (for reasons beyond personal issues with them).

Skyblueyellow

Because diabetes.

That's why I watch my carbs. It's a WOE for me and totally sustainable. Do I wish I could have more? Yep. Sure do. But I like my feet and I love being able to see so keeping my glucose readings tightly controlled is imperative. I'd like to dance with my sons on their weddings days and see their beautiful brides (or grooms--whatever). That's why I do it.

toe1226

I think especially in our culture right now (in the U.S.), there's this weird cross between thinking people should look a certain way (thin, fit)- combined with fighting that norm with body positivity and a kind of anti-diet movement. I think that there are people in my generation (20's 30's) who would be embarrassed to say they were going on a diet, or using weight watchers, or even using this app, because they don't want to give the appearance that they care, but WOULD say that they eat "primal" or "paleo" because this is more aligned with "fitness" rather than weight loss. ...So I think that is one reason.

I will say as far as weight loss, I think all that stuff is really unnecessary and eating less and moving more is really what it comes down to. That being said, while I wouldn't identify as "paleo" or "primal" or whatever those things are - I will state that eating a high protein and fat diet has allowed me to recomp my body and make it LOOK a particular way that I like, unrelated to its weight. BUT when I want a piece of chocolate, I have MY favorite piece of chocolate or cake or whatever it is, not some primal branded coconut oil over marketed hype treat that supposedly fits into their principles.

so those are my two cents.

lodro

Noel_57 wrote: »

Once upon a time Atkins was the only low carb diet and Dr. Atkins said as long as you kept your carbohydrate level very low, weight loss would follow. He never said calories don't count, but that it wasn't really necessary to count them or keep a food journal. Even today, low carb message boards are full of people asking why they aren't losing, or are stalled out, even though their carb intake is at a ketogenic level. The answer is obvious. Here at MFP where reality takes a front row, even low carb folks agree calories are what matters when it comes to weight loss. All the low carb books out there (along with your link to the article) always point at insulin as the boogeyman of obesity. What they always fail to mention is that everything you eat triggers insulin release, not just carbs. And high insulin levels are not a cause of obesity. It's actually the other way around. That's what an endocrinologist told me.

"an endocrinologist" is probably not up to date with latest research

http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/news-releases/year-2014/august/high-insulin.html

lodro

Francl27 wrote: »

There's the whole 'carbs are evil' mentality, but I'm sure it's sustainable for 'some' people... but probably for big meat eaters vs people with a sweet tooth (totally generalizing).

yes indeed, I'm a vegetarian for religious reasons and I eat to a ketogenic pattern. So there: your black swan.

stealthq

lodro wrote: »

Noel_57 wrote: »

Once upon a time Atkins was the only low carb diet and Dr. Atkins said as long as you kept your carbohydrate level very low, weight loss would follow. He never said calories don't count, but that it wasn't really necessary to count them or keep a food journal. Even today, low carb message boards are full of people asking why they aren't losing, or are stalled out, even though their carb intake is at a ketogenic level. The answer is obvious. Here at MFP where reality takes a front row, even low carb folks agree calories are what matters when it comes to weight loss. All the low carb books out there (along with your link to the article) always point at insulin as the boogeyman of obesity. What they always fail to mention is that everything you eat triggers insulin release, not just carbs. And high insulin levels are not a cause of obesity. It's actually the other way around. That's what an endocrinologist told me.

"an endocrinologist" is probably not up to date with latest research

http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/news-releases/year-2014/august/high-insulin.html

That research does not indicate insulin is a cause of obesity. It does indicate that excessive amounts of insulin bypass or overcome inadequate fat storage in mice genetically altered to lack glucagon receptors. Normal mice would have been fat on the amounts these mice were fed prior to insulin administration.

It also indicates that glucagon is likely a good target for diabetes treatment.

jpc763

I have not read all of the replies but thought I would put my story out there. 8 years ago I went on the South Beach Diet and lost 50+ lbs. I felt great, exercised all of the time and looked great. South Beach is low carb and low fat so I gave up many of the things that I love to eat. Over the next & years, life happened. I had some personal losses and some bad job situations that got me down. I said screw it and just ate the things that I liked.

Fast forward to last year around this time and my Doctor is warning me about becoming type II. I had a couple of borderline A1C readings and he said it was just a matter of time unless I lost weight.

I went back on South Beach and fell off, 5 or 6 times. Exercise was not a problem because I have always been active. I did a lot of cycling at pretty good speeds 16+ mph for 15-20 miles, 2 to 3 times per week. I did not lose any real weight. This spring, I was talking with a friend at work who lost a lot of weight and he told me about the Keto diet. I was not very enthusiastic about it until I read up on it. It was calorie counting the foods that I already eat. I did give up bread and other carbs as I am limited to 28g of carbs per day, but I did not give up the vast majority of foods that I eat regularly. I had to add more vegetables which is still a struggle but I have done so for the most part. I also mixed up my exercise with cardio machines at the gym. I plan to add weight lifting to the plan in the next few weeks.

I have been on this diet for 95 days and have lost 39 lbs. As I get closer to my goal (which is a moving target now), I think about what is going to happen next. I have an appointment with my doctor and plan to discuss with him. Do I add carbs back? I don't know at this point. Eating this way has been easy for me.

So in summary, I am on a Keto diet because it is calorie counting the way I already eat so it is easy for me.

aliem

SLLRunner wrote: »

aliem wrote: »

I do it because it works for me and it keeps me on track. I often do Whole30s (a modified version of Paleo). I noticed that eating cleanly, I will lose more weight eating more calories (with exercise held constant) than I do with just a straight restriction.

I've lost 7 pounds in those 18 days, which is a nice loss for me on about 1700 calories a day. I was eating closer to 1500 and not losing anything. (though you aren't supposed to weigh yourself or track your calories on a whole30, another stupid thing)

I'm not really clear on these statements. A deficit is 100% required to lose weight, so either you are eating less calories than you realize while losing at the same rate, or you are eating more calories while still in a deficit and losing at a slower rate.

Diet type is preference only and you can't cheat a calorie deficit.

I mean I weigh or measure out my food so I know that it is not 100% calorie deficit for me. In both situations, I am in a calorie deficit and in both situations I lose weight. When I eat cleanly, focusing on protein and healthy fats (not just Whole30), the pounds come off faster. I believe that this is because some of the additives in the foods do have an impact on our bodies and when I give them up, it is easier to lose weight (and I have done less accurate versions of body fat % (i.e. the handheld device), which supports that a good part of it after the first week is fat.) Like I said. Everyone is different. My sister is a vegetarian and lives on a high carb, high fat diet (yes she eats fairly healthy, but the amount of cheetos and pizza she eats would definitely not work for me!) and it is pretty much impossible for her to gain weight.

NotSoPerfectPam

I believe that this is because some of the additives in the foods do have an impact on our bodies and when I give them up, it is easier to lose weight (and I have done less accurate versions of body fat % (i.e. the handheld device), which supports that a good part of it after the first week is fat.) Like I said. Everyone is different.

This. Sorry. I don't buy that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. I've been counting calories for two years and when I cut down on my carbs and eat the same, I lose more weight

SLLRunner

aliem wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

aliem wrote: »

I do it because it works for me and it keeps me on track. I often do Whole30s (a modified version of Paleo). I noticed that eating cleanly, I will lose more weight eating more calories (with exercise held constant) than I do with just a straight restriction.

I've lost 7 pounds in those 18 days, which is a nice loss for me on about 1700 calories a day. I was eating closer to 1500 and not losing anything. (though you aren't supposed to weigh yourself or track your calories on a whole30, another stupid thing)

I'm not really clear on these statements. A deficit is 100% required to lose weight, so either you are eating less calories than you realize while losing at the same rate, or you are eating more calories while still in a deficit and losing at a slower rate.

Diet type is preference only and you can't cheat a calorie deficit.

I mean I weigh or measure out my food so I know that it is not 100% calorie deficit for me. In both situations, I am in a calorie deficit and in both situations I lose weight. When I eat cleanly, focusing on protein and healthy fats (not just Whole30), the pounds come off faster. I believe that this is because some of the additives in the foods do have an impact on our bodies and when I give them up, it is easier to lose weight (and I have done less accurate versions of body fat % (i.e. the handheld device), which supports that a good part of it after the first week is fat.) Like I said. Everyone is different. My sister is a vegetarian and lives on a high carb, high fat diet (yes she eats fairly healthy, but the amount of cheetos and pizza she eats would definitely not work for me!) and it is pretty much impossible for her to gain weight.

No, not everyone is different when it comes to a calorie deficit- a calorie deficit to lose weight applies to every single person, even if some have higher or lower TDEEs based on medical conditions and/or exercise. If your sister ate over her TDEE, she would gain weight-just like anyone else, but instead she eats at maintenance.

Anytime you eat less carbs, there will be a drop on the scale because carbs cause water retention, but actual fat loss takes time and a calorie deficit.

SLLRunner

aliem wrote: »

SLLRunner wrote: »

aliem wrote: »

I do it because it works for me and it keeps me on track. I often do Whole30s (a modified version of Paleo). I noticed that eating cleanly, I will lose more weight eating more calories (with exercise held constant) than I do with just a straight restriction.

I've lost 7 pounds in those 18 days, which is a nice loss for me on about 1700 calories a day. I was eating closer to 1500 and not losing anything. (though you aren't supposed to weigh yourself or track your calories on a whole30, another stupid thing)

I'm not really clear on these statements. A deficit is 100% required to lose weight, so either you are eating less calories than you realize while losing at the same rate, or you are eating more calories while still in a deficit and losing at a slower rate.

Diet type is preference only and you can't cheat a calorie deficit.

I mean I weigh or measure out my food so I know that it is not 100% calorie deficit for me. In both situations, I am in a calorie deficit and in both situations I lose weight. When I eat cleanly, focusing on protein and healthy fats (not just Whole30), the pounds come off faster. I believe that this is because some of the additives in the foods do have an impact on our bodies and when I give them up, it is easier to lose weight (and I have done less accurate versions of body fat % (i.e. the handheld device), which supports that a good part of it after the first week is fat.) Like I said. Everyone is different. My sister is a vegetarian and lives on a high carb, high fat diet (yes she eats fairly healthy, but the amount of cheetos and pizza she eats would definitely not work for me!) and it is pretty much impossible for her to gain weight.

No, not everyone is different when it comes to a calorie deficit- a calorie deficit to lose weight applies to every single person, even if some have higher or lower TDEEs based on medical conditions and/or exercise. If your sister ate over her TDEE, she would gain weight-just like anyone else, but instead she eats at maintenance.

Anytime you eat less carbs, there will be a drop on the scale because carbs cause water retention, but actual fat loss takes time and a calorie deficit.

KateTii

From what i've seen, the people who choose paleo/low carb/etc. usually fit into one or more of the following;

• Saw it and trying it, usually has been into "fad" diets/quick before - may think it's the miracle secret to weightloss but don't know too much more
• Have a medical reason to eliminate certain foods and these diets fit in well with what they need medically
• Find it easier to eliminate foods rather than have them in moderation
• Struggles with (has struggled before) becoming obsessive over calories or finds calorie counting unsuitable for their lifestyle.
• Like the structure or find the "rules" of the diet motivating
• Agree with the philosophy/reasoning behind eating that way
• Feel more satisfied/full/more energy from consumption of certain macros

Personally, I find calorie counting more sustainable for me as I don't like being locked into what I can and cannot eat but don't mind having limits on how much I can eat. For me, it helps me make a logical decision on what to eat. But CICO is the rule, how we meet that rule is up to us and everyone needs to find what works for them.