Paelo Dieters how is your colon???

Dragonwolf

More talk about a lifestyle by people who have no experience with it. Eating healthy unprocessed food is a "fad"? Love the logic. Keep eating your pop tarts and boxed cereal. We'll see who gets the health problems, including the colon. In fact, I seem to eat more veggies than the average joe, right along with my 6-8 ounces per day of meat.

PS. I've heard/read many first hand accounts of long-time vegans who report that their plant-based diet destroyed their health.... and they were not junk food vegans. But I suppose their first hand experience is invalid as well. Newsflash, we are not monkeys and I'd love to hear your theories on the historical diet of the Inuit, and other aboriginal groups that lived in challenging climates.

If a vegetarian and vegan are not supplementing with vitamins/minerals then they will cause a lot of health problems to surface from deficiencies. Eating healthy unprocessed foods is not the FAD. But following a specific diet like Paleo is a FAD. You don't need a specific diet formula to eat healthy and unprocessed foods. Following diet restrictions and rules is what makes up the FAD aspect.

The fact that you think Paleo is "a specific diet" shows just how little you know about it.

WendyTerry420

Bummer! I was hoping this would be pro-grain rather than anti-meat!~ Aw nuts!

brower47

You might have some chlorinated water in your colon based on that gif. Ouch.

This is how real men get an enema.

Real man enema: Poorly executed double front flip off the low dive. 90% of the time, it works every time.

It can only be improved if it's done off the high dive. Man up or get out.

jwdieter

The fact that you think Paleo is "a specific diet" shows just how little you know about it.

Paleo has numerous dietary restrictions. Cereal grains, legumes, potatoes, salt, etc.

Mr_Knight

The fact that you think Paleo is "a specific diet" shows just how little you know about it.

I ate "paleo" for a year. It absolutely is "a specific diet". Anything that says "don't eat this giant class of foods" is "a specific diet".

Dragonwolf

The fact that you think Paleo is "a specific diet" shows just how little you know about it.

Paleo has numerous dietary restrictions. Cereal grains, legumes, potatoes, salt, etc.

Potatoes and salt are just fine (in fact, if you do one of the low carb, high fat variations, you actually need quite a bit of salt to maintain electrolyte balance, due to the nature of low-carb, high-fat). The only flat-out restrictions are grains, legumes, dairy, and seed/vegetable oils. Everything else depends entirely on your individual needs.

That doesn't make it "a specific diet." What I eat looks nothing like what Akima eats, yet we both subscribe to the same "Paleo" guidelines. The only thing her diet and mine have in common is the exclusion of grains, legumes, and seed/vegetable oils.

I ate "paleo" for a year. It absolutely is "a specific diet". Anything that says "don't eat this giant class of foods" is "a specific diet".

That's a pretty broad definition. I would think that "a specific diet" would be...well...specific. The only thing "specific" about it is avoiding grains, legumes, and seed/vegetable oils. Beyond that, it's nothing more than a set of guidelines, not unlike the USDA food pyramid is a set of guidelines ("eat plants and animals"). As I mentioned above, Akima and I eat very different things, despite both being "Paleo".

I'd say the Special K or SlimFast diet is a better example of a "specific diet," because you have to eat a very small selection of specific things almost exclusively ("eat/drink only our products for breakfast, lunch, and in-between snacks"). The same would go for the "Cabbage Soup diet" and the "grapefruit diet."

LiftAllThePizzas

Paleo is a specific diet like "christian" is a specific religion.

Mr_Knight

Potatoes and salt are just fine

Potatoes are not a paleo food.

I'd say the Special K or SlimFast diet is a better example of a "specific diet," because you have to eat a very small selection of specific things almost exclusively ("eat/drink only our products for breakfast, lunch, and in-between snacks"). The same would go for the "Cabbage Soup diet" and the "grapefruit diet."

Those are even more specific, yes.

shining_light

My biggest problem with paleo: I was going to the toilet far too often. Seriously, going #2 that many times in one day REALLY disrupts your life. TMI, I know. But this was my most notable experience.

The only paleo remnant I have kept in my diet is not eating most grains. I eat rice on occasion, but glutenous grains are out for a variety of health reasons. I do not consider myself to be following a gluten-free diet, just eating what my body will and will not tolerate. I tolerate oats alright(I suppose they don't have gluten in and of themselves, though they are often contaminated with it), so I'm probably not highly sensitive to gluten, but wheat? Forget it.

So yeah, grains are, for the most part, out, but everything else is back in. I could not go any extended period of time without eating spicy hummus. And then just following the sensible stuff, like don't add sweeteners and fake stuff to everything. I am very proud to say that I am now 10 days free of diet soda. I'm trying really hard on this one.

WendyTerry420

The fact that you think Paleo is "a specific diet" shows just how little you know about it.

Paleo has numerous dietary restrictions. Cereal grains, legumes, potatoes, salt, etc.

Potatoes and salt are just fine (in fact, if you do one of the low carb, high fat variations, you actually need quite a bit of salt to maintain electrolyte balance, due to the nature of low-carb, high-fat). The only flat-out restrictions are grains, legumes, dairy, and seed/vegetable oils. Everything else depends entirely on your individual needs.

That doesn't make it "a specific diet." What I eat looks nothing like what Akima eats, yet we both subscribe to the same "Paleo" guidelines. The only thing her diet and mine have in common is the exclusion of grains, legumes, and seed/vegetable oils.

I ate "paleo" for a year. It absolutely is "a specific diet". Anything that says "don't eat this giant class of foods" is "a specific diet".

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

pcastagner

Chimps eat baboons, regularly. Just saying...

Mr_Knight

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

"Prima diet" is a marketing term owned by a certain supplement-selling website jockey. It has no technical or scientific meaning, and the definition has changed over the years, depending on which way the wind was blowing through the supplement-seller's ears.

Dragonwolf

The fact that you think Paleo is "a specific diet" shows just how little you know about it.

Paleo has numerous dietary restrictions. Cereal grains, legumes, potatoes, salt, etc.

Potatoes and salt are just fine (in fact, if you do one of the low carb, high fat variations, you actually need quite a bit of salt to maintain electrolyte balance, due to the nature of low-carb, high-fat). The only flat-out restrictions are grains, legumes, dairy, and seed/vegetable oils. Everything else depends entirely on your individual needs.

That doesn't make it "a specific diet." What I eat looks nothing like what Akima eats, yet we both subscribe to the same "Paleo" guidelines. The only thing her diet and mine have in common is the exclusion of grains, legumes, and seed/vegetable oils.

I ate "paleo" for a year. It absolutely is "a specific diet". Anything that says "don't eat this giant class of foods" is "a specific diet".

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

Technically speaking, that depends entirely on who you ask. If you go blindly by Dr. Cordain's earlier works (not sure if he still holds this one, I know his views have changed on some things as he finds new information), then they're not. However, if you sit down and compare them to sweet potatoes, there isn't really much of a difference.

http://ancestralchef.com/why-arent-potatoes-paleo/

So, generally speaking, there are only two reasons to avoid potatoes - 1. You're sensitive to nightshades. 2. You're keeping your carbs down due to things like insulin resistance, in which case, potatoes aren' the only thing you're avoiding/limiting, anyway.

Dragonwolf

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

"Prima diet" is a marketing term owned by a certain supplement-selling website jockey. It has no technical or scientific meaning, and the definition has changed over the years, depending on which way the wind was blowing through the supplement-seller's ears.

Not really. While some of the details have changed (is honey primal? Depends on when you ask, since he has changed his stance on things like that; from what I've seen, though, the things he's changed on are "grey" areas, where the verdict could go either way, and when he does change, he points out the research stating why), the main point has maintained the same - eat plants and animals, limit carbohydrate intake in proportion to how fit and active you are, consume limited amounts of dairy (preferably raw, if you can) if your body tolerates it. If you know of any major parts that he's changed on, I'd be interested in seeing them.

pcastagner

The fact that you think Paleo is "a specific diet" shows just how little you know about it.

Paleo has numerous dietary restrictions. Cereal grains, legumes, potatoes, salt, etc.

Potatoes and salt are just fine (in fact, if you do one of the low carb, high fat variations, you actually need quite a bit of salt to maintain electrolyte balance, due to the nature of low-carb, high-fat). The only flat-out restrictions are grains, legumes, dairy, and seed/vegetable oils. Everything else depends entirely on your individual needs.

That doesn't make it "a specific diet." What I eat looks nothing like what Akima eats, yet we both subscribe to the same "Paleo" guidelines. The only thing her diet and mine have in common is the exclusion of grains, legumes, and seed/vegetable oils.

I ate "paleo" for a year. It absolutely is "a specific diet". Anything that says "don't eat this giant class of foods" is "a specific diet".

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

Technically speaking, that depends entirely on who you ask. If you go blindly by Dr. Cordain's earlier works (not sure if he still holds this one, I know his views have changed on some things as he finds new information), then they're not. However, if you sit down and compare them to sweet potatoes, there isn't really much of a difference.

http://ancestralchef.com/why-arent-potatoes-paleo/

So, generally speaking, there are only two reasons to avoid potatoes - 1. You're sensitive to nightshades. 2. You're keeping your carbs down due to things like insulin resistance, in which case, potatoes aren' the only thing you're avoiding/limiting, anyway.

So basically, it's an arbitrary hodgepodge of faux anthropology with a strong dash of bro science.

But the really nice part is, since there is no real definition for paleo, or any actual data on rates of disease in actual ancestral populations (lets not start with this garbage about modern hunter-gatherer populations), it can't be disproven.

WendyTerry420

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

Technically speaking, that depends entirely on who you ask. If you go blindly by Dr. Cordain's earlier works (not sure if he still holds this one, I know his views have changed on some things as he finds new information), then they're not. However, if you sit down and compare them to sweet potatoes, there isn't really much of a difference.

http://ancestralchef.com/why-arent-potatoes-paleo/

So, generally speaking, there are only two reasons to avoid potatoes - 1. You're sensitive to nightshades. 2. You're keeping your carbs down due to things like insulin resistance, in which case, potatoes aren' the only thing you're avoiding/limiting, anyway.

I am basing it off of what self-proclaimed paleo dieters state. They say that potatoes weren't eaten during the paleolithic era. I have tons of friends that are on this crazy diet, so I hear this crap all the time. My comment is always, "Eat the food; lift the weights." :bigsmile:

WendyTerry420

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

"Prima diet" is a marketing term owned by a certain supplement-selling website jockey. It has no technical or scientific meaning, and the definition has changed over the years, depending on which way the wind was blowing through the supplement-seller's ears.

IDK about "prima," but I have friends who left the paleo stuff and changed to "primal," which to me seems like "paleo, with occasional cheating." :laugh:

Dragonwolf

So basically, it's an arbitrary hodgepodge of faux anthropology with a strong dash of bro science.

But the really nice part is, since there is no real definition for paleo, or any actual data on rates of disease in actual ancestral populations (lets not start with this garbage about modern hunter-gatherer populations), it can't be disproven.

So, we can look at the diets of chimps and orangutans as a model for human diets, but looking at fellow humans eating their ancestral diets (ie - the hunter gatherers, the Inuit, the Australian aboriginals) is "garbage"?

Last I checked, "faux anthropology with a strong dash of bro science" didn't come with a few dozen peer reviewed papers.

http://www.bulletproofexec.com/the-complete-illustrated-one-page-bulletproof-diet/ (see references section, which is nearly all PubMed links)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=loren+cordain
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724493/?tool=pubmed
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-007-0716-y
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17522610
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209185?dopt=Abstract

The "definition for Paleo" is as vague or specific as the one for veg*nism. There's a base commonality - avoid grains, legumes, and seed/vegetable oils - and from there, there's some variation depending on certain interpretations of the facts or ideals at hand. Primal includes dairy, because it acknowledges that some people tolerate it. AIP excludes a number of "Paleo-friendly" things, because some people are intolerant of certain common foods. Some "grey area" foods are explored on a case-by-case basis.

The lead people changing their stance on a given food item isn't evidence of "bro science," but rather of science itself, and conceding to the facts at hand. To not do so is to be adhering to dogma.

My previous example of honey is a good one for this. His reasoning for excluding honey originally was due to the idea that honey is just pure sugar, akin to table sugar. Arguably, processed, pasteurized clover honey is (because the processing removes/destroys a lot of the good stuff, just like doing so does for a lot of other foods). However, raw honey is not, and can be classified as a "whole food," due to the myriad of other benefits it has, including minerals, antioxidants, and antimicrobial properties. It's still largely sugar, of course, and so shouldn't be a staple in the diet if you have insulin issues and are watching your carbs, but if you can spare the carbs, it's a good option. ( http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/medicinal-uses-of-honey )

Lichent

whooo woooow wooow whoo whoo yowza get tarazan he's my man get tarazan

pcastagner

So basically, it's an arbitrary hodgepodge of faux anthropology with a strong dash of bro science.

But the really nice part is, since there is no real definition for paleo, or any actual data on rates of disease in actual ancestral populations (lets not start with this garbage about modern hunter-gatherer populations), it can't be disproven.

So, we can look at the diets of chimps and orangutans as a model for human diets, but looking at fellow humans eating their ancestral diets (ie - the hunter gatherers, the Inuit, the Australian aboriginals) is "garbage"?

Last I checked, "faux anthropology with a strong dash of bro science" didn't come with a few dozen peer reviewed papers.

http://www.bulletproofexec.com/the-complete-illustrated-one-page-bulletproof-diet/ (see references section, which is nearly all PubMed links)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=loren+cordain
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724493/?tool=pubmed
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-007-0716-y
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17522610
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209185?dopt=Abstract

The "definition for Paleo" is as vague or specific as the one for veg*nism. There's a base commonality - avoid grains, legumes, and seed/vegetable oils - and from there, there's some variation depending on certain interpretations of the facts or ideals at hand. Primal includes dairy, because it acknowledges that some people tolerate it. AIP excludes a number of "Paleo-friendly" things, because some people are intolerant of certain common foods. Some "grey area" foods are explored on a case-by-case basis.

The lead people changing their stance on a given food item isn't evidence of "bro science," but rather of science itself, and conceding to the facts at hand. To not do so is to be adhering to dogma.

My previous example of honey is a good one for this. His reasoning for excluding honey originally was due to the idea that honey is just pure sugar, akin to table sugar. Arguably, processed, pasteurized clover honey is (because the processing removes/destroys a lot of the good stuff, just like doing so does for a lot of other foods). However, raw honey is not, and can be classified as a "whole food," due to the myriad of other benefits it has, including minerals, antioxidants, and antimicrobial properties. It's still largely sugar, of course, and so shouldn't be a staple in the diet if you have insulin issues and are watching your carbs, but if you can spare the carbs, it's a good option. ( http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/medicinal-uses-of-honey )

Who said we should look at chimps? Not freaking me man.


No, we can ask actual anthropologists and evolutionary biologists, who will remind us that Homo sapiens is an omnivore that eats whatever is around, always has, and that's one reason it's such a successful species. They might also point out that to be successful, a species only needs to reach reproductive age, so there is no reason to think eating that which we have "evolved" to eat would contribute to longevity. The selection pressure just wouldn't be there. So much of this is total bull****, it's almost impossible to take down. And adherents tend to show highly "motivated" reasoning. Every bit of evidence you can come up with is going to support their theory or be irrelevant. But what's always lacking is actual empirical evidence.

Sorry man, "whole food" does not include honey. It's a "processed" food, whatever that means. Processed by insects, but still processed.

The problem is, none of these concepts hold up to scrutiny. Because it's just made up crap. Paleolithic man ate whatever could be found. On top of that, the human gut is always evolving, and always will. On top of that, there is no actual evidence to back up the claim that chronic diseases are a symptom of modernity. It's just garden of Eden mythology.


How can I not chuckle when a "paleo" dieter replaces potatoes with cauliflower, because "paleo man did not have nightshades?". This total ignorance, because cauliflower didn't exist back then either. It's a highly manipulated cultivar of wild cabbage. Or how about when I'm out foraging, like an actual paleo man, and I'm collecting WILD GRAINS like foxtail grass?

There is nothing Paleolithic about the wealthiest population in the world having a constant supply of the best protein sources around. It's ridiculous on its face.