Paleo SHIFT
Replies
-
You didn't point to any studies.The argument was that grains weren't necessarily the best choice, not that it wasn't a choice - did you even read the entirety of my post or just notice that it was Primal friendly and scoff at it?
I'm curious what source you found that said that pre-agricultural revolution humans ate 300+ carbs a day; I haven't come across that study myself. And pointing to a study that confirms your argument isn't cherry picking, it's called bolstering; if there are studies to the contrary then fine, point to them - don't argue that the other studies are somehow invalid.
Food science isn't all that great of a science, and if some people are healthy and happy without grains then no one should be allowed to criticize them for it, or for sharing a solution that's worked for them.
And yes, maybe once you've met your minimum quotas for nutrients it doesn't matter if you get other nutrients, but that doesn't mean your food suddenly stops having an effect on your body. Food always affects you, and I personally believe you'll be healthier eating a diet mainly composed of meats and veggies than eating primarily grains and processed foods. If you disagree that's fine; each person's lifestyle is unique.
Humans ate an incredibly varied diet based on geography, from the Inuits that ate mostly meat, to African tribes that were almost exclusively vegetarian. Archaeological evidence has shown bread was being baked long before agriculture began (flat breads baked on stones, about 30,000 years ago.) One study I read (which i don't have in front of me) showed some paleolithic era humans ate 3000 calories a day, with 55% carbs, 30% fat, and 20% protein on average, with close to 100 grams of fiber a day, mostly from tubers and grasses (hmm, doesn't paleo eliminate both grains and potatoes?)
Also, how does eating grains equal "eating primarily grains and processed foods?" That's a quite radical assumption.
No, I didn't point to any studies, because I don't think every conversation needs to be the equivalent of an academic paper complete with properly cited sources; this is a friendly discussion and I think we can manage that without studies being necessary (though I do agree they're helpful).
I don't think I've ever heard someone Paleo/Primal disagree that paleolithic era humans ate a wide variety of different foods based on location; I fully agree with that. They varied their macro intakes based on what they had around, and yes, they would eat just about anything edible. We say grains didn't make up a big part of their diets because pre-agriculture, grains were hard to come by in large quantities and had to be prepared to be easily eaten. You didn't see giant wheat fields back then; they'd eat grains but it was minimal amounts usually.
And no, Primal/Paleo doesn't exclude tubers like potatoes; we're often suggested to limit them if we're trying to lose weight or don't need the excess gluten for a workout or some kind because we're better off eating other things like veggies, and we prioritize sweet potatoes over regular ones, but potatoes are definitely Primal. Grasses aren't un-Primal either - rice is considered one of the least offensive fringe foods (I say fringe because it's not fully Primal like vegetables, meat, etc. but it's considered something that isn't a big deal unless you're eating it day in and day out).
As for my supposedly radical assumption, it was meant to be directed towards the Standard American Diet, which is primarily composed of grains (they form the largest part of the food pyramid after all) and processed food (of which most grains are part of as well). Obviously you can eat grains without eating primarily grains and processed foods - most Primal people do. While we may limit grains and processed foods I doubt you'd find anyone Primal who'd say they haven't touched a grain or processed food item since turning to this lifestyle. The point is that we choose to eat primarily meat, healthy fats and vegetables that aren't processed or are minimally processed rather than focusing the bulk of our diet on processed foods, grains, legumes, etc. I'd say that most truly healthy diets include similar items - no one's going to argue that a diet bar of some kind is healthier than, say, a carrot.
People seem to get lost in a lot of the peripheral parts of Primal/Paleo living - the caveman thing, the grain thing, etc. Instead of focusing on what we don't eat or the story behind it, I prefer to focus on what I do eat and why it's healthy - vegetables, healthy fats, meat, fruits, nuts, seeds, etc. are pretty undeniably healthy and natural parts of a human diet (depending, obviously, on how they're grown/raised, prepared, etc.) and I feel entirely comfortable letting these foods make up the basis for most of my diet.0 -
btw, aim for under 10%.
why, will it bring me closer to my paleo, cavemen, cousins?
Nice. A self proclaimed fitness instructor, body shaming. Why am I not surprised based on your other posts in this thread?0 -
I prefer to focus on what I do eat and why it's healthy - vegetables, healthy fats, meat, fruits, nuts, seeds, etc. are pretty undeniably healthy...
individual foods are neither healthy nor unhealthy on their own. They only take on characteristics of healthy or unhealthy when consumed as part of a overall diet. It is extremely easy to turn meat and nuts, in particular, into unhealthy foods simply by over-eating them.
The bottom line is - are you, yourself, healthy?0 -
btw, aim for under 10%.
why, will it bring me closer to my paleo, cavemen, cousins?
Nice. A self proclaimed fitness instructor, body shaming. Why am I not surprised based on your other posts in this thread?
she actually emailed me and apologized...so I will give her credit on that one.
I did not take it as shaming..I am quite happy at 13% but am trying to get to 10%....13 is a lot better than the 18 that I used to be and the +20 before that...0 -
I prefer to focus on what I do eat and why it's healthy - vegetables, healthy fats, meat, fruits, nuts, seeds, etc. are pretty undeniably healthy...
individual foods are neither healthy nor unhealthy on their own. They only take on characteristics of healthy or unhealthy when consumed as part of a overall diet. It is extremely easy to turn meat and nuts, in particular, into unhealthy foods simply by over-eating them.
The bottom line is - are you, yourself, healthy?
Oh I agree, each food has its own upsides and downsides, but some things are healthier than others - broccoli for example is going to be a better part of your diet than soda. Healthiness is a scale, and some things are healthier than others - it's part of their own characteristics (which is where I disagree with you saying they're not healthy or unhealthy on their own). That doesn't mean however that less healthy/unhealthy foods don't have any part in an overall healthy diet - it won't make much of a difference if you have a soda and a side of fries once in a while.
And any food becomes problematic when you over-ingest; that doesn't make the food itself unhealthy. It's just that the body can only take so much of a good thing too; vitamins are great for you, for example, but you can still overdose and get sick/die from too much.
I'm assuming you're pointing to meats/nuts in particular because they're higher in calories than most of the rest of my list, like say vegetables, and thus eating more of them would increase your caloric intake?0 -
btw, aim for under 10%.
why, will it bring me closer to my paleo, cavemen, cousins?
Nice. A self proclaimed fitness instructor, body shaming. Why am I not surprised based on your other posts in this thread?
she actually emailed me and apologized...so I will give her credit on that one.
I did not take it as shaming..I am quite happy at 13% but am trying to get to 10%....13 is a lot better than the 18 that I used to be and the +20 before that...
My work in this thread here is now done.
0 -
...broccoli for example is going to be a better part of your diet than soda.
That claim is meaningless without context.0 -
...broccoli for example is going to be a better part of your diet than soda.
That claim is meaningless without context.
Really? I think you need absolutely NO context to say that broccoli is a more useful part of a human diet than soda. I'm curious to hear anyone who thinks the opposite is true and why.
I'm not saying that drinking a soda means your whole diet is unhealthy, I'm saying that on its own, soda is less healthy than broccoli. Context unnecessary.0 -
...broccoli for example is going to be a better part of your diet than soda.
That claim is meaningless without context.
Really? I think you need absolutely NO context to say that broccoli is a more useful part of a human diet than soda. I'm curious to hear anyone who thinks the opposite is true and why.
I'm not saying that drinking a soda means your whole diet is unhealthy, I'm saying that on its own, soda is less healthy than broccoli. Context unnecessary.
If someone is having a hypoglycemic episode, would soda or broccoli be a better choice and more healthy?0 -
What if I'm allergic to brassicas? Would soda or broccoli be a healthier choice? Like Acg said, what if my blood sugar is crashing and I need some quick sugar, soda or broccoli? Context absolutely matters for every food choice....broccoli for example is going to be a better part of your diet than soda.
That claim is meaningless without context.
Really? I think you need absolutely NO context to say that broccoli is a more useful part of a human diet than soda. I'm curious to hear anyone who thinks the opposite is true and why.
I'm not saying that drinking a soda means your whole diet is unhealthy, I'm saying that on its own, soda is less healthy than broccoli. Context unnecessary.0 -
Really guys? You're going to use outlier examples to try and argue soda is healthier than broccoli? That entirely loses the point of having an intelligent discussion on the subject of whether or not some foods are healthier than others in and of themselves. Put it this way - soda isn't healthy for anyone; broccoli is healthy for most people (ie thus not suffering from allergies, etc.)0
-
or crohns diseasebroccoli is healthy for most people (ie thus not suffering from allergies, etc.)0 -
Context unnecessary.
You've just defined an ideologue.
Enjoy your new religion.
Don't worry, we'll be here when it lets you down, like all your previous ones have.
Cheers.0 -
The idea that paleo doesn't classify some foods as bad seems off-base. All foods are allowed on the Paleo diet, as long as they aren't grains, legumes (such as soy), dairy, members of the nightshade family, or processed sugar. I think that Paleo has a lot of good points, but not demonizing certain foods isn't one of them.0
-
Yep, this went where I expected.
And for the person who wanted an eye roll emoticon:
0 -
The idea that paleo doesn't classify some foods as bad seems off-base. All foods are allowed on the Paleo diet, as long as they aren't grains, legumes (such as soy), dairy, members of the nightshade family, or processed sugar. I think that Paleo has a lot of good points, but not demonizing certain foods isn't one of them.
Each person's version of Paleo is different, so it's hard to throw them all together and say they demonize certain foods. I for instance am Primal (VERY similar to Paleo) and think of grains, etc. as just being less healthy options that I choose less often; just like most people view, say, a Big Mac. That's not demonizing.0 -
Context unnecessary.
You've just defined an ideologue.
Enjoy your new religion.
Don't worry, we'll be here when it lets you down, like all your previous ones have.
Cheers.
Yes, when the belief that broccoli is healthier than soda lets me down I'll let you know.0 -
If you need fat and protein, and your only choices are broccoli or a Snickers bar, which is the "healthier" choice? HINT - It's not the broccoli, which has no protein or fat. Again, food requires context in order to be "healthy" or not. Overall diets can be healthy or unhealthy, individual foods cannot.0
-
I prefer to focus on what I do eat and why it's healthy - vegetables, healthy fats, meat, fruits, nuts, seeds, etc. are pretty undeniably healthy...
individual foods are neither healthy nor unhealthy on their own. They only take on characteristics of healthy or unhealthy when consumed as part of a overall diet. It is extremely easy to turn meat and nuts, in particular, into unhealthy foods simply by over-eating them.
The bottom line is - are you, yourself, healthy?
^I disagree. Take a look at how your gut (which houses about 80% of your immune system) reacts to different foods. You are correct that you can turn meat & nuts into an unhealthy (overall) diet, but some foods are downright "unhealthy" in that they can wreak major havoc on your first line of defense (your gut). Obviously, consuming these foods occasionally (unless you have celiac or another autoimmune disease) won't totally tear down your immune system, but frequent consumption could.0 -
The idea that paleo doesn't classify some foods as bad seems off-base. All foods are allowed on the Paleo diet, as long as they aren't grains, legumes (such as soy), dairy, members of the nightshade family, or processed sugar. I think that Paleo has a lot of good points, but not demonizing certain foods isn't one of them.
Nightshades are fine, unless you have a medical reason to restrict them. Again, limited knowledge of the actual subject.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions