PALEO: pros, cons and whatever else you may think?

Mr_Knight

So what is it based on, then?

The same thing every diet is based on - marketing.

featherbrained

I think that's why folks subscribe to diets (and a diet is a diet, whatever you're consistently eating at any given time is your diet) in order to learn moderation. People throw that moderation word around like it's easy peasy... are YOU here because you practiced moderation in all things? Probably not. Some people need a hand in understanding what it means to be moderate. Plans help some people do that. And hopefully as they go along, they learn the rest of this stuff.

And I thought bacon, at its root, is a salt cured meat that may or may not be smoked? Salt is used as a preservative, but it is also completely natural. Not healthy outside the confines of MODERATION, but still, not something I'd call a chemical either.

I'm sure I'm wrong about that though.

Carry on.

NaCl not a chemical? Hello cognitive dissonance

Bacon is cured (usually a mix of salt, sugar, sodium nitrate, aromatics) pork belly that has been smoked, unsmoked cured pork belly that has been air dried is pancetta

Sorry, should have stated that more clearly: YES bacon you buy in the supermarket most certainly is loaded with chemicals. My thought process began way back in the process where folks used to salt cure their food (and still do so in this area) so it would last the winter, like canning fruits and veggies. I did not state it that way, though. My apologies.

My thought is that you can have natural bacon, just cure it yourself, or find someone who does. Using salt. Or sugar, if that's your thing. Or both. My logic was that, as with everything, bacon didn't start out as a dripping chemical sponge it has become And I do love me some chemical bacon from time to time.

Fredducharme

Forget the diet names...focus more proteins, fruits and vegee's, and if you want grains do brown ones single ingredients. I would never give up my plain greek non fat yogert at a wopping 23 gms of protein.You can add your own blueberries/strawberries/blackberries/nuts

jonnythan

I think that's why folks subscribe to diets (and a diet is a diet, whatever you're consistently eating at any given time is your diet) in order to learn moderation. People throw that moderation word around like it's easy peasy... are YOU here because you practiced moderation in all things? Probably not. Some people need a hand in understanding what it means to be moderate. Plans help some people do that. And hopefully as they go along, they learn the rest of this stuff.

And I thought bacon, at its root, is a salt cured meat that may or may not be smoked? Salt is used as a preservative, but it is also completely natural. Not healthy outside the confines of MODERATION, but still, not something I'd call a chemical either.

I'm sure I'm wrong about that though.

Carry on.

NaCl not a chemical? Hello cognitive dissonance

Bacon is cured (usually a mix of salt, sugar, sodium nitrate, aromatics) pork belly that has been smoked, unsmoked cured pork belly that has been air dried is pancetta

Sorry, should have stated that more clearly: YES bacon you buy in the supermarket most certainly is loaded with chemicals. My thought process began way back in the process where folks used to salt cure their food (and still do so in this area) so it would last the winter, like canning fruits and veggies. I did not state it that way, though. My apologies.

My thought is that you can have natural bacon, just cure it yourself, or find someone who does. Using salt. Or sugar, if that's your thing. Or both. My logic was that, as with everything, bacon didn't start out as a dripping chemical sponge it has become And I do love me some chemical bacon from time to time.

"Dripping chemical sponge" is kind of ridiculous.

But, besides, Paleolithic man didn't soak his pork belly in salt in a fridge for a week and then smoke it. The entire idea of bacon being "Paleolithic" is silly.

kkerri

It's a very healthy way of eating. I'm not sure why the people who want to eat McDonald's and Taco Bell all day keep arguing in this thread. Maybe it's to make themselves feel better, who knows, just eat the way that makes you feel good, and ignore the others.

What about us whole grain and legume eaters? I've made it to a healthy 52 yo by eating these things daily. Never had hypertension, high cholesterol, insulin resistance, bloating, hormone problems, or any other chronic medical problem. When you stick to a Paleo Diet for 30 years or so and can say that, then come back and argue how much healthier your diet is than mine. Come tell me how these beans and peanuts are killing me.

I did a vegan diet for the better part of the last 20 years. Tons of whole grains and legumes. It didn't end up being the healthiest thing for me.

"Tons of food" is rarely healthy for anyone. I'm kidding, of course. But a certain diet not being the healthiest for you, does make the foods you ate as part of that diet unhealthy for anyone else.

I am curiousas to why one would choose to follow a diet for 20 years if it was causing health problems, though.

I didn't eat tons of food - just that my diet was comprised primarily of grains (admittedly refined pastas and breads) and legumes. I never said that any of those foods are unhealthy. I have only pointed out the "pros and cons" as I see them and from my perspective. I still feel that a vegan diet can be extremely healthy if done right. I question whether I did it right and question my reliance on soy products and wheat It was actually 15 years (some of which was not vegan - pregnancies primarily). I followed it b/c I felt it was better aligned with my morals and because I felt it was the right way to eat. Autoimmune stuff also takes a long time to manifest, so I am guessing in retrospect that it could have been the cause. I also have a high stress life, which could also be the cause. I am only trying to eat this way not for weight loss (although I do find it easier to stay in my calorie range this way and would like to lose the vanity pounds) but to see if it helps on the health front. I don't find it a religion or anything. I am also not 100% and don't drink buttered coffee or cook with lard. I am focused primarily on eliminating gluten and increase good fats (things I neglected for years on a low-fat vegan diet).

If I could reverse time, I'd have tried to adopt a balanced, whole foods approach years ago. I think that is where it's at, but I am still going to try to give gluten free a good shot for 6 months.

That's all fine and logical.

Except the part where you said that you ate "Tons of whole grains and legumes" and then later admitted that you were really eating overly processed grains. It's quite possible that by switching to whole grains you could have solved some of your health problems. There are many gluten free grains, so gluten free does not have to be grain free.

I am talking about whole wheat bread, whole wheat pasta. Legumes don't fall into that category. I wasn't eating white pasta and wonder bread for years on end, but yes, I did eat lots of Brownberry bread and lots of whole wheat pasta. I also ate my fair share of oatmeal and brown rice, rice noodles, etc. What I probably lacked in hindsight was healthy fats and non-soy based protein.

In any event, I don't need to defend my diet. It is what it is and it was what it was. My autoimmune disorder has been linked in some studies to gluten and celiac (vitilgo - and it's one that often precedes other more serious conditions) and I am giving gluten free a shot. THAT is fine and logical. It just happens that Paleo/Primal is the framework I am following because there is a ton of stuff printed and lots of recipes. I don't purport to want to live like a caveman, nor do I care what caveman ate or where bacon falls into this who discussion.

featherbrained

I think that's why folks subscribe to diets (and a diet is a diet, whatever you're consistently eating at any given time is your diet) in order to learn moderation. People throw that moderation word around like it's easy peasy... are YOU here because you practiced moderation in all things? Probably not. Some people need a hand in understanding what it means to be moderate. Plans help some people do that. And hopefully as they go along, they learn the rest of this stuff.

And I thought bacon, at its root, is a salt cured meat that may or may not be smoked? Salt is used as a preservative, but it is also completely natural. Not healthy outside the confines of MODERATION, but still, not something I'd call a chemical either.

I'm sure I'm wrong about that though.

Carry on.

NaCl not a chemical? Hello cognitive dissonance

Bacon is cured (usually a mix of salt, sugar, sodium nitrate, aromatics) pork belly that has been smoked, unsmoked cured pork belly that has been air dried is pancetta

Sorry, should have stated that more clearly: YES bacon you buy in the supermarket most certainly is loaded with chemicals. My thought process began way back in the process where folks used to salt cure their food (and still do so in this area) so it would last the winter, like canning fruits and veggies. I did not state it that way, though. My apologies.

My thought is that you can have natural bacon, just cure it yourself, or find someone who does. Using salt. Or sugar, if that's your thing. Or both. My logic was that, as with everything, bacon didn't start out as a dripping chemical sponge it has become And I do love me some chemical bacon from time to time.

"Dripping chemical sponge" is kind of ridiculous.

But, besides, Paleolithic man didn't soak his pork belly in salt in a fridge for a week and then smoke it. The entire idea of bacon being "Paleolithic" is silly.

Wow, you're just a pot-stirrer, aren't ya? I don't recall saying, or believing, that bacon was paleolithic.

Contrary to popular opinion, we're not all idiots.

But I see how this works. Everyone is allowed an opinion. So long as it's yours. I can get with that program.

Yes, dripping chemical sponge was a bit ridiculous. That was intentional. Little thing we like to call sarcasm.

I'm headed to less-contentious pastures now. I fell off my horse this morning and am in a world of hurt. Apparently I broke my tolerance bone.

jonnythan

I think that's why folks subscribe to diets (and a diet is a diet, whatever you're consistently eating at any given time is your diet) in order to learn moderation. People throw that moderation word around like it's easy peasy... are YOU here because you practiced moderation in all things? Probably not. Some people need a hand in understanding what it means to be moderate. Plans help some people do that. And hopefully as they go along, they learn the rest of this stuff.

And I thought bacon, at its root, is a salt cured meat that may or may not be smoked? Salt is used as a preservative, but it is also completely natural. Not healthy outside the confines of MODERATION, but still, not something I'd call a chemical either.

I'm sure I'm wrong about that though.

Carry on.

NaCl not a chemical? Hello cognitive dissonance

Bacon is cured (usually a mix of salt, sugar, sodium nitrate, aromatics) pork belly that has been smoked, unsmoked cured pork belly that has been air dried is pancetta

Sorry, should have stated that more clearly: YES bacon you buy in the supermarket most certainly is loaded with chemicals. My thought process began way back in the process where folks used to salt cure their food (and still do so in this area) so it would last the winter, like canning fruits and veggies. I did not state it that way, though. My apologies.

My thought is that you can have natural bacon, just cure it yourself, or find someone who does. Using salt. Or sugar, if that's your thing. Or both. My logic was that, as with everything, bacon didn't start out as a dripping chemical sponge it has become And I do love me some chemical bacon from time to time.

"Dripping chemical sponge" is kind of ridiculous.

But, besides, Paleolithic man didn't soak his pork belly in salt in a fridge for a week and then smoke it. The entire idea of bacon being "Paleolithic" is silly.

Wow, you're just a pot-stirrer, aren't ya? I don't recall saying, or believing, that bacon was paleolithic.

Contrary to popular opinion, we're not all idiots.

But I see how this works. Everyone is allowed an opinion. So long as it's yours. I can get with that program.

Yes, dripping chemical sponge was a bit ridiculous. That was intentional. Little thing we like to call sarcasm.

I'm headed to less-contentious pastures now. I fell off my horse this morning and am in a world of hurt. Apparently I broke my tolerance bone.

The thread is about paleo and the discussion has been about paleo-approved bacon.

RunningRichelle

No matter what anyone says, if you want to try it, try it. If you don't, don't. Some people are "pro", most are "anti" b/c they've either never tried it or only tried it half-a$$ed and didn't see results.

This implies that you can't have a valid reason to be "anti" unless you've tried it.

I'd agree with that. Only I see no reason for people who are so very 'anti' not to try it. What's it gonna hurt? Maybe some buttz. I'm all for it. Try it for a month, whole-a$$edly, then come on back and knock it all you like!

You'll most likely find that, for the vastly large majority, people who ditch grains and added sugars actually aren't too sad about it. Being a former cupcake, poptart, and Oreo FIEND myself, I can happily say that my life is just as awesome without them. Now I'm just an avocado-on-scrambled eggs FIEND. Sure, some will get the cravings and the carb-flu, but hell, why not just replace the carbs from grains with fruit and taper it? Carb-flu cured.

That being said, that's why the crowd is so vociferous. We feel great, we look great, it's easy as *kitten*, we gots alllll the energies, and we want everyone else to have that too. Because why not?!

Edit: Maybe not everyone thinks it's easy as *kitten*. I think it is. It's easy as *kitten* if you keep it simple.

jonnythan

No matter what anyone says, if you want to try it, try it. If you don't, don't. Some people are "pro", most are "anti" b/c they've either never tried it or only tried it half-a$$ed and didn't see results.

This implies that you can't have a valid reason to be "anti" unless you've tried it.

I'd agree with that. Only I see no reason for people who are so very 'anti' not to try it. What's it gonna hurt? Maybe some buttz. I'm all for it. Try it for a month, whole-a$$edly, then come on back and knock it all you like!

You'll most likely find that, for the vastly large majority, people who ditch grains and added sugars actually aren't too sad about it. Being a former cupcake, poptart, and Oreo FIEND myself, I can happily say that my life is just as awesome without them. Now I'm just an avocado-on-scrambled eggs FIEND. Sure, some will get the cravings and the carb-flu, but hell, why not just replace the carbs from grains with fruit and taper it? Carb-flu cured.

That being said, that's why the crowd is so vociferous. We feel great, we look great, it's easy as *kitten*, we gots alllll the energies, and we want everyone else to have that too. Because why not?!

Edit: Maybe not everyone thinks it's easy as *kitten*. I think it is. It's easy as *kitten* if you keep it simple.

Everyone should try every diet? That doesn't make sense.

Some of my meals would be considered paleo. Most aren't. Why stop eating a bunch of my favorite foods for no good reason at all?

It would take years to try all these fad diets for a month each.

darkangel45422

I think that's why folks subscribe to diets (and a diet is a diet, whatever you're consistently eating at any given time is your diet) in order to learn moderation. People throw that moderation word around like it's easy peasy... are YOU here because you practiced moderation in all things? Probably not. Some people need a hand in understanding what it means to be moderate. Plans help some people do that. And hopefully as they go along, they learn the rest of this stuff.

And I thought bacon, at its root, is a salt cured meat that may or may not be smoked? Salt is used as a preservative, but it is also completely natural. Not healthy outside the confines of MODERATION, but still, not something I'd call a chemical either.

I'm sure I'm wrong about that though.

Carry on.

NaCl not a chemical? Hello cognitive dissonance

Bacon is cured (usually a mix of salt, sugar, sodium nitrate, aromatics) pork belly that has been smoked, unsmoked cured pork belly that has been air dried is pancetta

Sorry, should have stated that more clearly: YES bacon you buy in the supermarket most certainly is loaded with chemicals. My thought process began way back in the process where folks used to salt cure their food (and still do so in this area) so it would last the winter, like canning fruits and veggies. I did not state it that way, though. My apologies.

My thought is that you can have natural bacon, just cure it yourself, or find someone who does. Using salt. Or sugar, if that's your thing. Or both. My logic was that, as with everything, bacon didn't start out as a dripping chemical sponge it has become And I do love me some chemical bacon from time to time.

"Dripping chemical sponge" is kind of ridiculous.

But, besides, Paleolithic man didn't soak his pork belly in salt in a fridge for a week and then smoke it. The entire idea of bacon being "Paleolithic" is silly.

You seem to be entirely confused as to how this lifestyle works. Is pork Paleo? Yes. Is salt Paleo? Yes. Therefore, pork soaked in salt is Paleo. Simple as that.

Paleolithic men didn't do anything to cook their foods other than cooking with a fire; that doesn't mean doing anything other than using a fire isn't Paleo. You're taking the argument to ridiculous lengths again.

Paleo approved bacon wouldn't be cured, preserved, smoked, etc. in anything but Paleo-approved ingredients, so yes, I'd say that most people would say that Paleo approved bacon ISN'T processed.

You're literally wrong. This statement is factualy wrong, logically wrong, pragmatically wrong, and vernacularly (is that a word?) wrong.

Bacon is pork belly that has been soaked for an extended period of time in a preservative solution. There is no definition of the word processing for which this is not processing.

And I guarantee you that Paleolithic people didn't soak their pork belly in preservatives and then smoke it.

I've stated MANY times that "durr caveman wouldn't have eaten that" is NOT the reason behind our food choices; again, you're getting bogged down in the caveman thing rather than looking at the science we base our choices on. I doubt you could find a single person who follows Paleo who says that the only reason they do it is because cavemen did; most would point to the fact that there IS some science to show these foods could be unhealthy. You CAN'T say they're perfectly healthy foods because there's science that shows they're bad, some that shows it could be bad, and yes, some that shows they're fine. That doesn't make them fine - that makes them undecided. We chose not to eat them; you choose (presumably) to eat them. That doesn't make your lifestyle any better than mine because you decide if it's not proven bad then it's healthy. What about the reverse - if it's not proven healthy then it's bad? Both are wrong in my opinion, but that's exactly the kind of logic you're arguing here.

The appeal to science is specious. This didn't start with someone excluding a bunch of foods from their diet because science said they're bad, followed by that person noticing "hey this stuff we're left with is how Paleolithic people ate!" It was the other way: it was someone deciding that a "Paleolithic" diet is good, forming a list of good and bad foods, and then trying to find science to support it. Problem is that it's not even how Paleolithic people ate.

http://robbwolf.com/2011/05/20/the-path-to-culinary-bliss-home-cured-bacon/

Oh look, a way of making bacon that doesn't include ANYTHING that isn't Paleo approved! Gosh, you must feel silly now for thinking it didn't exist? Especially since it's just one of MANY.

That's not bacon anyways and don't Paleo zealots disapprove of added chemicals to foods?

How is that not bacon? And where are you seeing added chemicals?

And just to be clear, while I fully say that Renee's dressing isn't Paleo, the only non-Paleo ingredient is the canola oil (other than possibly xantham gum because I fully admit to not being entirely sure what that is) so you can see that I've still made the best of a bad choice by choosing a dressing that otherwise includes only approved ingredients.

The canola oil is the only part with calories. That dressing is as un-Paleo, un-Primal as you can get.

If you want to eat it, eat it! But be honest about it, and don't try to dress it up as anything but a SAD food.

Exactly what are you arguing here? I stated flat out that Renee's dressing isn't Paleo. Plus, I don't count calories as somehow superior to everything else; just because it's the highest calorie ingredient doesn't make my statement that it's the only non-Paleo approved ingredient any less true.

Acg67

You seem to be entirely confused as to how this lifestyle works. Is pork Paleo? Yes. Is salt Paleo? Yes. Therefore, pork soaked in salt is Paleo. Simple as that.

Is fructose paleo? Yes. Is glucose paleo? Yes. Therefore, HFCS is paleo. got it

How is that not bacon? And where are you seeing added chemicals?

Are you familiar with what a chemical is?

jonnythan

I think that's why folks subscribe to diets (and a diet is a diet, whatever you're consistently eating at any given time is your diet) in order to learn moderation. People throw that moderation word around like it's easy peasy... are YOU here because you practiced moderation in all things? Probably not. Some people need a hand in understanding what it means to be moderate. Plans help some people do that. And hopefully as they go along, they learn the rest of this stuff.

And I thought bacon, at its root, is a salt cured meat that may or may not be smoked? Salt is used as a preservative, but it is also completely natural. Not healthy outside the confines of MODERATION, but still, not something I'd call a chemical either.

I'm sure I'm wrong about that though.

Carry on.

NaCl not a chemical? Hello cognitive dissonance

Bacon is cured (usually a mix of salt, sugar, sodium nitrate, aromatics) pork belly that has been smoked, unsmoked cured pork belly that has been air dried is pancetta

Sorry, should have stated that more clearly: YES bacon you buy in the supermarket most certainly is loaded with chemicals. My thought process began way back in the process where folks used to salt cure their food (and still do so in this area) so it would last the winter, like canning fruits and veggies. I did not state it that way, though. My apologies.

My thought is that you can have natural bacon, just cure it yourself, or find someone who does. Using salt. Or sugar, if that's your thing. Or both. My logic was that, as with everything, bacon didn't start out as a dripping chemical sponge it has become And I do love me some chemical bacon from time to time.

"Dripping chemical sponge" is kind of ridiculous.

But, besides, Paleolithic man didn't soak his pork belly in salt in a fridge for a week and then smoke it. The entire idea of bacon being "Paleolithic" is silly.

You seem to be entirely confused as to how this lifestyle works. Is pork Paleo? Yes. Is salt Paleo? Yes. Therefore, pork soaked in salt is Paleo. Simple as that.

Paleolithic men didn't do anything to cook their foods other than cooking with a fire; that doesn't mean doing anything other than using a fire isn't Paleo. You're taking the argument to ridiculous lengths again.

Paleo approved bacon wouldn't be cured, preserved, smoked, etc. in anything but Paleo-approved ingredients, so yes, I'd say that most people would say that Paleo approved bacon ISN'T processed.

You're literally wrong. This statement is factualy wrong, logically wrong, pragmatically wrong, and vernacularly (is that a word?) wrong.

Bacon is pork belly that has been soaked for an extended period of time in a preservative solution. There is no definition of the word processing for which this is not processing.

And I guarantee you that Paleolithic people didn't soak their pork belly in preservatives and then smoke it.

I've stated MANY times that "durr caveman wouldn't have eaten that" is NOT the reason behind our food choices; again, you're getting bogged down in the caveman thing rather than looking at the science we base our choices on. I doubt you could find a single person who follows Paleo who says that the only reason they do it is because cavemen did; most would point to the fact that there IS some science to show these foods could be unhealthy. You CAN'T say they're perfectly healthy foods because there's science that shows they're bad, some that shows it could be bad, and yes, some that shows they're fine. That doesn't make them fine - that makes them undecided. We chose not to eat them; you choose (presumably) to eat them. That doesn't make your lifestyle any better than mine because you decide if it's not proven bad then it's healthy. What about the reverse - if it's not proven healthy then it's bad? Both are wrong in my opinion, but that's exactly the kind of logic you're arguing here.

The appeal to science is specious. This didn't start with someone excluding a bunch of foods from their diet because science said they're bad, followed by that person noticing "hey this stuff we're left with is how Paleolithic people ate!" It was the other way: it was someone deciding that a "Paleolithic" diet is good, forming a list of good and bad foods, and then trying to find science to support it. Problem is that it's not even how Paleolithic people ate.

http://robbwolf.com/2011/05/20/the-path-to-culinary-bliss-home-cured-bacon/

Oh look, a way of making bacon that doesn't include ANYTHING that isn't Paleo approved! Gosh, you must feel silly now for thinking it didn't exist? Especially since it's just one of MANY.

That's not bacon anyways and don't Paleo zealots disapprove of added chemicals to foods?

How is that not bacon? And where are you seeing added chemicals?

And just to be clear, while I fully say that Renee's dressing isn't Paleo, the only non-Paleo ingredient is the canola oil (other than possibly xantham gum because I fully admit to not being entirely sure what that is) so you can see that I've still made the best of a bad choice by choosing a dressing that otherwise includes only approved ingredients.

The canola oil is the only part with calories. That dressing is as un-Paleo, un-Primal as you can get.

If you want to eat it, eat it! But be honest about it, and don't try to dress it up as anything but a SAD food.

Exactly what are you arguing here? I stated flat out that Renee's dressing isn't Paleo. Plus, I don't count calories as somehow superior to everything else; just because it's the highest calorie ingredient doesn't make my statement that it's the only non-Paleo approved ingredient any less true.

A salad where 90% of the calories are non Paleo is 10% Paleo.

Mr_Knight

Sorry, should have stated that more clearly: YES bacon you buy in the supermarket most certainly is loaded with chemicals. My thought process began way back in the process where folks used to salt cure their food (and still do so in this area) so it would last the winter, like canning fruits and veggies. I did not state it that way, though. My apologies.

You're still not getting it.

Pigs are a farm animal, not a game animal. Nothing that comes from a pig - cured or not - is "clean" or paleo. Curing of meat is a post-agricultural technology, and therefore all cured meat is not "clean" by definition - it doesn't matter who cured the bacon or how. And again - for reference - I am a person who actually DOES raise his own pork and cure his own bacon.

if you want to eat that stuff, it's totally cool, I love it too. But there is no logical definition of "clean" that can allow pork and bacon but exclude bread and pasta.

Mr_Knight

[You seem to be entirely confused as to how this lifestyle works. Is pork Paleo?

No, it is not. Pork is absolutely not paleo, it is a FARMED, domesticated animal.

It is non-paleo by definition.

Therefore, by your definition, all products deriving from it are also non-paleo.

SStruthers13

I'm not going to do any diet that does not involve daily chocolate. Now, if I can smear chocolate syrup on a mastodon rump I'll be all over that diet!

darkangel45422

You know what's really funny? People who aren't Paleo/Primal/etc. trying to tell people who are how their own lifestyle works. Instead of holding yourselves up as experts who somehow know more about these plans than the people actually on them or the ones who started them, maybe realize you're not perfect and all knowing. Trying to argue a food doesn't fit on the Paleo plan when it's clearly stated as fitting is just ridiculous.

jonnythan

You know what's really funny? People who aren't Paleo/Primal/etc. trying to tell people who are how their own lifestyle works. Instead of holding yourselves up as experts who somehow know more about these plans than the people actually on them or the ones who started them, maybe realize you're not perfect and all knowing. Trying to argue a food doesn't fit on the Paleo plan when it's clearly stated as fitting is just ridiculous.

It would probably be best if it changed its name from paleo, because nothing about it is paleo.

mmapags

Any diet that has a name is silly.

Any diet that strictly prohibits certain foods is silly.

Any diet that does both of these is double-silly.

By all means focus your diet on lean meats and veggies. But don't listen to what other people tell you are acceptable foods and unacceptable foods. Focus on your nutrients and eat things you enjoy.

Said on page 1 and still true. Best post of the thread.

Sabine_Stroehm

You know what's really funny? People who aren't Paleo/Primal/etc. trying to tell people who are how their own lifestyle works. Instead of holding yourselves up as experts who somehow know more about these plans than the people actually on them or the ones who started them, maybe realize you're not perfect and all knowing. Trying to argue a food doesn't fit on the Paleo plan when it's clearly stated as fitting is just ridiculous.

It would probably be best if it changed its name from paleo, because nothing about it is paleo.

If it changed its name you'd still be peeing yourself because "diets with names are silly" says the zealot.

mmapags

You know what's really funny? People who aren't Paleo/Primal/etc. trying to tell people who are how their own lifestyle works. Instead of holding yourselves up as experts who somehow know more about these plans than the people actually on them or the ones who started them, maybe realize you're not perfect and all knowing. Trying to argue a food doesn't fit on the Paleo plan when it's clearly stated as fitting is just ridiculous.

Pot, meet kettle.

And, a food is clearly stated as fitting Paleo by who? The guy who wrote the book? Look up clueless in the dictionary and see if there is a picture that looks familiar to you.