PALEO: pros, cons and whatever else you may think?
Replies
-
Doesn't matter. Still a sequel, and still better than the original... And it's not even close.*sigh*
ESB > SW...Shrek 2 > Shrek...Terminator 2 > Terminator 1 (although I'm not certain about this one)...
...but I will *not* accept Evil Dead 2 > Evil Dead 1.
That's it. No more.
Whether you accept it or not it's still true.Comparing Evil Dead 1 and 2 is like comparing Star Wars to Space Balls.
This makes no sense at all.
The original Evil Dead is a horror movie. Evil Dead 2 is a comedy.0 -
The only reason the "we didn't evolve eating that" theory exists is for foods that the body hasn't evolved to handle very well.
Ok, let's go with that standard instead, then.
"The vast majority of people handle grain as well as they can handle avocados, therefore both grains and avocados are paleo."
The ever growing number of people with intolerances or sensitivities to grains proves that to be incorrect, whereas as far as I know, there isn't widespread intolerance or sensitivity to avocadoes.
Besides which, even if you do forget any kind of logic or reasoning in the decision making behind those guidelines, you can't just decide something is or isn't Paleo because you say so. The creators of the individual plans are the only ones with that ability, and pretty much by definition any Paleo plan will exclude grains but include fruits and veggies.0 -
The ever growing number of people with intolerances or sensitivities to grains proves that to be incorrect...
There isn't "an ever growing number", there is an ever-decreasing percentage of the population.
Your premise is not congruent with reality.0 -
The ever growing number of people with intolerances or sensitivities to grains proves that to be incorrect...
There isn't "an ever growing number", there is an ever-decreasing percentage of the population.
Your premise is not congruent with reality.
You know what, I'm giving up on attempting to educate you about the basics of Paleo. It's quite clear that you just want to sit behind your computer and be the jerk making fun of other people's lifestyles rather than participating in actual discussion or attempting to learn anything.0 -
The ever growing number of people with intolerances or sensitivities to grains proves that to be incorrect...
There isn't "an ever growing number", there is an ever-decreasing percentage of the population.
Your premise is not congruent with reality.
You know what, I'm giving up on attempting to educate you about the basics of Paleo. It's quite clear that you just want to sit behind your computer and be the jerk making fun of other people's lifestyles rather than participating in actual discussion or attempting to learn anything.
finally. take your ball and go home.0 -
You know what, I'm giving up on attempting to educate you about the basics of Paleo.
Why? You've done an *excellent* job of sharing "the basics of Paleo".0 -
But my question would be, why should I care about some undetectable symptoms if they don't affect my heatlh or make me feel bad?0 -
But my question would be, why should I care about some undetectable symptoms if they don't affect my heatlh or make me feel bad?
(Sorry - my quoting skills are poor). I have vitiligo. It doesn't make me feel badly and it took about 3 years to spread (fortunately I am pretty pale, so it's not as not noticeable as if I was dark skinned, but my point is, you can have things that are amiss that don't make you feel "badly." I am trying to change my diet because I do think that it may have caused or exacerbated my disorder.0 -
I don't see how "Whole 30" is really that great of a predictor if food bothers you unless its digestive. I am trying to eliminate gluten b/c there are studies that it's connected with my disorder. But, since my disorder took years to really be a noticeable problem, I am guessing 30 days of changing my food is not going to matter. I am looking at this as a 6-12 month experiment.0
-
The only reason the "we didn't evolve eating that" theory exists is for foods that the body hasn't evolved to handle very well.
Ok, let's go with that standard instead, then.
"The vast majority of people handle grain as well as they can handle avocados, therefore both grains and avocados are paleo."
The ever growing number of people with intolerances or sensitivities to grains proves that to be incorrect, whereas as far as I know, there isn't widespread intolerance or sensitivity to avocadoes.
Besides which, even if you do forget any kind of logic or reasoning in the decision making behind those guidelines, you can't just decide something is or isn't Paleo because you say so. The creators of the individual plans are the only ones with that ability, and pretty much by definition any Paleo plan will exclude grains but include fruits and veggies.
what number of people? people being diagnosed or people becoming born with gluten intoelrance?
please go0 -
In for round 2.
Ditto
The sequel is never as good as the original.
Except for Empire Strikes Back... IMO blew away Star Wars
Okay, so that's one vote for ESB > SW and one (really suspect) vote for Shrek 2 > Shrek...
...but those are the *only* exceptions. Ever.
Godfather 2 > Godfather0 -
In for round 2.
Ditto
The sequel is never as good as the original.
Except for Empire Strikes Back... IMO blew away Star Wars
Okay, so that's one vote for ESB > SW and one (really suspect) vote for Shrek 2 > Shrek...
...but those are the *only* exceptions. Ever.
Godfather 2 > Godfather
Aliens > Alien0 -
In for round 2.
Ditto
The sequel is never as good as the original.
Except for Empire Strikes Back... IMO blew away Star Wars
Okay, so that's one vote for ESB > SW and one (really suspect) vote for Shrek 2 > Shrek...
...but those are the *only* exceptions. Ever.
Godfather 2 > Godfather
Aliens > Alien
No way!
Alien is a classic.
Aliens is ok....0 -
No way!
Alien is a classic.
Aliens is ok....
You must be crazy.
Alien is a good "horror / sci fi" film but Aliens is a master class in action.
That reminds me: Rambo II > Rambo0 -
No way!
Alien is a classic.
Aliens is ok....
You must be crazy.
Alien is a good "horror / sci fi" film but Aliens is a master class in action.
That reminds me: Rambo II > Rambo
Aliens is a masterclass in action, sure.
Alien is a masterclass. It transcends it's genre beginnings, whereas Aliens is still firmly stuck there. That is the difference.0 -
Aliens is a masterclass in action, sure.
Alien is a masterclass. It transcends it's genre beginnings, whereas Aliens is still firmly stuck there. That is the difference.
True enough. Aliens is very much "what it says on the tin" action movie whereas Alien is different type of movie altogether. Obviously Scott and Cameron have different directing styles which plays out.
There's only one way I can decide this. I will have to watch both again
0 -
In for round 2.
Ditto
The sequel is never as good as the original.
Except for Empire Strikes Back... IMO blew away Star Wars
Okay, so that's one vote for ESB > SW and one (really suspect) vote for Shrek 2 > Shrek...
...but those are the *only* exceptions. Ever.
Godfather 2 > Godfather
Aliens > Alien
Amen to both of those. I think what we see here is that unless there is a independent, peer reviewed, double blind study proving certain sequels should definitively be excluded from this list, we can enjoy all movies in moderation.0 -
So i'm a crossfitter, but I don't eat paleo. I get great energy from whole oats, sweet potatoes, and brown rice.. I wouldn't want to leave those out. I do love paleo b/c it's clean and clean eating is in my opinion the best way to go.. but most crossfitters I personally know that follow paleo maintain a bodyfat % that is slightly above "fit". They are good with it b/c they are strong and perform well.. but I want to be lean, have abs, and still be a good crossfitter. Most games athletes are not paleo.0
-
The only reason the "we didn't evolve eating that" theory exists is for foods that the body hasn't evolved to handle very well.
Ok, let's go with that standard instead, then.
"The vast majority of people handle grain as well as they can handle avocados, therefore both grains and avocados are paleo."
The ever growing number of people with intolerances or sensitivities to grains proves that to be incorrect, whereas as far as I know, there isn't widespread intolerance or sensitivity to avocadoes.
Besides which, even if you do forget any kind of logic or reasoning in the decision making behind those guidelines, you can't just decide something is or isn't Paleo because you say so. The creators of the individual plans are the only ones with that ability, and pretty much by definition any Paleo plan will exclude grains but include fruits and veggies.
what number of people? people being diagnosed or people becoming born with gluten intoelrance?
please go
I would assume they're being diagnosed and/or are discovering it rather than more people are being born with these sensitivities (and I'm not just talking outright gluten intolerance / celiac's disease / etc. though those are included) but I haven't actually studied that area since it's not of particular importance to me.
The end point basically is, there are a lot of people who find that they don't react well when they digest grains, etc. You don't see this trend as often with vegetables, fruits, etc. The entire point of the Whole30 and even Paleo/Primal is to figure out if you might be one of these people - if you're not then more power to you. That doesn't somehow dismiss the existence of people who do find they live healthier happier lives without grains forming a large part of their diet.0 -
Pros - It can turn you on to eating more nutrient dense foods compared to yer typical diet. The 'community' is entertaing for a while.
Cons - It can turn you into a orthorexic food nazi who does not realise that, when it comes down to losing the blubber, calories in/out are still king. And, unless you are diagnosed with an intolerance, then there is no need to restrict anything. And the underlying fact that there was no one Paleo diet, it depends where you lived. AND Mark Sisson's carbohydrate curve is beyond laughable and Robb Wolf on carbs has changed positions more times than a cheap prostitute.
I'm glad I went through my Paleo phase but I do look back and laugh at myself ....
0 -
in 4 garbage arguements
???0 -
what number of people? people being diagnosed or people becoming born with gluten intoelrance?
please go
go... go where?0 -
...one more timeThese are not my own words. This is from an interview between Chris Kresser and Mat Lalonde. I paraphrased to make it more concise. I think it is a fairy reasonable way to look at the whole paleo thing...
"There is really no such thing as a “paleo” diet because the foods are not available anymore. The best you can do it try to mimic it. So… a diet that’s meat, vegetables, tubers, and fruits… that’s what I call it.
Typical arguments go like this: Our ancestors and modern hunter-gatherers, who were virtually free of diseases of civilization, consumed a diet that was mostly devoid of grains, legumes, and dairy. People then make the invalid inference that consuming a diet mostly devoid of grains, legumes, and dairy will thus allow us to be free of diseases of civilization. Why is this invalid? Because it is observational and full of confounding factors (a variable that was not observed).
You can’t observe everything, so there’s almost always going to be, especially when it comes to human beings that are very complex and multivariate that live in a very complex and multivariate environment. You are never going to see everything. So observational epidemiology is great for formulating hypotheses and asking questions, but it doesn’t answer any questions. The same is true about this statement. You know, it’s just an observation. It’s just a correlation. You can’t say for sure that, yes, it is the case that if we eat like that we’re going to avoid the diseases of civilization, so you have to be very, very careful with that.
But there are some folks who are coming from different fields, and really all they’re grasping on is this evolutionary thing, and they don’t realize that all it is really at the end of the day is a great way to formulate hypotheses. We have to be careful not to assume that correlation equals causation. That said, it is reasonable to use that as a starting place, to do some further investigation and see whether or not there is any truth to it.
Another typical argument goes like this: We evolved over millions of years without consuming the foods that became readily available only after the advent of agriculture. Hence, we’re not adapted to these foods. But this assumes that a species isn’t adapted to a food because it’s never consumed it. And if you look at the evolutionary record, that’s incorrect. There are plenty of examples throughout evolution where species discover novel sources of food and thrive on them. Like humans and meat? Humans started out by eating fruits, plants and insects. Then they scavenged marrow from bones and also brains from skulls, and eventually became some of the meanest, baddest hunters on the planet.
Thus a better statement would be… There has been insufficient time and evolutionally pressure for complete adaptation to seed consumption to arise in homo-sapiens."0 -
In for round 2.
Ditto
The sequel is never as good as the original.
this...
but in for round 2 too ...0 -
I missed round 1
i'm in favour of it. I did it properly for a few months and felt amazing. Dropped weight really easy, full of energy, didn't miss normal foods at all. But I've been off it for a while - moving house meant I just didn't have the kitchen time needed. Still trying to make good choices and I haven't gained any weight back. But I definitely feel better eating paleo. I'm still keeping up some parts that have become a habit, like my morning coffee made on almond milk.
paleo did not lead to your weight loss...eating in a caloric deficit did ...
If paleo made you lose weight, then why did you not gain it all back when you stopped paleo?0 -
I missed round 1
i'm in favour of it. I did it properly for a few months and felt amazing. Dropped weight really easy, full of energy, didn't miss normal foods at all. But I've been off it for a while - moving house meant I just didn't have the kitchen time needed. Still trying to make good choices and I haven't gained any weight back. But I definitely feel better eating paleo. I'm still keeping up some parts that have become a habit, like my morning coffee made on almond milk.
paleo did not lead to your weight loss...eating in a caloric deficit did ...
If paleo made you lose weight, then why did you not gain it all back when you stopped paleo?
Any weight lost is the result of the caloric deficit, that is correct. That said, as far as feeling great, there are certain foods for me, once I removed them, felt significantly better. Wether or not that is "paleo" or not is irrelevant. Could just be my age... at 21, I could eat whatever and feel great. At 41, not so much anymore.0 -
I don't see how "Whole 30" is really that great of a predictor if food bothers you unless its digestive. I am trying to eliminate gluten b/c there are studies that it's connected with my disorder. But, since my disorder took years to really be a noticeable problem, I am guessing 30 days of changing my food is not going to matter. I am looking at this as a 6-12 month experiment.
The 30 days is a minimum. Many people (in similar situations to yours) take longer.0 -
I would assume they're being diagnosed and/or are discovering it rather than more people are being born with these sensitivities (and I'm not just talking outright gluten intolerance / celiac's disease / etc. though those are included) but I haven't actually studied that area since it's not of particular importance to me.
I thought you took your ball and went home. :laugh:
Your statement is factually incorrect. The percentage of humans with grain issues is *decreasing* on a daily basis.The end point basically is, there are a lot of people who find that they don't react well when they digest grains, etc.
No, there are not. The fastest growing populations on the planet are in ethnic groups whose diet is completely based on grain consumption. The only relatively small populations where there are grain sensitivities are populations whose migration pattern took them out of Africa and into marginal climatic regions where grains had trouble growing. The implications of that should be clear - it means the normal human condition is eating grains and the "error condition" is *not* eating grains.
Again, if you think you do better without grains - then don't eat them! But don't pontificate that it's because you are somehow closer to a mythical ancestral human diet - realize it's because somewhere along the way your ancestors lost part of their digestive capability, and those genes have been passed on to you.0 -
My statement was that there's an increase in people realizing they are grain sensitive, NOT that there's an increase in the population of humans that are grains sensitive. That's EXACTLY the opposite of what I said; it might be helpful to prevent errors in the future if you actually read other people's posts first.I would assume they're being diagnosed and/or are discovering it rather than more people are being born with these sensitivities (and I'm not just talking outright gluten intolerance / celiac's disease / etc. though those are included) but I haven't actually studied that area since it's not of particular importance to me.
I thought you took your ball and went home. :laugh:
Your statement is factually incorrect. The percentage of humans with grain issues is *decreasing* on a daily basis.The end point basically is, there are a lot of people who find that they don't react well when they digest grains, etc.
[/quote]
No, there are not. The fastest growing populations on the planet are in ethnic groups whose diet is completely based on grain consumption. The only relatively small populations where there are grain sensitivities are populations whose migration pattern took them out of Africa and into marginal climatic regions where grains had trouble growing. The implications of that should be clear - it means the normal human condition is eating grains and the "error condition" is *not* eating grains.
Again, if you think you do better without grains - then don't eat them! But don't pontificate that it's because you are somehow closer to a mythical ancestral human diet - realize it's because somewhere along the way your ancestors lost part of their digestive capability, and those genes have been passed on to you.
So basically....some people don't digest grains well because of their genes. Huh...sounds EXACTLY like what I said.0 -
I missed round 1
i'm in favour of it. I did it properly for a few months and felt amazing. Dropped weight really easy, full of energy, didn't miss normal foods at all. But I've been off it for a while - moving house meant I just didn't have the kitchen time needed. Still trying to make good choices and I haven't gained any weight back. But I definitely feel better eating paleo. I'm still keeping up some parts that have become a habit, like my morning coffee made on almond milk.
paleo did not lead to your weight loss...eating in a caloric deficit did ...
If paleo made you lose weight, then why did you not gain it all back when you stopped paleo?
I'm sorry but this really got under my skin. Do not assume you know what works for me without knowing anything about me. Just like I didn't come in here and say EVERYONE DO THIS just because I like it. I should be able to share my experience and opinion without you jumping in to tell me how very wrong I am. Also love how you completely ignored every other bit (felt amazing, full of energy, etc) and solely concentrated on the weightloss.
my story (and why i hate this cals in/out attitude):
I spent three months eating a meal plan, strictly logging calories and feeling pretty miserable about it a lot of the time. 1350 cals a day. Sedentary desk job, gym 2-3 times a week, ate my exercise calories back. In that time I lost maybe 2-3kg, and it felt like I was fighting for every tiny loss, every step of the way. I also suffered from a weird indigestion that makes me feel short of breath, it makes me yawn constantly and everything seemed to agitate it. I took Nexium for it, but as soon as a pack finished it would return with a vengeance.
So my partner & I decided to try paleo/primal. We ditched the diet meal plan and started eating as much as we wanted. When I bothered to log my food it was around 1600 a day, but I just ate whenever/however much I wanted. I stopped going to the gym because I was spending so much time cooking. So I was eating MORE and doing LESS exercise. And the weight just fell off. I dropped back down to my plateau (where I am now) in less than two months. So I maybe lost 5-6kg doing that. I never denied myself anything, never felt deprived or like I was missing out. If I felt like eating something, I'd just get creative using paleo ingredients. Oh and that weird indigestion thing disappeared without any medication or doctor advice.
If we round it off and say that I lost 1kg per month eating 'everything in moderation' style meal plan, and 3kg per month eating paleo, we can then come to the rough conclusion that I was 3x more successful. And that doesn't take into account general health & well-being. Now yes, you can argue that 'its still a calorie deficit, so there' as someone has when I told this story before. But that is just a bury-head-in-the-sand level of deliberate ignorance and refusal to accept there might be more to weightloss than cals in/out.
tl;dr - paleo works for me better than 'everything in moderation'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
- 427 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