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

jonnythan

Eat what you enjoy. That's the whole point of all this! Eat what you like, and don't avoid foods you like because they're "not paleo" or "not clean" or whatever.

Avoiding foods because some fad diet with a cute name says they're bad is a terrible idea.

It always bothers me when people say "eat whatever you like" or "eat what you want". It so subjective without knowing what one likes or wants.

While I do agree that one should enjoy their meals, there is a certain balance that is optimal for health. And there is a certain imbalance that is greatly increases risk of disease.

Yes, and the balance is determined by nutrient content. Hence the phrase "if it fits your macros."

To achieve the right balance, focus on nutrients not labels.

But people may not want to eat the recommended nutrient ratio. So, it is more than just "eat what you like".

And even if you hit the desired macro ratio, you could still be deficient in many micronutrients. Eating to reduce disease risk is more than just "eat whatever you like within these macro goals".

Focus on the "your" in "if it fits your macros." Set up your nutrient targets however you like. Some ways are better than others, but ultimately that choice is up to you.

bcattoes

Eat what you enjoy. That's the whole point of all this! Eat what you like, and don't avoid foods you like because they're "not paleo" or "not clean" or whatever.

Avoiding foods because some fad diet with a cute name says they're bad is a terrible idea.

It always bothers me when people say "eat whatever you like" or "eat what you want". It so subjective without knowing what one likes or wants.

While I do agree that one should enjoy their meals, there is a certain balance that is optimal for health. And there is a certain imbalance that is greatly increases risk of disease.

Yes, and the balance is determined by nutrient content. Hence the phrase "if it fits your macros."

To achieve the right balance, focus on nutrients not labels.

But people may not want to eat the recommended nutrient ratio. So, it is more than just "eat what you like".

And even if you hit the desired macro ratio, you could still be deficient in many micronutrients. Eating to reduce disease risk is more than just "eat whatever you like within these macro goals".

Focus on the "your" in "if it fits your macros." Set up your nutrient targets however you like. Some ways are better than others, but ultimately that choice is up to you.

Yeah, I get that. But I still maintain my point that it may not mesh with "eat whatever you like".

jonnythan

Yeah, I get that. But I still maintain my point that it may not mesh with "eat whatever you like".

It's not "eat whatever you like." It's "eat whatever you like if it fits your nutrient goals." And it meshes just fine.

mmapags

Yeah, I get that. But I still maintain my point that it may not mesh with "eat whatever you like".

It's not "eat whatever you like." It's "eat whatever you like if it fits your nutrient goals." And it meshes just fine.

Why is it that some can always remember the "eat whatever you like" part but can't seem to remember the "If It Fits Your Macros" part. Within that context, you are free to set any additional micronutrient goals you like and "eat to avoid disease risk" quite easily. Is this really that difficult a concept to grasp?

jonnythan

Yeah, I get that. But I still maintain my point that it may not mesh with "eat whatever you like".

It's not "eat whatever you like." It's "eat whatever you like if it fits your nutrient goals." And it meshes just fine.

Why is it that some can always remember the "eat whatever you like" part but can't seem to remember the "If It Fits Your Macros" part. Within that context, you are free to set any additional micronutrient goals you like and "eat to avoid disease risk" quite easily. Is this really that difficult a concept to grasp?

Because people cannot accept a world where there are no demon foods that must be avoided.

MityMax96

Because people cannot accept a world where there are no demon foods that must be avoided.

So butter.
Yes or no?

mmapags

Yeah, I get that. But I still maintain my point that it may not mesh with "eat whatever you like".

It's not "eat whatever you like." It's "eat whatever you like if it fits your nutrient goals." And it meshes just fine.

Why is it that some can always remember the "eat whatever you like" part but can't seem to remember the "If It Fits Your Macros" part. Within that context, you are free to set any additional micronutrient goals you like and "eat to avoid disease risk" quite easily. Is this really that difficult a concept to grasp?

Because people cannot accept a world where there are no demon foods that must be avoided.

Quite true, apparently.

msf74

Eat whatever food you like but maybe not in the quantities you would like...

jonnythan

Because people cannot accept a world where there are no demon foods that must be avoided.

So butter.
Yes or no?

Butter is awesome.

But I'm not paleo. I assume butter is OK in paleo because it doesn't include any ingredients that didn't exist back then, even if Paleolithic man had neither the technology nor knowledge to actually make butter.

rjmudlax13

I'd figured I'd give my opinion on the matter.

I think the paleo philosophy is fine in the sense that it avoids heavily processed foods and incorporates more whole foods. Whole foods generally have more fiber and micronutrients. I just don't understand some of the restrictions, though. I sorta kinda understand avoiding wheat and other processed products, but I find it baffling that you are not allowed potatoes, dairy, beans and other legumes! It's as if the diet is so restrictive that you avoid foods that are very nutritious for you. Also, what do you do when you go to a party or out to eat for business? It seems almost antisocial as well.

I also have issues with the other side of the argument. I think telling a person to “eat whatever they want as long as they don’t have a medical issue” is too extreme too. First of all, how do you know that someone doesn't have the gene that makes them more susceptible to diabetes or high blood pressure? Science is finding more and more that the nurture vs. nature argument is an oversimplification. So, if you have a gene it can be "dormant" and can be "activated" by something in the environment (i.e. diet, stress).

"The truth is somewhere in the middle." I like to advocate a more sensible diet that is also preventative. For example, eat whole nutrient dense foods 75% of the time and indulge in some treats in moderation. Sure, if you have the genes, you can probably eat pop tarts and ice cream all day long and be perfectly healthy as long as you control calories. But how do you know? I know it's fun and clever to "prove" that you can be healthy and fit on the Twinkie diet, but I think it's irresponsible to use that as a way to say anyone can do it.

Again, this is just my dumb stupid humble opinion.

MityMax96

Butter is awesome.

But I'm not paleo. I assume butter is OK in paleo because it doesn't include any ingredients that didn't exist back then, even if Paleolithic man had neither the technology nor knowledge to actually make butter.

It is awesome, but I have heard many people say shy away from it...
Do to the fact it is hydrogenated, and can be a "cholesterol bomb" waiting to go off.....

I guess I would need a steady diet of it and then get some blood work done to see.

jonnythan

Butter is awesome.

But I'm not paleo. I assume butter is OK in paleo because it doesn't include any ingredients that didn't exist back then, even if Paleolithic man had neither the technology nor knowledge to actually make butter.

It is awesome, but I have heard many people say shy away from it...
Do to the fact it is hydrogenated, and can be a "cholesterol bomb" waiting to go off.....

I guess I would need a steady diet of it and then get some blood work done to see.

What? Butter is not hydrogenated. Hydrogenation is a chemical process applied to unsaturated fats to make them saturated or less unsaturated. Butter does not go through this process.

Hydrogenation is not necessarily bad either. Partial hydrogenation leads to trans fats, which are pretty bad. Trans fats are, by definition, only partially saturated. However, full hydrogenation leads to saturated fats and not trans fats.

As for cholesterol, dietary cholesterol has almost zero impact on serum cholesterol. Butter doesn't even have that much cholesterol anyway.

mmapags

"The truth is somewhere in the middle." I like to advocate a more sensible diet that is also preventative. For example, eat whole nutrient dense foods 75% of the time and indulge in some treats in moderation. Sure, if you have the genes, you can probably eat pop tarts and ice cream all day long and be perfectly healthy as long as you control calories.

This statement is likely representative of how the vast majority of those who follow IIFYM do it. On the whole genealogical predisposition point, you would find out somewhere along the way if that is the case and symptoms would present or something would get caught in a blood screening during an annual physical. There is also family history to consider. In the absence of any of that, do what you like with the 20% to 25% that is discretionary.

MityMax96

Butter is awesome.

But I'm not paleo. I assume butter is OK in paleo because it doesn't include any ingredients that didn't exist back then, even if Paleolithic man had neither the technology nor knowledge to actually make butter.

It is awesome, but I have heard many people say shy away from it...
Do to the fact it is hydrogenated, and can be a "cholesterol bomb" waiting to go off.....

I guess I would need a steady diet of it and then get some blood work done to see.

What? Butter is not hydrogenated. Hydrogenation is a chemical process applied to unsaturated fats to make them saturated or less unsaturated. Butter does not go through this process.

Hydrogenation is not necessarily bad either. Partial hydrogenation leads to trans fats, which are pretty bad. Trans fats are, by definition, only partially saturated. However, full hydrogenation leads to saturated fats and not trans fats.

As for cholesterol, dietary cholesterol has almost zero impact on serum cholesterol. Butter doesn't even have that much cholesterol anyway.

Thank, you that is what I meant.
Brain fart....sorry.

But Trans Fat, is what I was going for......not sure why Hydrogenated pop'd in my mind....coffee needed I guess.

But isn't butter pretty much trans-fat?

SnicciFit

Because people cannot accept a world where there are no demon foods that must be avoided.

So butter.
Yes or no?

Very much yes! And grass fed/pastured butter if you care at all about lauric acid, other vitamins & animal welfare/health.

bcattoes

Yeah, I get that. But I still maintain my point that it may not mesh with "eat whatever you like".

It's not "eat whatever you like." It's "eat whatever you like if it fits your nutrient goals." And it meshes just fine.

Why is it that some can always remember the "eat whatever you like" part but can't seem to remember the "If It Fits Your Macros" part. Within that context, you are free to set any additional micronutrient goals you like and "eat to avoid disease risk" quite easily. Is this really that difficult a concept to grasp?

Because people cannot accept a world where there are no demon foods that must be avoided.

Or, perhaps, it's because one was replying to a post that said ONLY:

Eat what you enjoy. That's the whole point of all this! Eat what you like, and don't avoid foods you like because they're "not paleo" or "not clean" or whatever.

MityMax96

And also
I guess it would be margarine, not butter
I always forget there is a difference between those two....


So margarine,
Yes or no?

ThriceBlessed

Pros: Real food, whole food, high protein... you will find it satisfies your appetite because of all the high protein, the lack of processed food is bound to be healthy.

Cons: For me, the main thing that stops me from going paleo is the fact that it generally discourages consumption of dairy, and I love dairy products. A large portion of my daily protein comes from cottage cheese. The lack of grains wouldn't really bother me, I rarely eat grains myself, not because I am actively trying to avoid them, but in the process of trying to keep my protein high and calories low, I find them difficult to include in my diet in any significant amount.

Another con, though not if you do it right, is that some who claim to follow the paleo diet eat things like eggs and bacon in abundance. I won't really get on eggs too much because I don't really think they are bad for you, but I doubt paleo man was often lucky enough to stumble on dozens of eggs every week... he probably had eggs now and then when he could find them, one or two at a time. But bacon... unless you are buying organic, nitrate and nitrite free bacon, it is NOT something that paleo man would ever have eaten, and it is processed heavily.

Basically I think the paleo diet is a great alternative for those who can motivate themselves to stick to it, as long as it is done correctly (no processed meats). I personally would have a hard time following it and sticking to it, and I'm losing weight fine without it.

I think any diet that emphasises whole, unprocessed, natural foods, gives you enough protein and keeps you within your calorie goal is a good choice.

jonnythan

Butter is awesome. I'm not paleo. I assume butter is OK in paleo because it doesn't include any ingredients that didn't exist back then, even if Paleolithic man had neither the technology nor knowledge to actually make butter.

It is awesome, but I have heard many people say shy away from it...
Do to the fact it is hydrogenated, and can be a "cholesterol bomb" waiting to go off.....

I guess I would need a steady diet of it and then get some blood work done to see.

What? Butter is not hydrogenated. Hydrogenation is a chemical process applied to unsaturated fats to make them saturated or less unsaturated. Butter does not go through this process.

Hydrogenation is not necessarily bad either. Partial hydrogenation leads to trans fats, which are pretty bad. Trans fats are, by definition, only partially saturated. However, full hydrogenation leads to saturated fats and not trans fats.

As for cholesterol, dietary cholesterol has almost zero impact on serum cholesterol. Butter doesn't even have that much cholesterol anyway.

Thank, you that is what I meant.
Brain fart....sorry.

But Trans Fat, is what I was going for......not sure why Hydrogenated pop'd in my mind....coffee needed I guess.

But isn't butter pretty much trans-fat?

Butter has very small amounts of trans fat, because beef fat has small amounts of trans fat in it naturally. It's not because of hydrogenation.

Preliminary research indicates that "natural" trans fat, as from beef, isn't necessarily as bad as the trans fat you get from hydrogenated unsaturated fats.

The fat in butter is about 70% fully saturated fat and 4% trans fat. The rest is almost all monounsaturated fat.

jonnythan

And also
I guess it would be margarine, not butter
I always forget there is a difference between those two....


So margarine,
Yes or no?

Depends on how you define margarine. Traditionally margarine was made primarily of partially hydrogenated oils and thus contained mostly trans fats. However, the vast majority of products sold as "margarine" or "spread" these days contain little to no trans fat.