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

bcattoes

I'm not sure your last sentence really describes the Paleo diet. And while I am happy that you found something that works for you, I think your post would be more correct if it started with "I do believe its better for me". If it was really best for everyone, why in the world would you not be feeding your children a Paleo diet?

This is pretty much where I fall in context of a paleo diet. I have no studies to back it up but for me, I just feel better when I stick to a paleo template. Like any other diet it's there for anyone who wants to try it... for whatever reason they want to try it.

Agreed Paleojoe, and I don't think children need to follow anything other than eating healthy...(unless they have food senstivities like my daughter has to dairy) Children are growing at a rapid rate (especially their brains) and require so much more in their diet. As adults we have totally different requirements for food compared to a growing child.

I totally agree that children need to eat heatlhy. But that brings me back to the question of why the Paleo Diet excludes healthy foods.

What "healthy" foods does the paleo diet exclude? What nutrients are missing when one adopts a paleo diet?

Beans and whole grains are healthy and excluded. I don't know that any nutrients are missing if one adopts a paleo diet. But it still seems silly to say "don't eat this" just because it's not necessary for a healthy diet.

I can't think of any healthy food that one couldn't exclude and not become nutrient deficient. Can you?

bcattoes

There are no nutrients excluded with paleo. But I think stressing a very strict diet, like labelling potatos, peanut butter, etc type foods as a no no to a child might make them a little concerned about "diet" too much...eating healthly but gotta let kids be kids. Those are just my thoughts on it.

Well, that's kind of my point. The Paleo Diet says legumes and grains should be excluded because they are unhealthy. It says they damage the body. What you choose to eat is your business, I'm just discussing the diet itself. If one really believes the Paleo Diet philosophy then why would they allow their children to eat foods that damage their body?

But, as I've said before, I think there are very, very few people who believe all that nonsense. More likely they just find legumes and grains the easiest things to exclude from the their diet to create a deficit. And again, that is fine as a personal preference. But saying these things are unhealthy for humans? Not true and not fine, IMO.

darkangel45422

There are no nutrients excluded with paleo. But I think stressing a very strict diet, like labelling potatos, peanut butter, etc type foods as a no no to a child might make them a little concerned about "diet" too much...eating healthly but gotta let kids be kids. Those are just my thoughts on it.

Well, that's kind of my point. The Paleo Diet says legumes and grains should be excluded because they are unhealthy. It says they damage the body. What you choose to eat is your business, I'm just discussing the diet itself. If one really believes the Paleo Diet philosophy then why would they allow their children to eat foods that damage their body?

But, as I've said before, I think there are very, very few people who believe all that nonsense. More likely they just find legumes and grains the easiest things to exclude from the their diet to create a deficit. And again, that is fine as a personal preference. But saying these things are unhealthy for humans? Not true and not fine, IMO.

Well I can't speak for everyone but a lot of people who eat ancestrally do in fact believe grains (there's a little more dissension about legumes once they've been properly prepared) are unhealthy, or at the very least not healthy. It's not at all about creating a deficit, otherwise you'd think we'd cut out high calorie things like nuts and advocate only eating low calorie foods. A lot of people who eat ancestrally don't even bother counting calories; some are in maintenance or trying to gain weight, so a deficit is the opposite of what they're looking for. Some people do honestly believe these foods are better eaten rarely.

mumblemagic

In for round 2.

Ditto

Umm.... Tritto??

also this: http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-clean-eating/

paleojoe

Beans and whole grains are healthy and excluded. I don't know that any nutrients are missing if one adopts a paleo diet. But it still seems silly to say "don't eat this" just because it's not necessary for a healthy diet.

I can't think of any healthy food that one couldn't exclude and not become nutrient deficient. Can you?

What makes beans and whole grains so inherently "healthy"? I do agree that eating them is not inherently "unhealthy" but what about them makes them so healthy? What nutrients do they offer that can not be attained elsewhere?

SnicciFit

Beans and whole grains are healthy and excluded. I don't know that any nutrients are missing if one adopts a paleo diet. But it still seems silly to say "don't eat this" just because it's not necessary for a healthy diet.

I can't think of any healthy food that one couldn't exclude and not become nutrient deficient. Can you?

The idea (for me) is that by not eating the "easy" stuff like pasta & bread every day, I'm making room for things like veggies. So... no pasta = spaghetti squash, zucchini...etc. No bread = more greens. So, while pasta & bread may not be "unhealthy" (depends who you ask), by eliminating them, you now are eating more "healthier" options. If I fill my plate up with meat, veggies and fat, there isn't room for things like grains & legumes.

bcattoes

Beans and whole grains are healthy and excluded. I don't know that any nutrients are missing if one adopts a paleo diet. But it still seems silly to say "don't eat this" just because it's not necessary for a healthy diet.

I can't think of any healthy food that one couldn't exclude and not become nutrient deficient. Can you?

The idea (for me) is that by not eating the "easy" stuff like pasta & bread every day, I'm making room for things like veggies. So... no pasta = spaghetti squash, zucchini...etc. No bread = more greens. So, while pasta & bread may not be "unhealthy" (depends who you ask), by eliminating them, you now are eating more "healthier" options. If I fill my plate up with meat, veggies and fat, there isn't room for things like grains & legumes.

Well, first of all, legumes are vegetables. And they contain as many or more nutrients as other vegetables. And more fiber and protein than most other vegetables. When you eliminate legumes, you are eliminating a vegetable.

It is the notion that more non-legume vegetables and no whole grains/legumes = "healthier" that I think you'd find impossible to backup with science.

bcattoes

Beans and whole grains are healthy and excluded. I don't know that any nutrients are missing if one adopts a paleo diet. But it still seems silly to say "don't eat this" just because it's not necessary for a healthy diet.

I can't think of any healthy food that one couldn't exclude and not become nutrient deficient. Can you?

What makes beans and whole grains so inherently "healthy"? I do agree that eating them is not inherently "unhealthy" but what about them makes them so healthy? What nutrients do they offer that can not be attained elsewhere?

So, you would only consider a food healthy if it contains a nutrient that could not be obtained elsewhere?? What food is heatlhy using that criterion?

bcattoes

There are no nutrients excluded with paleo. But I think stressing a very strict diet, like labelling potatos, peanut butter, etc type foods as a no no to a child might make them a little concerned about "diet" too much...eating healthly but gotta let kids be kids. Those are just my thoughts on it.

Well, that's kind of my point. The Paleo Diet says legumes and grains should be excluded because they are unhealthy. It says they damage the body. What you choose to eat is your business, I'm just discussing the diet itself. If one really believes the Paleo Diet philosophy then why would they allow their children to eat foods that damage their body?

But, as I've said before, I think there are very, very few people who believe all that nonsense. More likely they just find legumes and grains the easiest things to exclude from the their diet to create a deficit. And again, that is fine as a personal preference. But saying these things are unhealthy for humans? Not true and not fine, IMO.

Well I can't speak for everyone but a lot of people who eat ancestrally do in fact believe grains (there's a little more dissension about legumes once they've been properly prepared) are unhealthy, or at the very least not healthy. It's not at all about creating a deficit, otherwise you'd think we'd cut out high calorie things like nuts and advocate only eating low calorie foods. A lot of people who eat ancestrally don't even bother counting calories; some are in maintenance or trying to gain weight, so a deficit is the opposite of what they're looking for. Some people do honestly believe these foods are better eaten rarely.

I understand that. And by that, I mean I understand that some people think these things are unhealthy, not that I understand why they think them unhealthy.

My post was in response to someone that chose Paleo for health, but had children that do not eat Paleo. I wondered why someone would feed their own children foods they believed were unhealthy.

paleojoe

My biggest issue with the Paleo diet is at times, it can give you a bit of information overload. Every day I feel like there is some new information that this food "can" be problematic and that food "can" be problematic. Honestly it gets to be too much... I am a believer that what you eat is important, but how you feel about what you eat is even more important.

These are the words I am trying to live by currently...

"Eat less, stress less: move more, lift more and get a good nights sleep. For physical health, that's pretty much as good as it gets."
–Brad Pilon, Eat Stop Eat

paleojoe

My post was in response to someone that chose Paleo for health, but had children that do not eat Paleo. I wondered why someone would feed their own children foods they believed were unhealthy.

I think she said she did not believe they were inherently unhealthy... just problematic for her.

paleojoe

Well, first of all, legumes are vegetables. And they contain as many or more nutrients as other vegetables. And more fiber and protein than most other vegetables. When you eliminate legumes, you are eliminating a vegetable.

It is the notion that more non-legume vegetables and no whole grains/legumes = "healthier" that I think you'd find impossible to backup with science.

My understanding is that the nutrients in legumes are not as bio-available. I am not sure how much I buy that, but that is my understanding. Personally I eat legumes, they do not make up the bulk of my daily calories, but I eat them none the less.

mmapags

My biggest issue with the Paleo diet is at times, it can give you a bit of information overload. Every day I feel like there is some new information that this food "can" be problematic and that food "can" be problematic. Honestly it gets to be too much... I am a believer that what you eat is important, but how you feel about what you eat is even more important.

These are the words I am trying to live by currently...

"Eat less, stress less: move more, lift more and get a good nights sleep. For physical health, that's pretty much as good as it gets."
–Brad Pilon, Eat Stop Eat

I totally agree. There seems to be a general tendency to makes things overly complicated thinking that makes it better. What you posted above is pretty much all you need to know.

bcattoes

My post was in response to someone that chose Paleo for health, but had children that do not eat Paleo. I wondered why someone would feed their own children foods they believed were unhealthy.

I think she said she did not believe they were inherently unhealthy... just problematic for her.

Yes, she did indeed.