Paleo = dying young?
Options
Replies
-
Moderation is not a synonym of restriction.All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
By the way it was tongue in cheek - all diets are restrictive. Calorie counting definitely is.
All the verbal gymnastics in the world won't change the fact that my "diet" has zero disallowed foods and yours does not.
It has 100% percent restriction on how much you can eat.
RESTRICTIVE DIET!!!!!!!!
It's calorie restrictive, not food restrictive >>
Your diet consists of WHAT you it, not how many calories.
The term restrictive diet - which gets banded around when the primals come on the forum means exactly what is says
Restrictive diet and I'm sorry but means calorie restricted as well as food choice.
They both have their boundaries.0 -
Moderation is not a synonym of restriction.All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
By the way it was tongue in cheek - all diets are restrictive. Calorie counting definitely is.
All the verbal gymnastics in the world won't change the fact that my "diet" has zero disallowed foods and yours does not.
It has 100% percent restriction on how much you can eat.
RESTRICTIVE DIET!!!!!!!!
It's calorie restrictive, not food restrictive >>
Your diet consists of WHAT you it, not how many calories.
The term restrictive diet - which gets banded around when the primals come on the forum means exactly what is says
Restrictive diet and I'm sorry but means calorie restricted as well as food choice.
They both have their boundaries.
It is when that moderation is set as an actual figure!0 -
No, if someone is in a deficit they will lose weight, that's the way the universe works. What your talking about are metabolic dysfunctions that effect how the body burns it's fuel. People with these metabolic dysfunctions need to seek out medical intervention to help plan a course of action that helps them lose weight. PCOS, IR, MetS all respond well to lower carb, in the absenxe of exercise and weight loss....do all three and surprisingly enough they begin to lose weight with similar calorie consumption. Not magic.Maybe if we just replaced the word "Paleo" with "Natural/Unprocessed Food" diet it would keep people from attacking the concept?
But then no one would follow it. You can't market a restrictive diet without a catchy name.
You're eating a restrictive diet! Everyone on this site it! Just because we're not doing it your way, why does that upset you so much.
Maybe it's hug time????
Don't follow. My diet has no restrictions on which foods I may eat.
No but you're restricted on how much of your amazing range of food you can eat so therefore it's a restrictive diet, any diet with boundaries are!
Don't try to be logical. He's not a fan of the logic.
I think you may be the one that is not a fan of the logic. Seriously, let me spell it out for ya. He is NOT against people eating healthily. He is however not a fan of people claiming things without providing facts. He chooses to not restrict things from his diet but still eats at a deficit and he has lost a bunch of weight. He is not saying that any of ANYONES ways of doing things are wrong, he is simply stating that as long as you eat at a deficit you will lose weight. He is absolutely correct unless of course you have a MEDICALLY DIAGNOSED CONDITION but I believe we talked about this before. Please go back and READ everything before replying. It will make things much easier on everyone. Thanks.
That's the whole point though. There are plenty of people that won't lose at a deficit and yet don't have a medically diagnosed condition YET -- just like was my problem for YEARS. It was only after pushing doctors for YEARS and showing them things like my food diary and eventually trying out a few specialists, that I finally got the tests I needed and the underlying medical condition was found/diagnosed. And there may be other conditions that we don't really know about yet which are causing these issues as well. But strangely, things like the Paleo diet help them -- you'll find tons of people that will testify to that, and I suspect they have undiagnosed medical issues, whether certain vitamin deficiencies (like D, iodine or magnesium), hormone imbalances (like insulin resistance, thyroid issues, adrenal issues), food allergies/sensitivities/intolerances (Celiac, gluten sensitivities, etc.) or autoimmune disease.
I could have gone another 10-15 years fighting the whole calories in and calories out thing and being endless frustrated. And 4 doctors would have said everything was fine. But, it wasn't. And the Primal/Paleo diet was literally the only thing that helped me prior to figuring out the underlying cause/issue -- which I only learned about later.0 -
The point was that if paleo is the ultimate way to eat because one is emulating a caveman, then by all means truly eat like one and I'll take it more seriously.:laugh: I hear opinions like this in the gym daily, and people that do it aren't really any more fit or healthier than the ones that don't.Cavemen also drank untreated water, and hunted for their food daily, sucked marrow out of bones, and scavenged when they had to......................................................I'm betting no paleo person on here does that.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Wow. And you're supposed to be a personal/fitness trainer. This may be one of the stupidest comments I've seen in a while. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the nutritional plan WHATSOEVER. Way to be bring asinine to the party.
One can EASILY get correct nutritional values daily eating food that is sold on the market today. Eating whole foods will achieve most of it.
While I disagree with the OP title, since I know that health care has a lot to do with longevity, one doesn't need to eat paleo to ensure they are nutritionally fortifying themselves correctly.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I don't think anyone is saying it's the ONLY way to eat, but that it's ONE of the many good ways to eat. That it's not just some new age craziness without scientific backing. There is a good deal of support out there for it, though the research is definitely in its infancy. I just don't like people acting as if it's some crazy fad, when there is solid biological science behind it's theory that goes way beyond your typical narrowly focused "fad diets".0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
By the way it was tongue in cheek - all diets are restrictive. Calorie counting definitely is.
All the verbal gymnastics in the world won't change the fact that my "diet" has zero disallowed foods and yours does not.
It has 100% percent restriction on how much you can eat.
RESTRICTIVE DIET!!!!!!!!
It's calorie restrictive, not food restrictive >>
Your diet consists of WHAT you it, not how many calories.
The term restrictive diet - which gets banded around when the primals come on the forum means exactly what is says
Restrictive diet and I'm sorry but means calorie restricted as well as food choice.
They both have their boundaries.
I think the term we are looking for is unnecessarily restrictive. To lose fat you have to restrict calories... not necessarily food types. The pale/primal diet on the other hand is unnecessarily restrictive. Unless that is you have a condition that requires you to eliminate certain foods...0 -
Really? Do you think that someone who ate nothing but processed foods, would be unable to meet nutritional goals and still stay within their calorie limit?
The point was that if paleo is the ultimate way to eat because one is emulating a caveman, then by all means truly eat like one and I'll take it more seriously.:laugh: I hear opinions like this in the gym daily, and people that do it aren't really any more fit or healthier than the ones that don't.Cavemen also drank untreated water, and hunted for their food daily, sucked marrow out of bones, and scavenged when they had to......................................................I'm betting no paleo person on here does that.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Wow. And you're supposed to be a personal/fitness trainer. This may be one of the stupidest comments I've seen in a while. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the nutritional plan WHATSOEVER. Way to be bring asinine to the party.
One can EASILY get correct nutritional values daily eating food that is sold on the market today. Eating whole foods will achieve most of it.
While I disagree with the OP title, since I know that health care has a lot to do with longevity, one doesn't need to eat paleo to ensure they are nutritionally fortifying themselves correctly.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Who's saying it's the ultimate way to eat. It's a way of eating, it's not for everybody but it works. We all have a bias on the diets we do.
If you don't want to eat primal or paleo don't. No one is forcing you.
Unlike the PBS we accept other trails of thought.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Sorry did you put your point at the bottom of the wrong quote, they don't seem to fit together!0 -
It's not a fad for some. People do it because of diseases like Hashimoto's.
Not sure what Paleo has to do with Hashimoto's. A diet appropriate for Hashimoto's and Paleo are not synonymous, even if they're compatible.
Actually, the more restricitve autoimmune protocol version of paleo produces much better results than the dietary alternatives.0 -
tennisdude2004, please provide a term you would like us to use to indicate a diet that is restrictive in the specific foods it allowed, which allows us to distinguish from a diet that is restrictive that allows any food but "restricts" calorie intake.0
-
My own $0.02, but people place too much emphasis on whether a diet is "restrictive" and rush too quickly to vilify any sort of dietary restriction. If the restriction in question prevents you from having something you love, then sure, it's a big indicator that said diet is not for you. But everyone is different and I think some people have a much easier time giving up certain foods than others. For that matter, if the restricted foods are items an individual doesn't even on a regular basis even when they aren't dieting, it's not that difficult to continue abstaining from those restricted foods. While I'm sure someone will chime in to conclusively state that restrictions mean someone will necessarily fail and then binge on disallowed foods in the future (a possibility, but far from a certainty), it's worth remembering that people fail at losing weight for all sorts of reasons and with every sort of weight loss plan. Sadly, I see people on my friend list that following IIFYM going inactive, slipping up and otherwise deviating from their plan all the time. In short, that possibility of failure always exists and I honestly believe some people (not all) have a higher likelihood of success when following a structured plan.
While I don't follow a paleo diet nor would I ever try to push it on anyone (nor do I own any caveman-themed t-shirts or memorabilia), I personally think people try to push IIFYM in favor of other structured weight loss plans a bit too overzealously - hell, I saw a poster yesterday in another thread telling someone that they WILL fail and mockingly saying they'll "see them in a few months" after they've regained the weight and given up, all because of "restrictions." Personally, I think people take some good advice of "restrictive diets are not a good fit for everyone" and carrying it a bit too far. A dietary restriction, in and of itself, is not that big of a deal.0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
By the way it was tongue in cheek - all diets are restrictive. Calorie counting definitely is.
All the verbal gymnastics in the world won't change the fact that my "diet" has zero disallowed foods and yours does not.
It has 100% percent restriction on how much you can eat.
RESTRICTIVE DIET!!!!!!!!
It's calorie restrictive, not food restrictive >>
Your diet consists of WHAT you it, not how many calories.
The term restrictive diet - which gets banded around when the primals come on the forum means exactly what is says
Restrictive diet and I'm sorry but means calorie restricted as well as food choice.
They both have their boundaries.
I think the term we are looking for is unnecessarily restrictive. To lose fat you have to restrict calories... not necessarily food types. The pale/primal diet on the other hand is unnecessarily restrictive. Unless that is you have a condition that requires you to eliminate certain foods...
So I'm not eating or limiting eating stuff I don't fancy eating - that's unnecessarily restrictive?
Are you getting your 5 a day from bulls testicles - if not I think your diet is unnecessarily restrictive.0 -
tennisdude2004, please provide a term you would like us to use to indicate a diet that is restrictive in the specific foods it allowed, which allows us to distinguish from a diet that is restrictive that allows any food but "restricts" calorie intake.
Please use the phrase (food restrictive as opposed to my diet which is calorie restrictive'
It's quite long to type so just use FRAOTOMDWICR
Or FRAOT for short.
Cheers0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
There is a difference between restricting caloric intake and restricting what kinds of food you eat.
Having certain macro percentages doesn't eliminate ANY particular food from your diet.
And primal doesn't restrict any macro nutrient from its diet.
Just like a calorie is a calorie - a restrictive diet is a restrictive diet!!????????✋
You do realize that there is a macronutrient breakdown associated with primal and paleo eating, right? Or have you not delved into the real literature that has been published about this type of eating?
That's actually incorrect (at least for Primal). It has to do more with activity level and carbs. The more energy you need for greater exercise, the more carbs you use. Protein tends to be linked to bodyweight more than anything (depending on your goals). For most people that means it ends up being high fat, moderate protein and either low or moderate carbs. If you're looking to lose body fat, usually you lower the total carbs.
But you can have macros across the charts depending on your goals and current body comp. Protein grams stay pretty consistent, but their percentage can shift dramatically depending on the carb input and goals (to maintain, to shred, to gain, etc.). The big thing with Paleo/Primal is usually the content of the macros -- the types of fat, protein and carbs.0 -
You can't eat like they did. You can't live like they did.
EXACTLY.0 -
tennisdude2004, please provide a term you would like us to use to indicate a diet that is restrictive in the specific foods it allowed, which allows us to distinguish from a diet that is restrictive that allows any food but "restricts" calorie intake.
Please use the phrase (food restrictive as opposed to my diet which is calorie restrictive'
It's quite long to type so just use FRAOTOMDWICR
Or FRAOT for short.
Cheers
Well that's kind of a mouthful. I think I will just keep using "restrictive diet" to mean "a diet that restricts the specific foods you can eat."
You are literally the only person who has trouble understanding that, and since you are on a restrictive diet and are intentionally choosing to misunderstand it just to troll threads, your opinion has no impact.0 -
I think the term we are looking for is unnecessarily restrictive. To lose fat you have to restrict calories... not necessarily food types. The pale/primal diet on the other hand is unnecessarily restrictive. Unless that is you have a condition that requires you to eliminate certain foods...
So I'm not eating or limiting eating stuff I don't fancy eating - that's unnecessarily restrictive?
If your happy and healthy eating the way you are eating then by all means eat that way... That said, it may be unnecessarily restrictive for another who feels to reach their goals they need to eat that way... which they probably do not.0 -
I'm assuming you eat paleo. So the question was directed at the acceptance of that trail of thought that there are some that reach their nutritional daily values through processed foods and still stay within calorie limitations. Do you believe that's possible?
Really? Do you think that someone who ate nothing but processed foods, would be unable to meet nutritional goals and still stay within their calorie limit?
The point was that if paleo is the ultimate way to eat because one is emulating a caveman, then by all means truly eat like one and I'll take it more seriously.:laugh: I hear opinions like this in the gym daily, and people that do it aren't really any more fit or healthier than the ones that don't.Cavemen also drank untreated water, and hunted for their food daily, sucked marrow out of bones, and scavenged when they had to......................................................I'm betting no paleo person on here does that.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Wow. And you're supposed to be a personal/fitness trainer. This may be one of the stupidest comments I've seen in a while. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the nutritional plan WHATSOEVER. Way to be bring asinine to the party.
One can EASILY get correct nutritional values daily eating food that is sold on the market today. Eating whole foods will achieve most of it.
While I disagree with the OP title, since I know that health care has a lot to do with longevity, one doesn't need to eat paleo to ensure they are nutritionally fortifying themselves correctly.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Who's saying it's the ultimate way to eat. It's a way of eating, it's not for everybody but it works. We all have a bias on the diets we do.
If you don't want to eat primal or paleo don't. No one is forcing you.
Unlike the PBS we accept other trails of thought.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Sorry did you put your point at the bottom of the wrong quote, they don't seem to fit together!
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I told you that it was a 700+ daily deficit as an average -- that's data. Showing you further underlying data supporting that is not necessary unless you don't believe it.
Let me make it clear: I do not believe that you were eating an average 700+ calorie daily deficit and not losing weight.
That's at least honest. Believe it or not. I lived it, so I know it to be true. Talk to others that have hypothyroid or insulin resistance issues and you'll find it to be pretty darn common. In fact, you'll far more extreme examples than just 700+ average daily calorie deficit.
I believe in his original statement he said to provide him with said data in 2 people that did not have any diagnosed medical conditions. I am no doctor, however Hypothyroid or insulin resistance sound like medical conditions to me. No?
And I believe if you read some of my responses, I said I didn't now about that. But for years, I could have been one of those people because for YEARS, I was undiagnosed, which is what I suspect is the case for a lot of people who have difficulty managing their weight and yet their calories in and out seem to be solid.
Well then why would you even respond to it? He asked to Prove that eating pizza and fast food does not result in the same amount of weight loss as someone who eats the "paleo or Primal" way at the same calorie allotance (THAT HAS NO MEDICAL CONDITIONS) What he asked for was pretty specific, you responding helps nothing, nor does it prove anything except that you like to argue. No?
No, the point I'm trying to make is that calories in and calories out does not work for a lot of people. There are likely a myriad of reasons why -- and likely most of them are unknown unless you have extreme symptoms. So, people with middle of the road symptoms especially probably just assume this is how their life is going to be -- always 30-50 lbs (or more) overweight, fatigued, digestive tract discomfort, joint pain, etc. (fill in whatever symptom you want). And that what may be triggering such reactions for many of these people is underlying diet - -or the underlying diet exacerbates it.
So, if they change the diet/nutrition they get, they may see marvelous results --- even more so than with the medications they may have been taking to treat some of the symptoms (like high cholesterol, blood pressure, anti-inflammatory drugs, etc.). And when they switch to Paleo/Primal, it clears up a lot of those issues for them. Do they have an underlying condition? Maybe. But only maybe when they're eating a lot of grains, bad fats, HFCS, etc. Perhaps when they don't eat those, the condition is within normal parameters or undetectable. This is what I suspect has happened to many people who have seen success, including myself to some degree, on primal. To me, that shows that we likely didn't evolve to tolerate such aspects of the modern diet for a reason.
and there it is ...I am a special snowflake, calories in vs calories out does not work for me. ....sorry, but at the end of the day - no matter the condition - you are going to have to consume less energy, in order to shed excess weight. It is basic math and thermodynamics and all that stuff.
If Primal makes it easier for you to create said deficit then by all means do it. But don't tell me it is some magical diet that defies that basic laws of math and thermodynamics...if that were the case.. I could eat "primal", eat 1000 calories over maintenance, and I would lose weight...which we all know is not going to happen...0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
By the way it was tongue in cheek - all diets are restrictive. Calorie counting definitely is.
All the verbal gymnastics in the world won't change the fact that my "diet" has zero disallowed foods and yours does not.
I wish people like you could accept that after trying this lifestyle, I've been so blown away by the health improvements the I DO NOT WANT TO EAT FOODS THAT MAKE ME SICK. I don't care what you do. Enjoy all the food you want, but stop bashing a lifestyle that doesn't work for you. YOUR lifestyle doesn't work for ME. Trust me, I had almost 40 years of trying your way. For instance, look at the topic title. I am so sick and tired of SAD/IIFYM/calories in calories out crowd being so threatened by the lifestyle of other people that they feel the need to keep starting threads to bash those other lifestyles. I don't start threads to bash YOUR lifestyle. Please stop already. I love how I eat. If I don't want to eat wheat and I occasionally share my experiences with other sick/fat people having the same struggles that I used to have, does that really HURT YOU SO MUCH? It's the misinformation and BS against my lifestyle that is so darn offensive. Implying that the Paleo lifestyle is dangerous and killing people is just flat out UNACCEPTABLE and quite stupid actually.0 -
tennisdude2004, please provide a term you would like us to use to indicate a diet that is restrictive in the specific foods it allowed, which allows us to distinguish from a diet that is restrictive that allows any food but "restricts" calorie intake.
Please use the phrase (food restrictive as opposed to my diet which is calorie restrictive'
It's quite long to type so just use FRAOTOMDWICR
Or FRAOT for short.
Cheers
What if you're on a bulk and are supposed to eat all the foodz?0 -
All I'm saying is I chose not to restrict things from my diet.
So like Johnny I'm not on a restrictive diet. I've not looked at Johnny's diary but does he split his macros into percentages (if yes that's restricting his macro intake) restrictive diet!!!
By the way it was tongue in cheek - all diets are restrictive. Calorie counting definitely is.
All the verbal gymnastics in the world won't change the fact that my "diet" has zero disallowed foods and yours does not.
It has 100% percent restriction on how much you can eat.
RESTRICTIVE DIET!!!!!!!!
It's calorie restrictive, not food restrictive >>
Your diet consists of WHAT you it, not how many calories.
The term restrictive diet - which gets banded around when the primals come on the forum means exactly what is says
Restrictive diet and I'm sorry but means calorie restricted as well as food choice.
They both have their boundaries.
I think the term we are looking for is unnecessarily restrictive. To lose fat you have to restrict calories... not necessarily food types. The pale/primal diet on the other hand is unnecessarily restrictive. Unless that is you have a condition that requires you to eliminate certain foods...
So I'm not eating or limiting eating stuff I don't fancy eating - that's unnecessarily restrictive?
Are you getting your 5 a day from bulls testicles - if not I think your diet is unnecessarily restrictive.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions