Paleo vs. Clean eating?
Replies
-
Sure, if you extrapolate anything out far enough, it becomes non-sensical or useless. But an 80/20 carve out and allowances for dairy don't seem like that extreme. Shoot, they seem pretty moderate in fact. I don't think such an evolution is even close to the point where words cease to mean anything.
That's a point we may just fundamentally disagree on. Since the 80/20 discussion, Paleo now means to me that every single day, people can be eating literally anything. And if they eat 50% non-paleo, that's still ok, because it's rude to question that. That's why it becomes meaningless. It can't be questioned, challenged, or criticized.
The evolution of Paleo to Primal including dairy makes sense. That's two different terms. (Today I learned the term "Seagan." I was befuddled for a moment, then just glad they don't call themselves vegans while eating tilapia.)
The evolution of Paleo to meat, cheese, and whatever treats you want is very close to meaningless. And plenty of people will do 80/20 of 80/20. It lacks any conviction.
Well, I think there are differences between theory and application. To me, what is supposed to be done is the theory. It's the theory of the diet I generally discuss or focus on. The idea why they limit/reduce grains, legumes, certain fats, refined sugar, processed foods, etc. and focus on grass-fed red meat, other meats, certain fats, full-fat dairy if it agrees with you, certain veggies and fruits, etc.
How people apply or adhere to that, whether they're "faithful" or not, I don't really care. That's their business. And it literally has nothing to do with the vast majority of the theory.0 -
If you want proof that it's not just Paleo, check out the Plant Strong thread in this forum. I'm only on page 2, and there's been diary challenges and bacon cakes.
I don't discount your assertion that the bullying and disrespectful discourse takes all forms, but that isn't a very good defense or rationalization in my mind for the bad behavior in the first place. It just furthers my abhorrence for the general principle and seems to be terribly unsupportive for those that supposedly do it as a twisted form of support.
It's not a defense or rationalization. It's a response to the several statements that this only happens to Paleo posters on MFP. Untrue.
Let me clarify. I see how you could have interpreted it that way, but I didn't intend it that way. I meant between Paleo/Primal versus those that challenge Paleo/Primal or Paleo/Primal versus other groups. I haven't seen Paleo/Primal people bashing any others -- whether IIFYM, vegans, etc. or otherwise. I've only seen the bashing going one-way in that regard. I didn't mean to intend that those that are bashing Paleo are also not bashing other groups as well or that other bashing is going on to other groups.0 -
yes, I have read the site and found it over the top paleo and boring ..so did not dig in further…
and sorry, a website dedicated to paleo is not a "scholarly site"..
and why is it my job to google the research that you cannot find, to prove your point?
I'm not saying it's a scholarly site, but I am saying that many of the articles have cites to scholarly articles and scientific studies and if you're interested in reading them, they're there for you to locate.
I don't think it's your job to do anything, but it not my job to send you or anyone else links to anything. You asked for a resource and I provided what I had off the top of my head. You don't like that resource, feel free to locate your own. But, it's certainly my job to do so either.0 -
Well, I think there are differences between theory and application. To me, what is supposed to be done is the theory. It's the theory of the diet I generally discuss or focus on. The idea why they limit/reduce grains, legumes, certain fats, refined sugar, processed foods, etc. and focus on grass-fed red meat, other meats, certain fats, full-fat dairy if it agrees with you, certain veggies and fruits, etc.
How people apply or adhere to that, whether they're "faithful" or not, I don't really care. That's their business. And it literally has nothing to do with the vast majority of the theory.
I agree that what is supposed to be done is the theory. What we disagree on is that application doesn't matter. Once you announce that you do something, it becomes the business of anyone you're sharing that with. You seem only concerned with formal applications; I believe the informal application is just as important. It's what is done with an idea that eventually defines it.0 -
Well, I think there are differences between theory and application. To me, what is supposed to be done is the theory. It's the theory of the diet I generally discuss or focus on. The idea why they limit/reduce grains, legumes, certain fats, refined sugar, processed foods, etc. and focus on grass-fed red meat, other meats, certain fats, full-fat dairy if it agrees with you, certain veggies and fruits, etc.
How people apply or adhere to that, whether they're "faithful" or not, I don't really care. That's their business. And it literally has nothing to do with the vast majority of the theory.
I agree that what is supposed to be done is the theory. What we disagree on is that application doesn't matter. Once you announce that you do something, it becomes the business of anyone you're sharing that with. You seem only concerned with formal applications; I believe the informal application is just as important. It's what is done with an idea that eventually defines it.
I'm not saying application isn't important in life in general, just not in a discussion about the merits of the Paleo/Primal lifestyle or diet.
And I certainly disagree with you about announcing something means it gives anyone free license to probe into your application. If someone said they were Catholic, I don't think the appropriate response would be people challenging or questioning how Catholic they were. That doesn't follow for me at all, especially in a conversation about the theory of Catholocism.0 -
Now you're just trying to disprove your first point!OP: Trying to incorporate cleaner eating in whatever form is always a good thing, but make sure it's something that YOU can sustain long term.
Why is it "always a good thing"?
Do you have any good evidence to back your claim up?
I think too much emphasis is place on sustaining for long term. I mean today I had a Big Carl's meal with large cherry coke, medium fries, 3 ranch and lots of ketchup. I wanted a big carl.
The last few weeks or even month I eat tuna, chicken breast, carrots, eggs, and greek yogurt, strawberries, bananas, kale, and nonfat milk most days and trader joe trek mix, almonds... well pretty much everyday. Will I sustain that for life? Maybe or until I want to eat something else.
There have been days where I just ate veggies, fruits, greek yogurt, no meat. Will I sustain that for life? Probably not I just wanted to eat that for a minute.
My point is that taste changes and we are under no obligation to sustain a particular food, food group, etc for life. We have choices and can make different choices depending on our mood or objective at that particular time.
Doesn't have to be complicated folks. Really doesn't. lol
That's called "If it fits your macros"
I call it "Its what I want to eat." LOL.... Although I will admit I more watch out for protein macro more than anything.
I do not put labels on stuff. I do me.
Yeah. I do protein and micros.0 -
Well, I think there are differences between theory and application. To me, what is supposed to be done is the theory. It's the theory of the diet I generally discuss or focus on. The idea why they limit/reduce grains, legumes, certain fats, refined sugar, processed foods, etc. and focus on grass-fed red meat, other meats, certain fats, full-fat dairy if it agrees with you, certain veggies and fruits, etc.
How people apply or adhere to that, whether they're "faithful" or not, I don't really care. That's their business. And it literally has nothing to do with the vast majority of the theory.
I agree that what is supposed to be done is the theory. What we disagree on is that application doesn't matter. Once you announce that you do something, it becomes the business of anyone you're sharing that with. You seem only concerned with formal applications; I believe the informal application is just as important. It's what is done with an idea that eventually defines it.
And how can anybody say "I tried Paleo and it worked for me" if Paleo has no operational definition?0 -
I'm not saying application isn't important in life in general, just not in a discussion about the merits of the Paleo/Primal lifestyle or diet.
And I certainly disagree with you about announcing something means it gives anyone free license to probe into your application. If someone said they were Catholic, I don't think the appropriate response would be people challenging or questioning how Catholic they were. That doesn't follow for me at all, especially in a conversation about the theory of Catholocism.
Because in a discussion about the merits of something, there has to be a definition. If the definition is essentially saying you are paleo, then all benefits (and negatives) in the discussion become pretty suspect.
If someone is discussing the merits of Catholicism, and someone says that they believe that Jesus was not born to a virgin and that he is not actually the son of God, it's certainly appropriate to question how they define Catholicism.0 -
I'm not saying application isn't important in life in general, just not in a discussion about the merits of the Paleo/Primal lifestyle or diet.
And I certainly disagree with you about announcing something means it gives anyone free license to probe into your application. If someone said they were Catholic, I don't think the appropriate response would be people challenging or questioning how Catholic they were. That doesn't follow for me at all, especially in a conversation about the theory of Catholocism.
Because in a discussion about the merits of something, there has to be a definition. If the definition is essentially saying you are paleo, then all benefits (and negatives) in the discussion become pretty suspect.
If someone is discussing the merits of Catholicism, and someone says that they believe that Jesus was not born to a virgin and that he is not actually the son of God, it's certainly appropriate to question how they define Catholicism.
Exactly. If I say I'm "paleo" and my application of the concept is limiting dairy because I'm lactose intolerant - a lot more information would be exchanged if I said "I limit dairy because I'm lactose intolerant" Adding the term "paleo" to the discussion just muddies the conversation.
It's not that I'm judging you (well, maybe a little), it's just that it's impossible to evaluate a diet that doesn't have any real definition/guidelines.0 -
Well, I think there are differences between theory and application. To me, what is supposed to be done is the theory. It's the theory of the diet I generally discuss or focus on. The idea why they limit/reduce grains, legumes, certain fats, refined sugar, processed foods, etc. and focus on grass-fed red meat, other meats, certain fats, full-fat dairy if it agrees with you, certain veggies and fruits, etc.
How people apply or adhere to that, whether they're "faithful" or not, I don't really care. That's their business. And it literally has nothing to do with the vast majority of the theory.
I agree that what is supposed to be done is the theory. What we disagree on is that application doesn't matter. Once you announce that you do something, it becomes the business of anyone you're sharing that with. You seem only concerned with formal applications; I believe the informal application is just as important. It's what is done with an idea that eventually defines it.
And how can anybody say "I tried Paleo and it worked for me" if Paleo has no operational definition?
convenience….apparently, anyone can claim paleo and the benefits…so we are all paleo …who knew?0 -
Well, I think there are differences between theory and application. To me, what is supposed to be done is the theory. It's the theory of the diet I generally discuss or focus on. The idea why they limit/reduce grains, legumes, certain fats, refined sugar, processed foods, etc. and focus on grass-fed red meat, other meats, certain fats, full-fat dairy if it agrees with you, certain veggies and fruits, etc.
How people apply or adhere to that, whether they're "faithful" or not, I don't really care. That's their business. And it literally has nothing to do with the vast majority of the theory.
I agree that what is supposed to be done is the theory. What we disagree on is that application doesn't matter. Once you announce that you do something, it becomes the business of anyone you're sharing that with. You seem only concerned with formal applications; I believe the informal application is just as important. It's what is done with an idea that eventually defines it.
And how can anybody say "I tried Paleo and it worked for me" if Paleo has no operational definition?
convenience….apparently, anyone can claim paleo and the benefits…so we are all paleo …who knew?
LOL. That's kind of true in the real world, you know.0 -
Well, I think there are differences between theory and application. To me, what is supposed to be done is the theory. It's the theory of the diet I generally discuss or focus on. The idea why they limit/reduce grains, legumes, certain fats, refined sugar, processed foods, etc. and focus on grass-fed red meat, other meats, certain fats, full-fat dairy if it agrees with you, certain veggies and fruits, etc.
How people apply or adhere to that, whether they're "faithful" or not, I don't really care. That's their business. And it literally has nothing to do with the vast majority of the theory.
I agree that what is supposed to be done is the theory. What we disagree on is that application doesn't matter. Once you announce that you do something, it becomes the business of anyone you're sharing that with. You seem only concerned with formal applications; I believe the informal application is just as important. It's what is done with an idea that eventually defines it.
And how can anybody say "I tried Paleo and it worked for me" if Paleo has no operational definition?
I don't think that the application of the operational definition is important. Talking about the definition, yes. Whether any specific individual is complying in order to discuss? No. If someone eats Paleo 70% of the time, then they get 70% of the benefits -- and frankly I don't care if they self-style themselves Paleo/Primal or not. I don't think it's an all-or-nothing premise. And what I'm discussing is the benefits of Paleo/Primal, not the perfection in the application.0 -
I'm not saying application isn't important in life in general, just not in a discussion about the merits of the Paleo/Primal lifestyle or diet.
And I certainly disagree with you about announcing something means it gives anyone free license to probe into your application. If someone said they were Catholic, I don't think the appropriate response would be people challenging or questioning how Catholic they were. That doesn't follow for me at all, especially in a conversation about the theory of Catholocism.
Because in a discussion about the merits of something, there has to be a definition. If the definition is essentially saying you are paleo, then all benefits (and negatives) in the discussion become pretty suspect.
If someone is discussing the merits of Catholicism, and someone says that they believe that Jesus was not born to a virgin and that he is not actually the son of God, it's certainly appropriate to question how they define Catholicism.
Sure, I think it's fine to question how they define Catholicism. But Catholicism is not defined by how any specific individual chooses to practice. Catholicism has certain tenets, just as Paleo/Primal does. And, probably like Catholocism, fellow Paleo/Primal followers aren't quizzing each other on their faithfulness to wear the label. And once again any individual's one adherence doesn't impact the theories and tenets of those systems. It may impact their individual success or benefits they derive from it, bu that's a separate issue.0 -
I'm not saying application isn't important in life in general, just not in a discussion about the merits of the Paleo/Primal lifestyle or diet.
And I certainly disagree with you about announcing something means it gives anyone free license to probe into your application. If someone said they were Catholic, I don't think the appropriate response would be people challenging or questioning how Catholic they were. That doesn't follow for me at all, especially in a conversation about the theory of Catholocism.
Because in a discussion about the merits of something, there has to be a definition. If the definition is essentially saying you are paleo, then all benefits (and negatives) in the discussion become pretty suspect.
If someone is discussing the merits of Catholicism, and someone says that they believe that Jesus was not born to a virgin and that he is not actually the son of God, it's certainly appropriate to question how they define Catholicism.
Exactly. If I say I'm "paleo" and my application of the concept is limiting dairy because I'm lactose intolerant - a lot more information would be exchanged if I said "I limit dairy because I'm lactose intolerant" Adding the term "paleo" to the discussion just muddies the conversation.
It's not that I'm judging you (well, maybe a little), it's just that it's impossible to evaluate a diet that doesn't have any real definition/guidelines.
Once again, definition is separate from adherence or practice. You can discuss the benefits and tenets of strictly Paleo, as you can for more permissive Primal. But whether someone follows those tenets 10% of the time or 90% doesn't impact the underlying tenets/theory, but only their individual results.0 -
Okay, let's try it with a different example. Let's take IIFYM. Now, do you ask people when they claim to be IIFYM, if they adhere to those macros 100% of the time, 80% of the time, 30% of the time to claim that they follow that plan? Are people that follow it only 50% of the time permitted to discuss the benefits and detriments of the theory at all? Is there a minimum of adherence required to (1) claim the affiliation or (2) discuss the theory?0
-
And how can anybody say "I tried Paleo and it worked for me" if Paleo has no operational definition?
convenience….apparently, anyone can claim paleo and the benefits…so we are all paleo …who knew?
LOL. That's kind of true in the real world, you know.
Well, I guess that applies to virtually everything in life as virtually nothing has 100% compliance or perfection. So, I guess we're all everything. Yes, very useful point. Thank you for extrapolating into useless non-sense.0 -
I'm not saying application isn't important in life in general, just not in a discussion about the merits of the Paleo/Primal lifestyle or diet.
And I certainly disagree with you about announcing something means it gives anyone free license to probe into your application. If someone said they were Catholic, I don't think the appropriate response would be people challenging or questioning how Catholic they were. That doesn't follow for me at all, especially in a conversation about the theory of Catholocism.
Because in a discussion about the merits of something, there has to be a definition. If the definition is essentially saying you are paleo, then all benefits (and negatives) in the discussion become pretty suspect.
If someone is discussing the merits of Catholicism, and someone says that they believe that Jesus was not born to a virgin and that he is not actually the son of God, it's certainly appropriate to question how they define Catholicism.
Sure, I think it's fine to question how they define Catholicism. But Catholicism is not defined by how any specific individual chooses to practice. Catholicism has certain tenets, just as Paleo/Primal does. And, probably like Catholocism, fellow Paleo/Primal followers aren't quizzing each other on their faithfulness to wear the label. And once again any individual's one adherence doesn't impact the theories and tenets of those systems. It may impact their individual success or benefits they derive from it, bu that's a separate issue.
You haven't been around many Catholics, have you? :laugh:0 -
Sure, I think it's fine to question how they define Catholicism. But Catholicism is not defined by how any specific individual chooses to practice. Catholicism has certain tenets, just as Paleo/Primal does. And, probably like Catholocism, fellow Paleo/Primal followers aren't quizzing each other on their faithfulness to wear the label. And once again any individual's one adherence doesn't impact the theories and tenets of those systems. It may impact their individual success or benefits they derive from it, bu that's a separate issue.
You haven't been around many Catholics, have you? :laugh:
Oh, on the contrary. I know quite a few different variations of Catholic, but I've yet to hear anyone complain about the variations yet. Now, whether they're a "good" Catholic, that's a whole different matter altogether -- but they're all very much Catholics, even the ones that don't believe anymore or just go to mass to make their mothers happy.0 -
Sure, I think it's fine to question how they define Catholicism. But Catholicism is not defined by how any specific individual chooses to practice. Catholicism has certain tenets, just as Paleo/Primal does. And, probably like Catholocism, fellow Paleo/Primal followers aren't quizzing each other on their faithfulness to wear the label. And once again any individual's one adherence doesn't impact the theories and tenets of those systems. It may impact their individual success or benefits they derive from it, bu that's a separate issue.
You haven't been around many Catholics, have you? :laugh:
Oh, on the contrary. I know quite a few different variations of Catholic, but I've yet to hear anyone complain about the variations yet. Now, whether they're a "good" Catholic, that's a whole different matter altogether -- but they're all very much Catholics, even the ones that don't believe anymore or just go to mass to make their mothers happy.
A person who doesn't believe anymore isn't a Catholic. He or she might have been RAISED Catholic, but Catholicism is a belief system. While there may be some minor variations, there is a set of core beliefs that define Catholicism that differentiates it from other Christian religions. Once a person rejects those beliefs, he or she is no longer Catholic. The individual doesn't set those definitions. Those were set LONG before that person was born.
Someone who believes that divorce is wrong and doesn't believe in God isn't a "10% Catholic", but an atheist.
As far as I'm concerned, the same thing goes for Paleo. Either you are or you aren't. Once you start picking and choosing cafeteria style, you just aren't.0 -
A person who doesn't believe anymore isn't a Catholic. He or she might have been RAISED Catholic, but Catholicism is a belief system. While there may be some minor variations, there is a set of core beliefs that define Catholicism that differentiates it from other Christian religions. Once a person rejects those beliefs, he or she is no longer Catholic. The individual doesn't set those definitions. Those were set LONG before that person was born.
Someone who believes that divorce is wrong and doesn't believe in God isn't a "10% Catholic", but an atheist.
As far as I'm concerned, the same thing goes for Paleo. Either you are or you aren't. Once you start picking and choosing cafeteria style, you just aren't.
Well, I know many a Catholic that would disagree with you on that, and tell you that Catholic is far more than a mere belief system. But feel free to argue with them this point as well. I'm sure they've heard it before and would just smile, shake their head and tell you "that's all very modern, dear".0 -
I guess I just see a lot of these issues as useless judging. Not the type of judging relative to moral issues, which I think is valuable, but the useless judging as to lifestyle preferences. The type from people that serves no purpose other than to be divisive. I don't see it as respectful, nor helpful, and oftentimes just downright emotionally dishonest (i.e. not from a place of honest desire to help, but out of misplaced self-righteousness and occasionally downright bullying by small, petty people). You're free to do it, of course, but I just disagree with it and see no value in it. But, I guess if it makes you feel better, there's at least that.
I have been open that my interest is less about the specific diet and more so about the belief that gets argued that semantics don't matter.
You mentioned being some form of a scientist. You know why it matters. It matters for the same reason that research uses control groups, tries to assess variables, has very strict guidelines to meet to prove causation and not correlation, and is expected to be peer reviewed and challenged and able to be re-proven.
I would agree with you 100% if this was a Paleo group. I won't take my curiosity about this 80/20 business and semantics there because it's uninvited, unwanted, unwarranted. But everyone here has the right to ask questions or even issue challenges when it's talked about in the general area.
You can't complain about people criticizing or questioning something because it's just "a lifestyle" while simultaneously promoting the benefits, to the point of telling people they should try it to see if they have health issues they don't know about. I don't care about really anyone's lifestyle, until it hurts someone or they start telling others to try it. Once they do that, they've invited questions and essentially, requests for evidence. Like I know you would want if I made negative statements about Paleo.
I'm not attacking you or upset by this. We obviously disagree, but that's part of discussion. Know that I agree that people (on either side) should not be belittling, and I agree that people who want to argue the Paleo diets should stay out of those groups. But as long as you stay here and keep talking to me, I'm going to respond when I see it. This discussion is really interesting to me, and it must be to you, because you stick around, too.
I'm all for respectful disagreement, and I completely appreciate your response. Thank you for the courtesy and consideration. Just for the record, I don't consider myself a scientist (as I don't actively do research or otherwise applicable activity), but I do have a biology degree from a top research university, as much as that is mocked by french models on this board.
I agree that semantics matter in certain contexts, I just don't believe it really matters in the context of most of the arguments against Paleo/Primal I've seen on this website. If we're talking scientific studies, absolutely. Legal documents, absolutely. Precision and accuracy are absolutely important in those contexts.
Whether someone adheres to their professed diet 100% is not important in such a context. Whether the label behind the diet is 100% anthropologically correct is also besides the point. The diet is based on nutritional science, not anthropological science (notwithstanding the fact that I bet there were some paleolithic people in certain areas of the world that ate very similarly to the foods outlined in the diet -- not all, but some).
That's the issue for me. It's NOT based on nutritional science. In fact, from what I can see, it's based on some pretty dodgy hypotheses. "Nutritional science" rarely advocates restriction of food groups to the degree of paleo/primal, so please don't say that it is based on nutrition science as if it's a somehow superior way to eat.
Then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. There are numerous studies cited in books like Good Calories Bad Calories, Deep Nutrition, Wheat Belly, host of articles on marksdailyapple. I've read a lot of the underlying studies as well and I find a lot of the evidence out there persuasive. Not definitive, but persuasive enough for me to give it a try. You may not agree, fine.
Have you read all these books? Have you read all the articles on marksdailyapple? I think to categorize all the studies cited therein as psuedoscience is wholly inaccurate, even irresponsible.
I rarely read books like that, but I have read excerpts from Wheat Belly and I've read some of marksdailyapple which I don't regard very highly at all. He tries to baffle people with bs but HE is one person who I would consider irresponsible with his 'expert' advice.
To keep up to date with my nutrition knowledge I tend to read journal articles as I'm able to access the full text.
I am quite comfortable asserting that paleo/primal is NOT based on nutritional science as you stated.
Like others have requested I would be interested to see just a few of the studies cited in the books you talk about.0 -
I've read some of his links and I wouldn't consider cell culture work to be sufficient evidence to support some of his claims. Seriously, does he just assume that people don't bother clicking the links?.....or, "Ooh, it's from Pubmed so it must be ok"....:laugh:yes, I have read the site and found it over the top paleo and boring ..so did not dig in further…
and sorry, a website dedicated to paleo is not a "scholarly site"..
and why is it my job to google the research that you cannot find, to prove your point?
I'm not saying it's a scholarly site, but I am saying that many of the articles have cites to scholarly articles and scientific studies and if you're interested in reading them, they're there for you to locate.
I don't think it's your job to do anything, but it not my job to send you or anyone else links to anything. You asked for a resource and I provided what I had off the top of my head. You don't like that resource, feel free to locate your own. But, it's certainly my job to do so either.0 -
I don't think that the application of the operational definition is important. Talking about the definition, yes. Whether any specific individual is complying in order to discuss? No. If someone eats Paleo 70% of the time, then they get 70% of the benefits -- and frankly I don't care if they self-style themselves Paleo/Primal or not. I don't think it's an all-or-nothing premise. And what I'm discussing is the benefits of Paleo/Primal, not the perfection in the application.
Are we talking about a specific individual here? I honestly can't remember. I haven't looked at your diary or Tennisdude's. What I have been debating has to do with "What is Paleo?" If someone is Paleo 70% of the time, is that a thing, or are they just eating? Does not caring what people do with the label essentially mean that the evolution that will occur with Paleo is that it becomes nothing more than a name to call yourself?
I don't question your results. I'm not someone interested in the scientific studies. I believe that you are likely someone who does pretty much exactly what she says she does. I know how much better I feel when I don't eat certain foods, so I know the same can be true for you. But the problem is that your results alone don't mean much. That's why how theory and application meet really does matter.
You asked later about IIFYM. I would not consider myself a strict IIFYM, because I pretty much throw it out the window on days I don't want to deal with it. It's the style I believe makes the most sense. Can I say I am someone who actually follows it? No, I dabble in it, I have IIFYM days. Same thing with clean eating. It's my ideal way of eating. I strive to be a clean eater. I am not eating a clean diet, I am not a clean eater, because I just don't practice what I believe.
*I couldn't remember how I got involved in this thread. I've stayed out of other Paleo threads because they were more focused. I chose to get involved in this one after it was already derailed, from the evolution of the thread that pretty much everyone participated in. Actually, the quote that I responded to that brought me in on this derail was from you. That's just what happened with this thread; there was some dissent and some response and the conversation changed. I'm not going to walk in every thread that talks about Paleo and say, "What is Paleo?" But this one was already long since there.0 -
I don't think that the application of the operational definition is important. Talking about the definition, yes. Whether any specific individual is complying in order to discuss? No. If someone eats Paleo 70% of the time, then they get 70% of the benefits -- and frankly I don't care if they self-style themselves Paleo/Primal or not. I don't think it's an all-or-nothing premise. And what I'm discussing is the benefits of Paleo/Primal, not the perfection in the application.
Are we talking about a specific individual here? I honestly can't remember. I haven't looked at your diary or Tennisdude's. What I have been debating has to do with "What is Paleo?" If someone is Paleo 70% of the time, is that a thing, or are they just eating? Does not caring what people do with the label essentially mean that the evolution that will occur with Paleo is that it becomes nothing more than a name to call yourself?
I don't question your results. I'm not someone interested in the scientific studies. I believe that you are likely someone who does pretty much exactly what she says she does. I know how much better I feel when I don't eat certain foods, so I know the same can be true for you. But the problem is that your results alone don't mean much. That's why how theory and application meet really does matter.
You asked later about IIFYM. I would not consider myself a strict IIFYM, because I pretty much throw it out the window on days I don't want to deal with it. It's the style I believe makes the most sense. Can I say I am someone who actually follows it? No, I dabble in it, I have IIFYM days. Same thing with clean eating. It's my ideal way of eating. I strive to be a clean eater. I am not eating a clean diet, I am not a clean eater, because I just don't practice what I believe.
*I couldn't remember how I got involved in this thread. I've stayed out of other Paleo threads because they were more focused. I chose to get involved in this one after it was already derailed, from the evolution of the thread that pretty much everyone participated in. Actually, the quote that I responded to that brought me in on this derail was from you. That's just what happened with this thread; there was some dissent and some response and the conversation changed. I'm not going to walk in every thread that talks about Paleo and say, "What is Paleo?" But this one was already long since there.
You say you are not a strict IIFYM by your own definition you are NOT an IIFYM follower at all then - if you do not follow something 100% you cannot claim to be a follower of that diet.
In fact I would argue that most people making this claim are the self under the believe they are following a particular style of eating, be it IIFYM, Aitkins, primal, paleo, vegan etc.... But are guilty of not following them 100%.
Personally I disagree with that way of thinking as some people find comfort, encouragement and support when they have principles to follow - albeit most will struggle to find perfection.
To be honest the original thread asking for advice on what people thought were better has gone so far off course I'm confused what any of you really mean - or if you are just trying to hijack the paleo threads.0 -
You say you are not a strict IIFYM by your own definition you are NOT an IIFYM follower at all then - if you do not follow something 100% you cannot claim to be a follower of that diet.
In fact I would argue that most people making this claim are the self under the believe they are following a particular style of eating, be it IIFYM, Aitkins, primal, paleo, vegan etc.... But are guilty of not following them 100%.
Personally I disagree with that way of thinking as some people find comfort, encouragement and support when they have principles to follow.
To be honest the original thread asking for advice on what people thought were better has gone so far off course I'm confused what any of you really mean - or if you are just trying to hijack the paleo threads.
You're right. I'm not an IIFYM follower. I have IIFYM days. That's why I try for when I am most on. I dabble, I don't "follow." There's a pretty enormous difference between me and say, Sara or Sidesteel. You realize that I said that in what you quoted, right?
As I just said, this thread was already long since derailed when I joined in. And it got that way in part through your contributions. One side cannot derail a thread. If you ignored everyone you think is derailing, it wouldn't have turned into this discussion. You just want to be able to say what you want to say without being responded to unless it's an agreement. That's not a discussion, that's a sermon.
Again, the comment I responded to that was "off topic" was actually Lindsey's. And I don't blame her for the thread derail. But that is what happens in discussions.
PS: I never intentionally eat something that is not vegan. I don't control manufacturing and labeling, so I'm sure it's entirely possible that something I have eaten wasn't 100% pure. Even religions with dietary guidelines allow that we're not higher powers so that's not within our control. But I certainly don't eat steak and say, "Eh, no one's perfect."0 -
You say you are not a strict IIFYM by your own definition you are NOT an IIFYM follower at all then - if you do not follow something 100% you cannot claim to be a follower of that diet.
In fact I would argue that most people making this claim are the self under the believe they are following a particular style of eating, be it IIFYM, Aitkins, primal, paleo, vegan etc.... But are guilty of not following them 100%.
Personally I disagree with that way of thinking as some people find comfort, encouragement and support when they have principles to follow.
To be honest the original thread asking for advice on what people thought were better has gone so far off course I'm confused what any of you really mean - or if you are just trying to hijack the paleo threads.
You're right. I'm not an IIFYM follower. I have IIFYM days. That's why I try for when I am most on. I dabble, I don't "follow." There's a pretty enormous difference between me and say, Sara or Sidesteel. You realize that I said that in what you quoted, right?
As I just said, this thread was already long since derailed when I joined in. And it got that way in part through your contributions. One side cannot derail a thread. If you ignored everyone you think is derailing, it wouldn't have turned into this discussion. You just want to be able to say what you want to say without being responded to unless it's an agreement. That's not a discussion, that's a sermon.
Again, the comment I responded to that was "off topic" was actually Lindsey's. And I don't blame her for the thread derail. But that is what happens in discussions.
PS: I never intentionally eat something that is not vegan. I don't control manufacturing and labeling, so I'm sure it's entirely possible that something I have eaten wasn't 100% pure. Even religions with dietary guidelines allow that we're not higher powers so that's not within our control. But I certainly don't eat steak and say, "Eh, no one's perfect."
Neither do I intentionally eat anything that is not 'what would be referred to as non-primal blueprint - and no I am not talking what our ancestors definitely ate. I think too many read the book by it's cover.
As for mu derailing this thread and it going off topic - on that I will have to agree to disagree:
The OP's original post was:
So I've been reading up on Paleo.. it looks pretty interesting? Do any of you do Paleo? or Eat Clean.. Im having a little bit trouble finding the true definition of Eating Clean.. Correct me if I'm wrong.. does it mean no processed food... as in nothing coming from a box? or is it something else?
I'm hesitant to jump on the band wagon since i have a lot of stuff in my pantry but I'm really fascinated by it. Can anyone of you give me some insight or share your experience how you started or transitioned in to Paleo or Eating Clean
Thank you
Happy
Sounds straight forward and easy to understand, however from the very first response the thread got hijacked into a 'just eat IIFYM' fest.
First post:
Cleaning eating threads always blow up with people arguing one way or the other.
What works for me is eating whatever I want, but monitoring the total macros (protein, fat, and carbs) and calories to fit within my daily allowances and goals
I will declare for the umpteenth time - I have nothing against IIYFM and believe it works for lots and lots of people and yes it is the most widely used diet on MFP (for obvious reasons), in fact I not think I have once told someone that it doesn't work or if they want to do it - not to.
I did not post my first comment until the 30th Post - by which time the majority of comments were Off Topic and just talking IIFYm and moderation - which as you can read from the OP post - that wasn't the question.
So no like you I entered when the topic was already de-railed and off track.0 -
So no like you I entered when the topic was already de-railed and off track.
Cool. So since I'm not talking to myself, and am actually having a discussion, we can agree that neither of us hijacked this thread and are now just participating in what the thread changed to. So that can stop being used as a way to try to discredit my posts, as it's pretty irrelevant, as I'm not sure that anyone but OP stuck to the OP.0 -
A person who doesn't believe anymore isn't a Catholic. He or she might have been RAISED Catholic, but Catholicism is a belief system. While there may be some minor variations, there is a set of core beliefs that define Catholicism that differentiates it from other Christian religions. Once a person rejects those beliefs, he or she is no longer Catholic. The individual doesn't set those definitions. Those were set LONG before that person was born.
Someone who believes that divorce is wrong and doesn't believe in God isn't a "10% Catholic", but an atheist.
As far as I'm concerned, the same thing goes for Paleo. Either you are or you aren't. Once you start picking and choosing cafeteria style, you just aren't.
Well, I know many a Catholic that would disagree with you on that, and tell you that Catholic is far more than a mere belief system. But feel free to argue with them this point as well. I'm sure they've heard it before and would just smile, shake their head and tell you "that's all very modern, dear".
I would think that your friends who consider themselves Catholic but don't believe or practice would probably not go on religion websites and say things like "Caholocism works great for me! I'm Catholic except how I don't practice! Feel free to ask me about what Catholocism can do for you!" Like some of the posters in this thread have done in regards to "Paleo".
Or if they did, they really shouldn't be surprised when others call them out on their BS.
But then again, maybe they would.
ETA: Clarified by adding "re Paleo"0 -
So no like you I entered when the topic was already de-railed and off track.
Cool. So since I'm not talking to myself, and am actually having a discussion, we can agree that neither of us hijacked this thread and are now just participating in what the thread changed to. So that can stop being used as a way to try to discredit my posts, as it's pretty irrelevant, as I'm not sure that anyone but OP stuck to the OP.
Agreed.
Well maybe one day a topic about paleo, primal, clean eating etc will allow to held without it being hijacked - it really does smack of the critics for the 'life of Brian' lol.0 -
So no like you I entered when the topic was already de-railed and off track.
Cool. So since I'm not talking to myself, and am actually having a discussion, we can agree that neither of us hijacked this thread and are now just participating in what the thread changed to. So that can stop being used as a way to try to discredit my posts, as it's pretty irrelevant, as I'm not sure that anyone but OP stuck to the OP.
I do believe most MFP threads go off-track at about page two.
(FTR, I don't call myself "IIFYM" either.)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions