Paleo Eating

RollTideLisa

Hey, I have been reading about the Paleo way of eating and would like to know if any of you have tried it and if so, what was your experiences with it? Thanks in advance!!

abadvat

Hey, I have been reading about the Paleo way of eating and would like to know if any of you have tried it and if so, what was your experiences with it? Thanks in advance!!

fashionably expensive!

SezxyStef

I personally haven't done it but a cousin did...he liked it but didn't stick with it he said it was too restrictive and it was hard to follow due to the fact that there was no real definition of what he could and couldn't eat...he got frustrated.

psuLemon

I did it for 6 month after my wife found out she had to be gluten free and low carb for medical reason... here is what I found; 1. Way too restrictive for both of us, 2. very expensive and 3. cutting foods out of my diet for no good reason caused me to binge.

RollTideLisa

Thank you all for your answers!! I think I might just stick to what I have been doing, based on everyone's answers, which is trying to eat less of everything in general lol. I don't need anything that might remotely cause me to want to binge!! Good luck in each of your weight loss journeys!!

rradiomom

I'm surprised by the answers here regarding the Paleo lifestyle.
I've been Paleo for seven months and absolutely love it.
I don't find it restrictive at all...what's restrictive about "don't eat processed food"???
As far as high cost goes, Paleo recipes and recommendations often tell us to purchase organic meats and produce, however, that's not really necessary. The reality is, you should purchase high quality meats and produce which doesn't necessarily mean organic. Buy lean meats, even if it means having to ask your grocery store butcher to grind a steak into hamburger. But you don't *have* to eat organic, exotic, or free range anything. You should get your produce at a farmer's market because it's not covered in pesticides but, again, that's a recommendation, not a requirement.
I can't afford all organic groceries, feeding a family of four, two of which are growing almost-teens. But I can buy local produce, lean meats, and have money for some organic items.
Figure it this way, if I'm not buying two boxes of cereal, two boxes of crackers, two boxes of granola bars each week, I can convert all that saved money to a "splurge" on a pound of organic apples, a pound of organic strawberries, and a pound of organic grapes.

Paleo isn't a "diet" for me. It's our new lifestyle. This is how we will always eat, whether we're trying to lose weight or just to maintain "feel good" bodies.

I don't have headaches, I sleep solidly at night, my son's eczema has cleared up for the first time in his life, my skin is clear, my back doesn't ache, my PCOS has done a 180...I could go on and on.

I think if you follow the plan correctly and don't shrug it off as "too" anything, anyone could find benefits in it.

Hope whatever you decide to do helps you to be healthier and happier!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

VeryKatie

The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.

The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.

I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.

I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.

lindsey1979

Every diet is restrictive, by it's very nature. Whether it's based on calories, moderation, macros or food groups. It's really about finding the "restriction" that works for you -- usually, that doesn't feel like much of a restriction at all if it suits you well.

I've done strict Paleo, but I prefer the slight variation of Primal --- which basically lets you add in full-fat dairy if it agrees with you (which luckily it does for me) and aims for 80/20 compliance so nothing is technically forbidden. Though many find that once they get used to eating that way, then tend to be more 95/5 for the most part aside from special occasions.

Meat, eggs, fruits, veggies, butter, cheese, etc. doesn't feel very restrictive to me. In fact, most of the time, it feels downright indulgent - but I also like to cook. It's very similar to French cooking without the bread. You've got all your tasty proteins, delicious sauces, most fruits and vegetables (just keeping many of the starchy ones to a minimum unless you want the extra carbs). But, if you really love grain based things -- bread, pasta, crackers, etc. -- or a lot of junk food, then it's probably not a good fit for you and not having those things will feel very restrictive.

When I originally tried it, I did it rather skeptically and more in support of my husband who wanted to try it. I thought a lot of it was hooey. But, I found that I felt a TON better on it. We were both pleasantly shocked to find that. I started reading more about why that could be and am a big believer in it. From what I've seen, my experience isn't that unusual and I eat that way generally now because I'm big on eating nutrient dense foods and I simply feel much better eating that way.

lindsey1979

The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.

The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.

I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.

I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.

I'm also surprised when people can say things like this. Do they not understand things like modern medicine, sanitation and basic threats are very different now versus then? That they're comparing apples to gorillas.

RHachicho

I find Paleo to be an unnecessary restriction. Fact is you're not gonna live forever. A little processed food is not going to kill you. As long as you keep it within reason you will live a looong healthy life. The only reason to go full paleo is if you are weak willed and can't trust yourself to adhere to a healthy diet unless you restrict everything.

Also people who Paleo and don't calorie count and just eat all the paleo food can still gain weight. It is not the magic ticket to weight loss it claims to be. It helps a lot of people because fact is peleo foods tend to be light on the calories and expensive and that naturally tends to get people into a deficit. So it works for some people.

Of course one should always try and eat a healthy diet. But as long as you follow a few simple rules you should be fine.

1. Try and keep refined sugar and refined carbs in check. It's fine to eat a little of them but a lot is pretty bad for you. I have a rather sweet tooth myself and try and fill the gap with fruit. Which while still sugar is not quite as bad for you. And has a lot of good stuff. Currently trying to cut back on that though I am hoping that my activity level means I mostly burn it off. Carbs are however NOT THE DEVIL. Especially if you plan on being highly active. Which is a very good thing.
2. Eat your greens. This has never stopped being good advice.
3. Get enough protein.
4. Try and cook your food from ingredients as much as possible. In general the more production stages something has gone through the worse it is for you. Odds are a slice of ham or two isn't going to harm you one jot. But that microwave macaroni cheese isn't your best friend. Of course microwave meals happen but they should be the exception not the rule.
5. Treat yourself every now and then. Make a point of it. Don't blow out the bank. But there's nothing wrong with eating a bag or Haribo or a couple of baked pretzels and dip over the weekend. The trick is knowing the difference between a treat and a binge. A bag of Haribo is a treat. A bag of Haribo and a bag of Minstrels and a packet of pringles is a binge.

And don't forge the most important rule of all.

6. The principle job of any rule is twofold. The first is to stop people breaking it. The second is to make people accept the consequences of their actions as the price for breaking it. Sometimes a rule needs to be broken. If you can truly accept the consequences of doing so you should not be afraid.

That means that if that romantic evening with your significant other just has to involve a bottle of expensive wine that isn't in your calorie limits. Or if you are having a really good night in with the lads that absolutely would not be the same without a large hot curry that you can't quite afford that day. Accept the consequences. Pay your calories the next day. Do some more exercise and move on.

Eat to live don't live to eat. Many avid dieters espouse this approach. I prefer to live to live. Most times that involves counting calories and exercising and making healthy smart food choices. But sometimes it's means eating the god damn cake.

michikade

When I did it, I absolutely loved it - but then again I don't really eat a bunch of grains, legumes or tubers anyway, and I actually feel a little better when I avoid dairy due to a mild lactose intolerance so I didn't really find it "restrictive" in the sense that many others do - the only thing I really missed was peanut butter because I just don't really like almond butter or hazelnut butter much. I just can't really afford to eat 100% paleo right now.

But the general idea behind it - lean meats (and occasional fatty meats -- mmmmm bacon), lots of vegetables, moderate fruits, seeds, tree nuts, etc - is a sound dietary idea.

bamagrits15

Roll Tide! That is all I have to contribute.

meridianova

I'm surprised by the answers here regarding the Paleo lifestyle.
I've been Paleo for seven months and absolutely love it.
I don't find it restrictive at all...what's restrictive about "don't eat processed food"???
As far as high cost goes, Paleo recipes and recommendations often tell us to purchase organic meats and produce, however, that's not really necessary. The reality is, you should purchase high quality meats and produce which doesn't necessarily mean organic. Buy lean meats, even if it means having to ask your grocery store butcher to grind a steak into hamburger. But you don't *have* to eat organic, exotic, or free range anything. You should get your produce at a farmer's market because it's not covered in pesticides but, again, that's a recommendation, not a requirement.
I can't afford all organic groceries, feeding a family of four, two of which are growing almost-teens. But I can buy local produce, lean meats, and have money for some organic items.
Figure it this way, if I'm not buying two boxes of cereal, two boxes of crackers, two boxes of granola bars each week, I can convert all that saved money to a "splurge" on a pound of organic apples, a pound of organic strawberries, and a pound of organic grapes.

Paleo isn't a "diet" for me. It's our new lifestyle. This is how we will always eat, whether we're trying to lose weight or just to maintain "feel good" bodies.

I don't have headaches, I sleep solidly at night, my son's eczema has cleared up for the first time in his life, my skin is clear, my back doesn't ache, my PCOS has done a 180...I could go on and on.

I think if you follow the plan correctly and don't shrug it off as "too" anything, anyone could find benefits in it.

Hope whatever you decide to do helps you to be healthier and happier!

The fact that you now can't eat a TON of food, that's restrictive.

People define "processed food" in their own, random ways. If that's the guideline people are supposed to follow it's actually very confusing.

is there a (reasonable and sane) diet that ALLOWS you to eat a ton of food? realistically, we're all cutting back on something that caused us to be overweight. whether that's calories, sugars, or fats, about the only way i can think of that would allow you to eat more raw bulk of food is if you spent your day grazing on spinach, lettuce, and alfalfa sprouts.

yes, paleo and other low carb diets have you steering away from processed foods, but on the other hand, you're also open to eating foods that other diets tell you to stay away from.

ETA: as far as processed foods go, that's something we have to take as our lives allow. am i going to refuse to use olive oil just because the olives have to be pressed and the oil bottled and shipped to my grocery store? no. am i going to never touch dairy products because the cream has to be skimmed, the rennet added, the curds packed and stored to age? or because the cream has to be churned into butter? no.

i don't live on a farm. i'm not amish. i don't care for my own livestock and tend my own garden. so in order to live my life, i have to accept that food has to be made edible on some measure. but i can stay away from food that is heavily dependent on things like cellulose, HFCS, MSG, or "enriched" anything.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

JennyToy

Every diet is restrictive, by it's very nature. Whether it's based on calories, moderation, macros or food groups. It's really about finding the "restriction" that works for you -- usually, that doesn't feel like much of a restriction at all if it suits you well.

I've done strict Paleo, but I prefer the slight variation of Primal --- which basically lets you add in full-fat dairy if it agrees with you (which luckily it does for me) and aims for 80/20 compliance so nothing is technically forbidden. Though many find that once they get used to eating that way, then tend to be more 95/5 for the most part aside from special occasions.

Meat, eggs, fruits, veggies, butter, cheese, etc. doesn't feel very restrictive to me. In fact, most of the time, it feels downright indulgent - but I also like to cook. It's very similar to French cooking without the bread. You've got all your tasty proteins, delicious sauces, most fruits and vegetables (just keeping many of the starchy ones to a minimum unless you want the extra carbs). But, if you really love grain based things -- bread, pasta, crackers, etc. -- or a lot of junk food, then it's probably not a good fit for you and not having those things will feel very restrictive.

When I originally tried it, I did it rather skeptically and more in support of my husband who wanted to try it. I thought a lot of it was hooey. But, I found that I felt a TON better on it. We were both pleasantly shocked to find that. I started reading more about why that could be and am a big believer in it. From what I've seen, my experience isn't that unusual and I eat that way generally now because I'm big on eating nutrient dense foods and I simply feel much better eating that way.

I just started eating this way a week ago. I lost 3 pounds (i have already lost 68 on my journy pre MFP eating various ways). The lower carbs and less processed foods seem to be the key for me. I really have felt much less hungry. I hope it continues on this way i aim to keep my carbs below 100. ~jenny

eta: i do calorie count

RHachicho

There is a difference between necessarily and prudently restrictive. And being pedantically and unnecessarily restrictive. Stop nitpicking people who have genuine complaints with the way you do things please.

lindsey1979

There is a difference between necessarily and prudently restrictive. And being pedantically and unnecessarily restrictive. Stop nitpicking people who have genuine complaints with the way you do things please.

What is unnecessarily restrictive? I realize the restrictions seen in Paleo or its variations may not be a good fit for you, but surely for others, they may be exactly necessary and prudent. The restrictions aren't arbitrary, though they may not be best for you individually.

RHachicho

There is a difference between necessarily and prudently restrictive. And being pedantically and unnecessarily restrictive. Stop nitpicking people who have genuine complaints with the way you do things please.

What is unnecessarily restrictive? I realize the restrictions seen in Paleo or its variations may not be a good fit for you, but surely for others, they may be exactly necessary and prudent. The restrictions aren't arbitrary, though they may not be best for you individually.

Please read my first post in this topic before asking a question I have already answered ...

lemurcat12

I'm surprised by the answers here regarding the Paleo lifestyle.
I've been Paleo for seven months and absolutely love it.
I don't find it restrictive at all...what's restrictive about "don't eat processed food"???

No grains (that means no rice, pasta, bread, not even my steel cut oats), no quinoa (at least according to most sources I've seen), no dairy (that's a big one for me), no legumes (what's wrong with lentils?, and of course this includes peanuts), according to plenty (although this makes no sense to me even given the usual paleo arguments) no potatoes. Seems reasonably restrictive.

I tried it briefly in part because it goes with some things I already do and wanted to do more of (lots of seasonal fruits and vegetables, more protein, farm-sourced meat and wild caught fish), and because I don't care much about grains and don't eat as many legumes as I probably should anyway, and just to see if it made me feel amazing, given all the press. What I discovered is that I felt pretty good, but no better than I do eating a healthy and balanced diet that doesn't eliminate all the foods I listed--apparently I have no negative reaction to grains and IMO I feel better when I eat dairy. Plus, not eating things and dealing with the inconvenience when I couldn't see any rational nutritional reason not to eat them (i.e., if I went with friends to grab lunch at Pret, which has plenty of decent options, but at times absolutely nothing that is paleo-friendly) drove me crazy.

But for those not bothered by those particular things, or just the pointlessness of cutting out perfectly fine foods to which one has no negative reaction (or for those who happen to have negative reactions to all the relevant things) I'm sure it's fine. One can certainly eat well within the restrictions.

lemurcat12

People define "processed food" in their own, random ways. If that's the guideline people are supposed to follow it's actually very confusing.

Of course it's not. There are even plenty of processed foods created for those on the paleo diet these days.

ascrit

Hey, I have been reading about the Paleo way of eating and would like to know if any of you have tried it and if so, what was your experiences with it? Thanks in advance!!

You can join this group to learn more about Paleo:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/37-primal-paleo-support-group

Unknown

This content has been removed.

neandermagnon

The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.

The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.

I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.

I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.

Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.

That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.

Witchetty grub anyone?

SillaWinchester

It really depends on how you can manage. I personally couldn't do it because as many other posters said, it's way to restrictive and that lead me to binging. However my cousin, after hitting over 250, decided to try the Paleo diet and she loved it. It worked wonderfully for her and she's back down to her wedding weight! Of course, she and her husband have wonderful jobs so money wasn't an issue... but it can get expensive. I think if you don't mind being restricted and really want this, it could be good for you. The only way to really know is to try it out for yourself!

Holly_Roman_Empire

I find Paleo to be an unnecessary restriction. Fact is you're not gonna live forever. A little processed food is not going to kill you. As long as you keep it within reason you will live a looong healthy life. The only reason to go full paleo is if you are weak willed and can't trust yourself to adhere to a healthy diet unless you restrict everything.

Also people who Paleo and don't calorie count and just eat all the paleo food can still gain weight. It is not the magic ticket to weight loss it claims to be. It helps a lot of people because fact is peleo foods tend to be light on the calories and expensive and that naturally tends to get people into a deficit. So it works for some people.

Of course one should always try and eat a healthy diet. But as long as you follow a few simple rules you should be fine.

1. Try and keep refined sugar and refined carbs in check. It's fine to eat a little of them but a lot is pretty bad for you. I have a rather sweet tooth myself and try and fill the gap with fruit. Which while still sugar is not quite as bad for you. And has a lot of good stuff. Currently trying to cut back on that though I am hoping that my activity level means I mostly burn it off. Carbs are however NOT THE DEVIL. Especially if you plan on being highly active. Which is a very good thing.
2. Eat your greens. This has never stopped being good advice.
3. Get enough protein.
4. Try and cook your food from ingredients as much as possible. In general the more production stages something has gone through the worse it is for you. Odds are a slice of ham or two isn't going to harm you one jot. But that microwave macaroni cheese isn't your best friend. Of course microwave meals happen but they should be the exception not the rule.
5. Treat yourself every now and then. Make a point of it. Don't blow out the bank. But there's nothing wrong with eating a bag or Haribo or a couple of baked pretzels and dip over the weekend. The trick is knowing the difference between a treat and a binge. A bag of Haribo is a treat. A bag of Haribo and a bag of Minstrels and a packet of pringles is a binge.

And don't forge the most important rule of all.

6. The principle job of any rule is twofold. The first is to stop people breaking it. The second is to make people accept the consequences of their actions as the price for breaking it. Sometimes a rule needs to be broken. If you can truly accept the consequences of doing so you should not be afraid.

That means that if that romantic evening with your significant other just has to involve a bottle of expensive wine that isn't in your calorie limits. Or if you are having a really good night in with the lads that absolutely would not be the same without a large hot curry that you can't quite afford that day. Accept the consequences. Pay your calories the next day. Do some more exercise and move on.

Eat to live don't live to eat. Many avid dieters espouse this approach. I prefer to live to live. Most times that involves counting calories and exercising and making healthy smart food choices. But sometimes it's means eating the god damn cake.

This pretty much sums up my opinion on it.

DamePiglet

The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.

The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.

I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.

I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.

Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.

That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.

Witchetty grub anyone?

Naw, thanks. I'm trying out a 'no grub or larvae' lifestyle. So far it's been working out! :bigsmile:

VeryKatie

The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.

The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.

I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.

I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.

I'm also surprised when people can say things like this. Do they not understand things like modern medicine, sanitation and basic threats are very different now versus then? That they're comparing apples to gorillas.

But that's then to ignore all the science showing how humans have changed since the paleo era and also the changes of our diet needs considering our lifestyle and physical differences. The other side of the Now and Then argument.

As I said, a paleo diet has both it's good points and it's diet fad fallacies. The key is to use your brain and research to find out what about it is likely true and likely false and make informed decisions. So again, I'm not saying it's a bad diet to follow. Just that it's not the end all be all.

Also. Food =/= medicine. So I'm surprised when someone comes back with comments like that. Because then we have to digress to wondering if they understand all the science and pros/cons behind GMOs, pesticides, etc. to be making informed food decisions based on the specifics of each individual food and process. Because the other alternative is that they hear someone say something is "bad" and just go with it without knowing why or if it's true.

And in your own words, if comparing us to cavemen is like comparing apples to gorillas, why would we try to compare our diets in the first place? Apples to gorillas.

eric_sg61

The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.

The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.

I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.

I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.

Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.

That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.

Witchetty grub anyone?

10/10 would deep-fry and eat

jofjltncb6

Hey, I have been reading about the Paleo way of eating and would like to know if any of you have tried it and if so, what was your experiences with it? Thanks in advance!!

Yeah, all of calendar year 2012. Delicious. Felt great, made good gains.

(That said, in 2013 and beyond, I added all of the foods I had excluded...was still delicious...and I still felt great and made good gains.)

My diary is open if you're curious what one person's implementation of it looks like.

Oh, and this thread will be a total ****storm. Enjoy the fun and games...and if you ultimately decide to take this approach, find one or two of the paleo groups here where the atmosphere will be slightly less contentious (although admittedly a little paleo kool-aidish).

VeryKatie

The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.

The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.

I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.

I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.

Palaeolithic Homo sapiens had the same lifespan as modern humans. Neanderthals (a different species of human, Homo neanderthalensis) had shorter lifespans, and Homo erectus (an earlier species) had even shorter lifespans. Nothing to do with their diet - we evolved to have longer childhoods and longer lifespans to be able to learn and pass on a more complex culture. Modern hunter-gatherers frequently live into their 80s. They have a lower average age of death due to higher infant and child mortality skewing the average. It's a similar pattern with palaeolithic Homo sapiens. Earlier species had shorter lifespans due to genetics and not having yet evolved the longer lifespan of modern humans. Many still lived to be elderly though, i.e. living through all their natural lifespan.

That said, the diet calling itself "paleo" on the internet bears no resemblance to any actual palaeolithic diets. Neanderthals ate bison, reindeer, wild horses, wild donkeys, woolly rhino and woolly mammoths. They also ate root vegetables and various other plant foods which would have included nuts, berries, edible fungus and other edible plant foods, which would have included whatever wild grains and pulses that grew where they happened to live. And they would probably have eaten various edible insects and insect larvae. Modern hunter-gatherers eat a similar diet, albeit minus any species that are now extinct. Yes, including insects and insect larvae.

Witchetty grub anyone?

10/10 would deep-fry and eat

Worded beautifully. I would like to see proof of people from 10,000 years ago having the same lifespan as people now though, especially considering people even 200 years ago didn't have the same lifespan.