Paleo Eating

lemurcat12

(4) It's sooooo restrictive. Of course, completely ignoring that fact that EVERY diet/lifestyle is restrictive in some way or other other -- whether it's calories, macros, moderation or food groups.... Very few tend to actually debate the diet claims and theories.

Oh, I don't know. I wrote a whole long post upthread where I said that it wasn't the restrictions that were the issue--restrictions are fine if there's a good reason for them and lots of people eat pretty limited diets for whatever reason. Instead, it's that restrictions should be based on some reasonable rationale. For those who feel better not eating grains and legumes and dairy and potatoes and tomatoes and pepper and fattier cuts of meat (tennisdude's point) or factory farmed meat or whatever, well, that's great, that's your rationale. Be happy! But I don't think that most people feel better without those foods, or at least without some portion of them. Personally, I feel better WITH dairy, and the others are neutral or positive additions in at least some respects (I always feel great when I eat steel cut oats, although I do eggs much more often).

So it comes down to the health claims, and the poster to whom you are responding specifically asserted that paleo is healthier, just basically anti-processed common sense!

As I stated in that other post, I'm not convinced by the health claims, specifically that there's a health reason to avoid all of the many foods banned by paleo (some of which are processed, others which are not, or no more than all food we eat). So I asked that poster to explain her basis for that assertion.

I think that counts as an effort to debate (or discuss, really) the "diet claims and theories."

In that I tend to get my protein mainly from meat, eggs, and, yes, dairy (with the exception of fish and the occasional game, all sourced from local farms), I'd certainly be pleased, even, if you were to convince me that this is really healthier than if I did better about using vegetarian sources like legumes. I suspect it's not, though. At best it's probably a wash.

Maitria

(2) Those that judge others as not being "Paleo" enough -- though it usually comes from those who don't follow any of the concepts at all. It's like they're atheists walking into a church, synagogue or mosque and telling people that they're not Christian, Jewish or Muslim enough. Because, hey, if you're not the strictest orthodox that adheres to the 100% letter of the law principles, then you can't be a Jew, Christian or Muslim.

It would have its similarities to this if people were going into groups to say this. In a general discussion forum, it's like someone proclaiming to be a practicing Catholic priest and others saying, based on objective facts, "Um, you sure? You're married with kids."

People don't have immunity from questioning when they say they are Paleo but don't actually follow the diet as much of the time as not. People have been criticized for questioning the Paleoishness of diets that frequently included hundreds to thousands of calories of candy, pizza, baked goods, and beer.

But in any case, I think I can complain, because as a vegan I eat Paleo, I just include peanuts, lentils, beans, potatoes, soy milk, and tofu.

Wouldn't that be ridiculous if no one could question that statement?

Maitria

Well, let's see, for starters:
Sodium, which leads to high blood pressure, edema, swelling, etc.

*Gasps* You leave sodium alone! It's generally only a problem for people who have problems with blood pressure or other medical issues that call to restrict it. I eat tons of sodium and my blood pressure is too low.

lindsey1979

(4) It's sooooo restrictive. Of course, completely ignoring that fact that EVERY diet/lifestyle is restrictive in some way or other other -- whether it's calories, macros, moderation or food groups.... Very few tend to actually debate the diet claims and theories.

Oh, I don't know. I wrote a whole long post upthread where I said that it wasn't the restrictions that were the issue--restrictions are fine if there's a good reason for them and lots of people eat pretty limited diets for whatever reason. Instead, it's that restrictions should be based on some reasonable rationale. For those who feel better not eating grains and legumes and dairy and potatoes and tomatoes and pepper and fattier cuts of meat (tennisdude's point) or factory farmed meat or whatever, well, that's great, that's your rationale. Be happy! But I don't think that most people feel better without those foods, or at least without some portion of them. Personally, I feel better WITH dairy, and the others are neutral or positive additions in at least some respects (I always feel great when I eat steel cut oats, although I do eggs much more often).

So it comes down to the health claims, and the poster to whom you are responding specifically asserted that paleo is healthier, just basically anti-processed common sense!

As I stated in that other post, I'm not convinced by the health claims, specifically that there's a health reason to avoid all of the many foods banned by paleo (some of which are processed, others which are not, or no more than all food we eat). So I asked that poster to explain her basis for that assertion.

I think that counts as an effort to debate (or discuss, really) the "diet claims and theories."

In that I tend to get my protein mainly from meat, eggs, and, yes, dairy (with the exception of fish and the occasional game, all sourced from local farms), I'd certainly be pleased, even, if you were to convince me that this is really healthier than if I did better about using vegetarian sources like legumes. I suspect it's not, though. At best it's probably a wash.

Well, I think those issues are healthier for some people. Others after trying strict Paleo, gravitate more towards a Primal lifestyle where certain things are re-introduced and people are able to determine whether they tolerate it or not (like dairy).

And there are reasons people feel better without some of those things in their diet. The choices aren't arbitrary, though you seem to insinuate that they are. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

It seems like you understand the claims already and choose not to agree with them. You seem to already know the answers to the actual questions (and have rejected the rationale). So why quiz the poster on why she does or doesn't do something? To test her knowledge of her own choices?

likitisplit

Let me see...

I started my morning with oatmeal (processed) with brown sugar (processed), chopped pecans (processed), and raisins (processed). I also enjoyed a large coffee (processed) with cream (processed) , sugar (processed) and hazelnut shot (processed).

I'll let you know what have for lunch.

This is what drives me nuts....of course in this day and age you are going to eat "processed" food, whether Paleo or not. Unless you're a farmer who grows/raises everything you eat and does all of the butchering, etc, yourself, you are eating processed food. I think everyone has enough common sense to know that what is meant by processed, in this discussion, is the chemical/sodum/sugar laden food that is abundantly available, like chips, cookies, freezer meals, and many other forms of convenience foods. Of course our meat, nuts, raisins, coffee, etc are processed, because we don't do it ourselves. There is a big difference between processed chopped pecans and processed oreos. For example, tuna in a can....something healthy for you, full of good for you stuff, so why do they feel the need to add vegetable broth (which has lord knows what chemicals and additives) and soy to it? Why can't we just get tuna in a can with water or olive oil?? Thankfully some companies do that, but the majority of them add stuff. Dates is another example...they are super sweet on their own, so why does the bag I bought the other day have sugar added??? It's unnecessary and unhealthy.

Medicakes --- this is because you're new. This is one of the very common red herring arguments that is often presented in Paleo discussions. A few others that you'll often see in these discussions:

(1) The idea of what "clean eating" is. "Everyone has such different ideas, that the whole concept is meaningless".
(2) Those that judge others as not being "Paleo" enough -- though it usually comes from those who don't follow any of the concepts at all. It's like they're atheists walking into a church, synagogue or mosque and telling people that they're not Christian, Jewish or Muslim enough. Because, hey, if you're not the strictest orthodox that adheres to the 100% letter of the law principles, then you can't be a Jew, Christian or Muslim.
(3) Those that complain that they speak out against Paleo and its variations because people that follow those are just trying to be kewl or are overbearing in pushing their views on others. There is a great irony and hypocrisy there.
(4) It's sooooo restrictive. Of course, completely ignoring that fact that EVERY diet/lifestyle is restrictive in some way or other other -- whether it's calories, macros, moderation or food groups.
(5) Arguments about the factual basis of paleolithic man -- how since some paleolithic people ate grains, etc., the whole diet concept is bunk. Or how the average life span of ancient people's were less, the diet doesn't make much sense (of course, not accounting for sanitation, antibiotics, infant mortality, modern medicine, etc.)

It's pretty ridiculous. But apparently some people think these faux arguments are quite clever and illuminating. Very few tend to actually debate the diet claims and theories.

You know perfectly well that people have supplied peer reviewed article debunking the inflammation, etc claims of Paleo. You have yet to supply any original research supporting paleo health claims.

I could copy and paste these links, but it's kind of a waste of time and provides less of a dialogue than asking somebody to explain how their definition of "clean" and their argument that "clean is healthier" isn't arbitrary.

lindsey1979

(2) Those that judge others as not being "Paleo" enough -- though it usually comes from those who don't follow any of the concepts at all. It's like they're atheists walking into a church, synagogue or mosque and telling people that they're not Christian, Jewish or Muslim enough. Because, hey, if you're not the strictest orthodox that adheres to the 100% letter of the law principles, then you can't be a Jew, Christian or Muslim.

It would have its similarities to this if people were going into groups to say this. In a general discussion forum, it's like someone proclaiming to be a practicing Catholic priest and others saying, based on objective facts, "Um, you sure? You're married with kids."

People don't have immunity from questioning when they say they are Paleo but don't actually follow the diet as much of the time as not. People have been criticized for questioning the Paleoishness of diets that frequently included hundreds to thousands of calories of candy, pizza, baked goods, and beer.

But in any case, I think I can complain, because as a vegan I eat Paleo, I just include peanuts, lentils, beans, potatoes, soy milk, and tofu.

Wouldn't that be ridiculous if no one could question that statement?

I guess to me, it seems to be useless judgment (as I find most judgments to be). If they have a misunderstanding of the concept, sure discuss that. But if they understand it and are simply making a variation -- and you're judging that as not being Paleo/Jewish/Christian/Muslim enough, that to me is foolish, adds nothing to the discussion and really terribly hypocritical.

lemurcat12

Why is eating processed foods, like yogurt and almond milk and dark chocolate, worse for your health than not eating those foods? For that matter, why is eating peas or lentils--which might not even be processed, I grow peas in my garden--bad for your health? Vegetarians and vegans would likely argue that eating more beans and less meat is "cleaner" and better for your health.

I'm pretty sure you know the reason behind the lentils and peas from a Paleo/Primal perspective -- since I'm pretty sure I personally have told you several times. It's the lectins issue. Now, you may not agree with that, but to keep pretending that you don't know the reasons behind it is more than a little disingenuous.

How odd. I'm 100% sure that you and I have never discussed paleo, primal, or beans before, so you must have me mixed up with someone else.

In fact, I HAVE read the paleo argument on legumes before (and yes find it unconvincing)--both of which I said in a post in this very thread--but since a claim was made here I'd like it defended.

And if you read about Primal, they're pretty big on full-fat dairy,

Eh, seems more mixed to me, even within primal--they aren't against it in all cases, but seem generally skeptical and of course most of us don't drink raw milk or use it to make yogurt. But also this thread is about paleo and paleo IS anti dairy and says it's bad for everyone. But if you want, modify my question to refer specifically to Fage 2% plain.

For the record, I also don't read Sisson as saying that 80% compliance is cool, so aim for that, as seems to be commonly asserted at MFP. He has clarified several times that he did not mean that you only shoot for 80% but was acknowledging that perfect compliance (even with a less restrictive program) is impossible.

lindsey1979

Let me see...

I started my morning with oatmeal (processed) with brown sugar (processed), chopped pecans (processed), and raisins (processed). I also enjoyed a large coffee (processed) with cream (processed) , sugar (processed) and hazelnut shot (processed).

I'll let you know what have for lunch.

This is what drives me nuts....of course in this day and age you are going to eat "processed" food, whether Paleo or not. Unless you're a farmer who grows/raises everything you eat and does all of the butchering, etc, yourself, you are eating processed food. I think everyone has enough common sense to know that what is meant by processed, in this discussion, is the chemical/sodum/sugar laden food that is abundantly available, like chips, cookies, freezer meals, and many other forms of convenience foods. Of course our meat, nuts, raisins, coffee, etc are processed, because we don't do it ourselves. There is a big difference between processed chopped pecans and processed oreos. For example, tuna in a can....something healthy for you, full of good for you stuff, so why do they feel the need to add vegetable broth (which has lord knows what chemicals and additives) and soy to it? Why can't we just get tuna in a can with water or olive oil?? Thankfully some companies do that, but the majority of them add stuff. Dates is another example...they are super sweet on their own, so why does the bag I bought the other day have sugar added??? It's unnecessary and unhealthy.

Medicakes --- this is because you're new. This is one of the very common red herring arguments that is often presented in Paleo discussions. A few others that you'll often see in these discussions:

(1) The idea of what "clean eating" is. "Everyone has such different ideas, that the whole concept is meaningless".
(2) Those that judge others as not being "Paleo" enough -- though it usually comes from those who don't follow any of the concepts at all. It's like they're atheists walking into a church, synagogue or mosque and telling people that they're not Christian, Jewish or Muslim enough. Because, hey, if you're not the strictest orthodox that adheres to the 100% letter of the law principles, then you can't be a Jew, Christian or Muslim.
(3) Those that complain that they speak out against Paleo and its variations because people that follow those are just trying to be kewl or are overbearing in pushing their views on others. There is a great irony and hypocrisy there.
(4) It's sooooo restrictive. Of course, completely ignoring that fact that EVERY diet/lifestyle is restrictive in some way or other other -- whether it's calories, macros, moderation or food groups.
(5) Arguments about the factual basis of paleolithic man -- how since some paleolithic people ate grains, etc., the whole diet concept is bunk. Or how the average life span of ancient people's were less, the diet doesn't make much sense (of course, not accounting for sanitation, antibiotics, infant mortality, modern medicine, etc.)

It's pretty ridiculous. But apparently some people think these faux arguments are quite clever and illuminating. Very few tend to actually debate the diet claims and theories.

You know perfectly well that people have supplied peer reviewed article debunking the inflammation, etc claims of Paleo. You have yet to supply any original research supporting paleo health claims.

I could copy and paste these links, but it's kind of a waste of time and provides less of a dialogue than asking somebody to explain how their definition of "clean" and their argument that "clean is healthier" isn't arbitrary.

Because there are contrary opinions isn't debunking. As with almost every area of newly emerging science, there are contrary opinions. The reasons behind Paleo definitely fall into that area -- there are some things that support it and some things that don't support it. There is a LOT more that we need to learn about nutrition and the interactions in the body. But just because there are contrary opinions doesn't nullify the supporting facts.

This is what you don't seem to understand. Reasonable people can disagree, and both view points can be legitimate.

lindsey1979

Why is eating processed foods, like yogurt and almond milk and dark chocolate, worse for your health than not eating those foods? For that matter, why is eating peas or lentils--which might not even be processed, I grow peas in my garden--bad for your health? Vegetarians and vegans would likely argue that eating more beans and less meat is "cleaner" and better for your health.

I'm pretty sure you know the reason behind the lentils and peas from a Paleo/Primal perspective -- since I'm pretty sure I personally have told you several times. It's the lectins issue. Now, you may not agree with that, but to keep pretending that you don't know the reasons behind it is more than a little disingenuous.

How odd. I'm 100% sure that you and I have never discussed paleo, primal, or beans before, so you must have me mixed up with someone else.

In fact, I HAVE read the paleo argument on legumes before (and yes find it unconvincing)--both of which I said in a post in this very thread--but since a claim was made here I'd like it defended.

And if you read about Primal, they're pretty big on full-fat dairy,

Eh, seems more mixed to me, even within primal--they aren't against it in all cases, but seem generally skeptical and of course most of us don't drink raw milk or use it to make yogurt. But also this thread is about paleo and paleo IS anti dairy and says it's bad for everyone. But if you want, modify my question to refer specifically to Fage 2% plain.

For the record, I also don't read Sisson as saying that 80% compliance is cool, so aim for that, as seems to be commonly asserted at MFP. He has clarified several times that he did not mean that you only shoot for 80% but was acknowledging that perfect compliance (even with a less restrictive program) is impossible.

Yes, he always strives for 100% compliance, but realizes that it's unlikely in today's world. "The 80/20 principle is an acknowledgment that we’re adults who take full responsibility for every choice but occasionally find ourselves in circumstances that don’t allow 100% Primal or in situations for which we knowingly accept reasonable, conscious compromises."

Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/dear-mark-8020-revisited/#ixzz3ACNUiHM0

But, if you'd prefer to continue to play with semantics, by all means....

SeannieCeo

I have a Fitbit One and I have found that by logging my foods and watching my calorie intake/ fitness calories out I pay much closer attention and have definitely lost weight doing it.

lemurcat12

And there are reasons people feel better without some of those things in their diet. The choices aren't arbitrary, though you seem to insinuate that they are. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

Hmm. Even though I love dairy, I think the majority of people may well feel better without it, because lactose intolerance is common. It's almost certainly not coincidental that I do well with it and that my ancestors are from parts of the world where cattle domestication seems to have a long history.

As for grains, obviously some have issues with gluten.

Legumes I have less opinion on, except that I believe that some do have digestive issues with them. The problem with paleo is that the assertion is not just that people should avoid foods that don't make them feel good. I think that's great advice! It's that there's a generalization to more recently cultivated foods being unsuited for humans, a claim generally and not just about specific sensitivities.

My sister has lots of weird sensitivities, like to melon and avocado. She should not eat those foods. But that doesn't make them bad for other people.

So why quiz the poster on why she does or doesn't do something? To test her knowledge of her own choices?

Because she made assertions about various foods being bad for us, and claimed that "paleo" was healthier (and, oddly, just about cutting out processed foods, which is not accurate at all). So I wanted to know what her reasoning is.

likitisplit

(2) Those that judge others as not being "Paleo" enough -- though it usually comes from those who don't follow any of the concepts at all. It's like they're atheists walking into a church, synagogue or mosque and telling people that they're not Christian, Jewish or Muslim enough. Because, hey, if you're not the strictest orthodox that adheres to the 100% letter of the law principles, then you can't be a Jew, Christian or Muslim.

It would have its similarities to this if people were going into groups to say this. In a general discussion forum, it's like someone proclaiming to be a practicing Catholic priest and others saying, based on objective facts, "Um, you sure? You're married with kids."

People don't have immunity from questioning when they say they are Paleo but don't actually follow the diet as much of the time as not. People have been criticized for questioning the Paleoishness of diets that frequently included hundreds to thousands of calories of candy, pizza, baked goods, and beer.

But in any case, I think I can complain, because as a vegan I eat Paleo, I just include peanuts, lentils, beans, potatoes, soy milk, and tofu.

Wouldn't that be ridiculous if no one could question that statement?

I guess to me, it seems to be useless judgment (as I find most judgments to be). If they have a misunderstanding of the concept, sure discuss that. But if they understand it and are simply making a variation -- and you're judging that as not being Paleo/Jewish/Christian/Muslim enough, that to me is foolish, adds nothing to the discussion and really terribly hypocritical.

See, me? I'm just in for ridiculous health claims regarding clean eating. I know a lot of people who feel like they struggle with their diet when, in fact they are doing fine and would be better focused on simply finding ways to sate themselves on their calories allowance.

It's my major beef on the fitness threads too. People make things so complicated and then feel that they don't have the time or energy to be healthy.

You can be paleo all you want. Just don't act like it's the one true way to be "healthy"

Maitria

I guess to me, it seems to be useless judgment (as I find most judgments to be). If they have a misunderstanding of the concept, sure discuss that. But if they understand it and are simply making a variation -- and you're judging that as not being Paleo/Jewish/Christian/Muslim enough, that to me is foolish, adds nothing to the discussion and really terribly hypocritical.

Judgments have their place in life. The neon shorts for the corporate meeting or the suit and tie? The moldy apple or eat something different?

People aren't judging people who say they eat paleo but don't appear to as good or bad people. You think it's foolish to question things, I think it's foolish to dismiss the meaning of words as not important for things you care about. Would you consider it a foolish, useless judgment to ask someone who is married with children to explain how they can be a practicing Catholic priest?

I don't like when people say they are vegetarian but eat fish. Why? Because of the constant insistence that the vegan option is the salmon with butter. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if someone who wasn't a vegetarian questioned someone for eating fish; on the contrary, I'd appreciate it. (And I have people I love that eat fish and call themselves a vegetarian. I don't bother to discuss this with them because of the relationship being more important. On an internet discussion forum? I have no reason not to discuss.)

Was your judgment of people being foolish judgers a judgment? Of course it was. It was based on opinion and feeling and not fact. No worries, it happens to the best of us humans.

likitisplit

Let me see...

I started my morning with oatmeal (processed) with brown sugar (processed), chopped pecans (processed), and raisins (processed). I also enjoyed a large coffee (processed) with cream (processed) , sugar (processed) and hazelnut shot (processed).

I'll let you know what have for lunch.

This is what drives me nuts....of course in this day and age you are going to eat "processed" food, whether Paleo or not. Unless you're a farmer who grows/raises everything you eat and does all of the butchering, etc, yourself, you are eating processed food. I think everyone has enough common sense to know that what is meant by processed, in this discussion, is the chemical/sodum/sugar laden food that is abundantly available, like chips, cookies, freezer meals, and many other forms of convenience foods. Of course our meat, nuts, raisins, coffee, etc are processed, because we don't do it ourselves. There is a big difference between processed chopped pecans and processed oreos. For example, tuna in a can....something healthy for you, full of good for you stuff, so why do they feel the need to add vegetable broth (which has lord knows what chemicals and additives) and soy to it? Why can't we just get tuna in a can with water or olive oil?? Thankfully some companies do that, but the majority of them add stuff. Dates is another example...they are super sweet on their own, so why does the bag I bought the other day have sugar added??? It's unnecessary and unhealthy.

Medicakes --- this is because you're new. This is one of the very common red herring arguments that is often presented in Paleo discussions. A few others that you'll often see in these discussions:

(1) The idea of what "clean eating" is. "Everyone has such different ideas, that the whole concept is meaningless".
(2) Those that judge others as not being "Paleo" enough -- though it usually comes from those who don't follow any of the concepts at all. It's like they're atheists walking into a church, synagogue or mosque and telling people that they're not Christian, Jewish or Muslim enough. Because, hey, if you're not the strictest orthodox that adheres to the 100% letter of the law principles, then you can't be a Jew, Christian or Muslim.
(3) Those that complain that they speak out against Paleo and its variations because people that follow those are just trying to be kewl or are overbearing in pushing their views on others. There is a great irony and hypocrisy there.
(4) It's sooooo restrictive. Of course, completely ignoring that fact that EVERY diet/lifestyle is restrictive in some way or other other -- whether it's calories, macros, moderation or food groups.
(5) Arguments about the factual basis of paleolithic man -- how since some paleolithic people ate grains, etc., the whole diet concept is bunk. Or how the average life span of ancient people's were less, the diet doesn't make much sense (of course, not accounting for sanitation, antibiotics, infant mortality, modern medicine, etc.)

It's pretty ridiculous. But apparently some people think these faux arguments are quite clever and illuminating. Very few tend to actually debate the diet claims and theories.

You know perfectly well that people have supplied peer reviewed article debunking the inflammation, etc claims of Paleo. You have yet to supply any original research supporting paleo health claims.

I could copy and paste these links, but it's kind of a waste of time and provides less of a dialogue than asking somebody to explain how their definition of "clean" and their argument that "clean is healthier" isn't arbitrary.

Because there are contrary opinions isn't debunking. As with almost every area of newly emerging science, there are contrary opinions. The reasons behind Paleo definitely fall into that area -- there are some things that support it and some things that don't support it. There is a LOT more that we need to learn about nutrition and the interactions in the body. But just because there are contrary opinions doesn't nullify the supporting facts.

This is what you don't seem to understand. Reasonable people can disagree, and both view points can be legitimate.

I've been waiting for months for you to post the original research supporting these claims.

lemurcat12

Yes, he always strives for 100% compliance, but realizes that it's unlikely in today's world. "The 80/20 principle is an acknowledgment that we’re adults who take full responsibility for every choice but occasionally find ourselves in circumstances that don’t allow 100% Primal or in situations for which we knowingly accept reasonable, conscious compromises."

Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/dear-mark-8020-revisited/#ixzz3ACNUiHM0

But, if you'd prefer to continue to play with semantics, by all means....

It's not playing with semantics at all. It's quite different than saying it's fine (or recommended) to aim for 80% compliance and that as a result nothing is actually forbidden.

mojohowitz

Roast duck with mango salsa.

lindsey1979

(2) Those that judge others as not being "Paleo" enough -- though it usually comes from those who don't follow any of the concepts at all. It's like they're atheists walking into a church, synagogue or mosque and telling people that they're not Christian, Jewish or Muslim enough. Because, hey, if you're not the strictest orthodox that adheres to the 100% letter of the law principles, then you can't be a Jew, Christian or Muslim.

It would have its similarities to this if people were going into groups to say this. In a general discussion forum, it's like someone proclaiming to be a practicing Catholic priest and others saying, based on objective facts, "Um, you sure? You're married with kids."

People don't have immunity from questioning when they say they are Paleo but don't actually follow the diet as much of the time as not. People have been criticized for questioning the Paleoishness of diets that frequently included hundreds to thousands of calories of candy, pizza, baked goods, and beer.

But in any case, I think I can complain, because as a vegan I eat Paleo, I just include peanuts, lentils, beans, potatoes, soy milk, and tofu.

Wouldn't that be ridiculous if no one could question that statement?

I guess to me, it seems to be useless judgment (as I find most judgments to be). If they have a misunderstanding of the concept, sure discuss that. But if they understand it and are simply making a variation -- and you're judging that as not being Paleo/Jewish/Christian/Muslim enough, that to me is foolish, adds nothing to the discussion and really terribly hypocritical.

See, me? I'm just in for ridiculous health claims regarding clean eating. I know a lot of people who feel like they struggle with their diet when, in fact they are doing fine and would be better focused on simply finding ways to sate themselves on their calories allowance.

It's my major beef on the fitness threads too. People make things so complicated and then feel that they don't have the time or energy to be healthy.

You can be paleo all you want. Just don't act like it's the one true way to be "healthy"

Your accusations are unfounded, at least in regards to me. I've NEVER acted like Paleo/Primal is the "one true way to be 'healthy"" -- I just personally think it's ONE way. There are many paths up the mountain.

lindsey1979

I guess to me, it seems to be useless judgment (as I find most judgments to be). If they have a misunderstanding of the concept, sure discuss that. But if they understand it and are simply making a variation -- and you're judging that as not being Paleo/Jewish/Christian/Muslim enough, that to me is foolish, adds nothing to the discussion and really terribly hypocritical.

Judgments have their place in life. The neon shorts for the corporate meeting or the suit and tie? The moldy apple or eat something different?

People aren't judging people who say they eat paleo but don't appear to as good or bad people. You think it's foolish to question things, I think it's foolish to dismiss the meaning of words as not important for things you care about. Would you consider it a foolish, useless judgment to ask someone who is married with children to explain how they can be a practicing Catholic priest?

I don't like when people say they are vegetarian but eat fish. Why? Because of the constant insistence that the vegan option is the salmon with butter. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if someone who wasn't a vegetarian questioned someone for eating fish; on the contrary, I'd appreciate it. (And I have people I love that eat fish and call themselves a vegetarian. I don't bother to discuss this with them because of the relationship being more important. On an internet discussion forum? I have no reason not to discuss.)

Was your judgment of people being foolish judgers a judgment? Of course it was. It was based on opinion and feeling and not fact. No worries, it happens to the best of us humans.

I don't think you understand the difference between the context of judgments, opinions and observations. Sometimes being too literal has its drawbacks. No worries, it happens to the best of us humans.

lindsey1979

Let me see...

I started my morning with oatmeal (processed) with brown sugar (processed), chopped pecans (processed), and raisins (processed). I also enjoyed a large coffee (processed) with cream (processed) , sugar (processed) and hazelnut shot (processed).

I'll let you know what have for lunch.

This is what drives me nuts....of course in this day and age you are going to eat "processed" food, whether Paleo or not. Unless you're a farmer who grows/raises everything you eat and does all of the butchering, etc, yourself, you are eating processed food. I think everyone has enough common sense to know that what is meant by processed, in this discussion, is the chemical/sodum/sugar laden food that is abundantly available, like chips, cookies, freezer meals, and many other forms of convenience foods. Of course our meat, nuts, raisins, coffee, etc are processed, because we don't do it ourselves. There is a big difference between processed chopped pecans and processed oreos. For example, tuna in a can....something healthy for you, full of good for you stuff, so why do they feel the need to add vegetable broth (which has lord knows what chemicals and additives) and soy to it? Why can't we just get tuna in a can with water or olive oil?? Thankfully some companies do that, but the majority of them add stuff. Dates is another example...they are super sweet on their own, so why does the bag I bought the other day have sugar added??? It's unnecessary and unhealthy.

Medicakes --- this is because you're new. This is one of the very common red herring arguments that is often presented in Paleo discussions. A few others that you'll often see in these discussions:

(1) The idea of what "clean eating" is. "Everyone has such different ideas, that the whole concept is meaningless".
(2) Those that judge others as not being "Paleo" enough -- though it usually comes from those who don't follow any of the concepts at all. It's like they're atheists walking into a church, synagogue or mosque and telling people that they're not Christian, Jewish or Muslim enough. Because, hey, if you're not the strictest orthodox that adheres to the 100% letter of the law principles, then you can't be a Jew, Christian or Muslim.
(3) Those that complain that they speak out against Paleo and its variations because people that follow those are just trying to be kewl or are overbearing in pushing their views on others. There is a great irony and hypocrisy there.
(4) It's sooooo restrictive. Of course, completely ignoring that fact that EVERY diet/lifestyle is restrictive in some way or other other -- whether it's calories, macros, moderation or food groups.
(5) Arguments about the factual basis of paleolithic man -- how since some paleolithic people ate grains, etc., the whole diet concept is bunk. Or how the average life span of ancient people's were less, the diet doesn't make much sense (of course, not accounting for sanitation, antibiotics, infant mortality, modern medicine, etc.)

It's pretty ridiculous. But apparently some people think these faux arguments are quite clever and illuminating. Very few tend to actually debate the diet claims and theories.

You know perfectly well that people have supplied peer reviewed article debunking the inflammation, etc claims of Paleo. You have yet to supply any original research supporting paleo health claims.

I could copy and paste these links, but it's kind of a waste of time and provides less of a dialogue than asking somebody to explain how their definition of "clean" and their argument that "clean is healthier" isn't arbitrary.

Because there are contrary opinions isn't debunking. As with almost every area of newly emerging science, there are contrary opinions. The reasons behind Paleo definitely fall into that area -- there are some things that support it and some things that don't support it. There is a LOT more that we need to learn about nutrition and the interactions in the body. But just because there are contrary opinions doesn't nullify the supporting facts.

This is what you don't seem to understand. Reasonable people can disagree, and both view points can be legitimate.

I've been waiting for months for you to post the original research supporting these claims.

I've posted several sources. There are several books you know you can read out there. You just want me to go through the books for you and spoonfeed you the support. That I refuse to do -- go do it yourself. But, that would take actual effort on your part.

lindsey1979

Yes, he always strives for 100% compliance, but realizes that it's unlikely in today's world. "The 80/20 principle is an acknowledgment that we’re adults who take full responsibility for every choice but occasionally find ourselves in circumstances that don’t allow 100% Primal or in situations for which we knowingly accept reasonable, conscious compromises."

Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/dear-mark-8020-revisited/#ixzz3ACNUiHM0

But, if you'd prefer to continue to play with semantics, by all means....

It's not playing with semantics at all. It's quite different than saying it's fine (or recommended) to aim for 80% compliance and that as a result nothing is actually forbidden.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that then.