Paleo/Primal way of eating = finally the truth revealed?

freerange

What does the laws of thermodynamics tell you about how much fat will be stored if a person eats 5000 cals of sugar or 5000 cals of lean beef?

A perfect example of a straw man argument. Thanks you for contributing nothing.

Not at all the argument was that calories in and calories out is not the best indicator of health or weight loss. You said (In a sarcastic tone) if we ignore the law of thermodynamics. The implication being clear that in the law of thermodynamics a calorie is a calorie and they all burn at the same rate. Which is true in the law of thermodynamics, but is not true in the laws of food and nutrition. So you can claim I was making a straw man argument, in order to escape answering a question that will show your argument to be misleading and simplistic, but it does not change the fact that types of calories do matter.

hpsnickers1

I'm not reading the article. Not interested in reading it. I eat 40% carbs, 35% protein, and 25% fat. My carbs come mostly in the form of fruits and fibrous veggies. I like my morning oatmeal and I have brown rice and on occasion. I rarely eat any bread and my digestive system thanks me for it. Since I have stopped eating flours the majority of my IBS symptoms are gone. I do buy chicken and turkey from the store - if I can buy free range I will. My red meat comes in the form of venison killed and grilled by man.
The body needs carbs. It just depends on what kind of carb. Carbs are our fuel and if we are doing a lot of exercise then those carbs are very important. I like my dairy too. I'm losing weight fine. Since I started weight lifting and eating more calories in the day I am now burning off my belly fat. And this is without any cardio because I have slacked on it.


"Extreme carbohydrate restriction also causes muscle loss, dehydration, and slower metabolism, which is why even successful Atkins dieters can have a significant rebound in weight after they stop the diet.

Setting the right goal
John Dewey once said that a problem well-stated is half-solved. If you want to reach your goal, you have to define it correctly. See, a lot of people say “I want to lose weight.” Well, if losing weight is your goal, go on a no-carb diet. You'll lose a lot of weight – some of it will be fat, a lot of it will be water, and a dangerous amount will be muscle tissue. You'll lose weight quickly, but you'll slow your metabolism and gain fat more quickly once you go off the diet. Trust me on this. I've been there, done that."

http://www.hussmanfitness.org/html/TPAdaptation.html

I don't swear by this site but it has some good reading.

freerange

Your fighting a losing battle!! You will never get through to the people that can do nothing more than subtract calories out - calories in = magic weight loss...........

You will also never get through to people who are largely unaware of how speculative their orthorexic tendencies are.

"Even in less severe cases, the attempt to follow a diet that cannot provide adequate nourishment is said to lower self-esteem as the orthorexic blames themselves rather than their diet for their constant hunger and the resulting cravings for forbidden foods."

Please explain to the class what nourishment is lacking from the Paleo diet?

lodro

you don't take into account metabolic mechanisms concerning glucose and insulin?

This article explains why those points are moot far better than I can. Notice how it is supported with references to relevant, research driven works? A crazy concept, I know.

www.alanaragon.com/elements-challenging-the-validity-of-the-glycemic-index.html

Your article explains something about GI vs GL, with which I completely agree. However, just because you don't have issues with insulin resistance doesn't mean other people don't have them. If anything, the article "proves" Atkins was probably correct in the first version of his diet prescriptions.

Satiety, micronutrient density, insulin response, & surrounding factors altering glucose kinetics are all much like a roll of the dice in terms of bottom-line certainty & reliability of GI.

And that's all the article can safely state. A crazy concept, I know.

YeaILift

you don't take into account metabolic mechanisms concerning glucose and insulin?

This article explains why those points are moot far better than I can. Notice how it is supported with references to relevant, research driven works? A crazy concept, I know.

www.alanaragon.com/elements-challenging-the-validity-of-the-glycemic-index.html

Your article explains something about GI vs GL, with which I completely agree. However, just because you don't have issues with insulin resistance doesn't mean other people don't have them. If anything, the article "proves" Atkins was probably correct in the first version of his diet prescriptions.

Satiety, micronutrient density, insulin response, & surrounding factors altering glucose kinetics are all much like a roll of the dice in terms of bottom-line certainty & reliability of GI.

And that's all the article can safely state. A crazy concept, I know.

A prime example of this is cutting out potatoes on the basis of GI. This happens all the time, & the dieter takes pride in thinking he/she is being prudent. Well, the critical thing to realize here is that all food species in nature have unique nutrient profiles. Therefore, unique nutritional benefit can be derived from each species. The natural matrix of plant &/or animal tissue cannot be duplicated in the lab, & hence there are many unidentified beneficial agents in, say, the humble potato. As a matter of trivia, it surpasses bananas in potassium & vitamin C concentration. Not to mention, it provides default hydration, and of course is a great whole-food source of starch. The list goes on & on.

Selective reading much?


If you ignore people with insulin, dairy, gluten resistance/intolerance/allergies, both people reaching recommend micronutrition values with whole foods, and the same macros are met: how is Paleo a better/healthier diet?

You're not proving your point; you're only showing exception to mine. In which case yes, a Paleo diet would work by eliminating the foods that negatively affect them, but that's common sense. The vast majority of people don't have these problems and there is no reason to put them on a catch-all diet by eliminating entire food groups.

freerange

you don't take into account metabolic mechanisms concerning glucose and insulin?

This article explains why those points are moot far better than I can. Notice how it is supported with references to relevant, research driven works? A crazy concept, I know.

www.alanaragon.com/elements-challenging-the-validity-of-the-glycemic-index.html

Oops guess what, someone actually read your link. You should have to, because instead of making the point moot, it only made a couple general assumptions, and really didn’t provide any evidence one way or the other. A couple quotes from the article; “Clues; mere hints are all we get from our current knowledge of GI.”,,,,, “But alas, the GI data is neither perfect nor consistent, nor is it free of bugs.”

BullDozier

Just marking this thread as the Paleo diet has caught my attention recently. Lots of interesting reading here on both sides.

freerange

you don't take into account metabolic mechanisms concerning glucose and insulin?

This article explains why those points are moot far better than I can. Notice how it is supported with references to relevant, research driven works? A crazy concept, I know.

www.alanaragon.com/elements-challenging-the-validity-of-the-glycemic-index.html

Your article explains something about GI vs GL, with which I completely agree. However, just because you don't have issues with insulin resistance doesn't mean other people don't have them. If anything, the article "proves" Atkins was probably correct in the first version of his diet prescriptions.

Satiety, micronutrient density, insulin response, & surrounding factors altering glucose kinetics are all much like a roll of the dice in terms of bottom-line certainty & reliability of GI.

And that's all the article can safely state. A crazy concept, I know.

A prime example of this is cutting out potatoes on the basis of GI. This happens all the time, & the dieter takes pride in thinking he/she is being prudent. Well, the critical thing to realize here is that all food species in nature have unique nutrient profiles. Therefore, unique nutritional benefit can be derived from each species. The natural matrix of plant &/or animal tissue cannot be duplicated in the lab, & hence there are many unidentified beneficial agents in, say, the humble potato. As a matter of trivia, it surpasses bananas in potassium & vitamin C concentration. Not to mention, it provides default hydration, and of course is a great whole-food source of starch. The list goes on & on.

Selective reading much?


If you ignore people with insulin, dairy, gluten resistance/intolerance/allergies, both people reaching recommend micronutrition values with whole foods, and the same macros are met: how is Paleo a better/healthier diet?

You're not proving your point; you're only showing exception to mine. In which case yes, a Paleo diet would work by eliminating the foods that negatively affect them, but that's common sense. The vast majority of people don't have these problems and there is no reason to put them on a catch-all diet by eliminating entire food groups.

Entire food groups? Like saturated fats? How long have we been told fats are bad for you? Then for how longe were we told veg oil is good for you?

Have I asked you yet,,,,,, what diet plan ( and by diet plan I mean the foods you eat) do you follow?

YeaILift

you don't take into account metabolic mechanisms concerning glucose and insulin?

This article explains why those points are moot far better than I can. Notice how it is supported with references to relevant, research driven works? A crazy concept, I know.

www.alanaragon.com/elements-challenging-the-validity-of-the-glycemic-index.html

Your article explains something about GI vs GL, with which I completely agree. However, just because you don't have issues with insulin resistance doesn't mean other people don't have them. If anything, the article "proves" Atkins was probably correct in the first version of his diet prescriptions.
op

Satiety, micronutrient density, insulin response, & surrounding factors altering glucose kinetics are all much like a roll of the dice in terms of bottom-line certainty & reliability of GI.

And that's all the article can safely state. A crazy concept, I know.

A prime example of this is cutting out potatoes on the basis of GI. This happens all the time, & the dieter takes pride in thinking he/she is being prudent. Well, the critical thing to realize here is that all food species in nature have unique nutrient profiles. Therefore, unique nutritional benefit can be derived from each species. The natural matrix of plant &/or animal tissue cannot be duplicated in the lab, & hence there are many unidentified beneficial agents in, say, the humble potato. As a matter of trivia, it surpasses bananas in potassium & vitamin C concentration. Not to mention, it provides default hydration, and of course is a great whole-food source of starch. The list goes on & on.

Selective reading much?


If you ignore people with insulin, dairy, gluten resistance/intolerance/allergies, both people reaching recommend micronutrition values with whole foods, and the same macros are met: how is Paleo a better/healthier diet?

You're not proving your point; you're only showing exception to mine. In which case yes, a Paleo diet would work by eliminating the foods that negatively affect them, but that's common sense. The vast majority of people don't have these problems and there is no reason to put them on a catch-all diet by eliminating entire food groups.

Entire food groups? Like saturated fats? How long have we been told fats are bad for you? Then for how longe were we told veg oil is good for you?

Have I asked you yet,,,,,, what diet plan ( and by diet plan I mean the foods you eat) do you follow?

That's irrelevant to the argument at hand. You seem unable to contribute anything of consequence to this discussion.

freerange

you don't take into account metabolic mechanisms concerning glucose and insulin?

This article explains why those points are moot far better than I can. Notice how it is supported with references to relevant, research driven works? A crazy concept, I know.

www.alanaragon.com/elements-challenging-the-validity-of-the-glycemic-index.html

Your article explains something about GI vs GL, with which I completely agree. However, just because you don't have issues with insulin resistance doesn't mean other people don't have them. If anything, the article "proves" Atkins was probably correct in the first version of his diet prescriptions.
op

Satiety, micronutrient density, insulin response, & surrounding factors altering glucose kinetics are all much like a roll of the dice in terms of bottom-line certainty & reliability of GI.

And that's all the article can safely state. A crazy concept, I know.

A prime example of this is cutting out potatoes on the basis of GI. This happens all the time, & the dieter takes pride in thinking he/she is being prudent. Well, the critical thing to realize here is that all food species in nature have unique nutrient profiles. Therefore, unique nutritional benefit can be derived from each species. The natural matrix of plant &/or animal tissue cannot be duplicated in the lab, & hence there are many unidentified beneficial agents in, say, the humble potato. As a matter of trivia, it surpasses bananas in potassium & vitamin C concentration. Not to mention, it provides default hydration, and of course is a great whole-food source of starch. The list goes on & on.

Selective reading much?


If you ignore people with insulin, dairy, gluten resistance/intolerance/allergies, both people reaching recommend micronutrition values with whole foods, and the same macros are met: how is Paleo a better/healthier diet?

You're not proving your point; you're only showing exception to mine. In which case yes, a Paleo diet would work by eliminating the foods that negatively affect them, but that's common sense. The vast majority of people don't have these problems and there is no reason to put them on a catch-all diet by eliminating entire food groups.

Entire food groups? Like saturated fats? How long have we been told fats are bad for you? Then for how longe were we told veg oil is good for you?

Have I asked you yet,,,,,, what diet plan ( and by diet plan I mean the foods you eat) do you follow?

That's irrelevant to the argument at hand. You seem unable to contribute anything of consequence to this discussion.

What is irrelevant, your diet or the fact that CW (conventional wisdom) is always getting it wrong, and hurting a lot of people in the process?

And talk about not contributing anything, how about your link that has next to nothing of substance?

YeaILift

What is irrelevant, your diet or the fact that CW (conventional wisdom) is always getting it wrong, and hurting a lot of people in the process? And talk about not contributing anything, how about your link that has next to nothing of substance?

why is it necessary to eliminate dairy and grains in the diets of individuals with no allergy/intolerance or insulin resistance?

freerange

What is irrelevant, your diet or the fact that CW (conventional wisdom) is always getting it wrong, and hurting a lot of people in the process? And talk about not contributing anything, how about your link that has next to nothing of substance?

why is it necessary to eliminate dairy and grains in the diets of individuals with no allergy/intolerance or insulin resistance?

I guess it depends on your definition of necessary. Some people believe it leads to optimal health. And if optimal health is your goal then it is necessary.

Some, like yourself do not believe it leads to optimal health, that optimal health is achieved thru other means. And really in the Primal Blue Print, Dairy is not forbidden, it is advised you be careful with dairy because many people have allergies to dairy. Really the only forbidden fruit, so to speak is grain, sugar, and maybe beans. Everything else is as you can tolerate it, some people can’t handle dairy, some legumes, some shellfish, whatever. Myself I eat quite a bit of dairy, in the form of cheese and yogurt, others none at all. I stay away from grains and beans. The other thing about Paleo is to stay away from processed foods as much as possible, which you may or may not agree is a good thing, I’m guessing by your food diary, processed foods are just fine with you, which is ok with me, I could care less what you personally eat.

freerange

What is irrelevant, your diet or the fact that CW (conventional wisdom) is always getting it wrong, and hurting a lot of people in the process? And talk about not contributing anything, how about your link that has next to nothing of substance?

why is it necessary to eliminate dairy and grains in the diets of individuals with no allergy/intolerance or insulin resistance?

Oh and your question back to me was irrelevent to the question at hand (my question to you) it seems you have nothing to add to this debate.

SOOZIE429

carb restrictions will cause you to lose muscle mass more than fat mass.

---

I'm curious to hear what the Primal/Paleo eaters have to say about that statement above. I've just started eating this way for health reasons, but that statement concerns me. I've never heard that before. And by the looks of Mark Sisson, I don't think that guy is losing any muscle...

pyro13g

carb restrictions will cause you to lose muscle mass more than fat mass.

---

I'm curious to hear what the Primal/Paleo eaters have to say about that statement above. I've just started eating this way for health reasons, but that statement concerns me. I've never heard that before. And by the looks of Mark Sisson, I don't think that guy is losing any muscle...

Complete rubbish. Muscle is made of Water(mostly) and Protein. Glycogen can be stored in them but has little to do with building or maintaining them. Hard work limit's muscle atrophy and triggers growth.

Sure you didn't mean calorie restriction? In that case it is true in certain circumstances.

You can waste muscle being glycogen depleted but you can easily recover it strength training. I believe this was a natural occurring cycle in Paleo time, hunter-gather societies, and for Mark Sisson's budy Grok. If there was periods of feast and famine, it makes sense that there were cycles of muscle wasting and recovery.

YeaILift

What is irrelevant, your diet or the fact that CW (conventional wisdom) is always getting it wrong, and hurting a lot of people in the process? And talk about not contributing anything, how about your link that has next to nothing of substance?

why is it necessary to eliminate dairy and grains in the diets of individuals with no allergy/intolerance or insulin resistance?

I guess it depends on your definition of necessary. Some people believe it leads to optimal health. And if optimal health is your goal then it is necessary.

Some, like yourself do not believe it leads to optimal health, that optimal health is achieved thru other means. And really in the Primal Blue Print, Dairy is not forbidden, it is advised you be careful with dairy because many people have allergies to dairy. Really the only forbidden fruit, so to speak is grain, sugar, and maybe beans. Everything else is as you can tolerate it, some people can’t handle dairy, some legumes, some shellfish, whatever. Myself I eat quite a bit of dairy, in the form of cheese and yogurt, others none at all. I stay away from grains and beans. The other thing about Paleo is to stay away from processed foods as much as possible, which you may or may not agree is a good thing, I’m guessing by your food diary, processed foods are just fine with you, which is ok with me, I could care less what you personally eat.

How does Paleo lead to optimal health by restricting certain food groups when ignoring people with the aforementioned conditions. (a person without insulin resistance or allergies/intolerance to grain/dairy). Assuming both eat whole foods and meet micronutrition recommendations.

I don't know why you are arguing me with if you don't even follow Paleo.

JohnnyNull

This thread has become fractally stupid.

YeaILift

carb restrictions will cause you to lose muscle mass more than fat mass.

---

I'm curious to hear what the Primal/Paleo eaters have to say about that statement above. I've just started eating this way for health reasons, but that statement concerns me. I've never heard that before. And by the looks of Mark Sisson, I don't think that guy is losing any muscle...

Carb restriction doesn't cause muscle loss. Calorie restriction does.

freerange

What is irrelevant, your diet or the fact that CW (conventional wisdom) is always getting it wrong, and hurting a lot of people in the process? And talk about not contributing anything, how about your link that has next to nothing of substance?

why is it necessary to eliminate dairy and grains in the diets of individuals with no allergy/intolerance or insulin resistance?

I guess it depends on your definition of necessary. Some people believe it leads to optimal health. And if optimal health is your goal then it is necessary.

Some, like yourself do not believe it leads to optimal health, that optimal health is achieved thru other means. And really in the Primal Blue Print, Dairy is not forbidden, it is advised you be careful with dairy because many people have allergies to dairy. Really the only forbidden fruit, so to speak is grain, sugar, and maybe beans. Everything else is as you can tolerate it, some people can’t handle dairy, some legumes, some shellfish, whatever. Myself I eat quite a bit of dairy, in the form of cheese and yogurt, others none at all. I stay away from grains and beans. The other thing about Paleo is to stay away from processed foods as much as possible, which you may or may not agree is a good thing, I’m guessing by your food diary, processed foods are just fine with you, which is ok with me, I could care less what you personally eat.

How does Paleo lead to optimal health by restricting certain food groups when ignoring people with the aforementioned conditions. (a person without insulin resistance or allergies/intolerance to grain/dairy). Assuming both eat whole foods and meet micronutrition recommendations.

I don't know why you are arguing me with if you don't even follow Paleo.

Because those “food groups” are not really food groups, they are grains, that the body does not process efficiently, or maybe the correct word would be optimally. I know you don’t believe that, so we are stuck at that point. From what I gather from you, you believe anything called “food” is ok for you as long as you don’t show some obvious outward negative affect from it within minutes of eating it. And like I said, go for it, if that is how you want to eat.

And who said Paleo is some strict set of rules that has to be followed to the letter or you get ostracized by the Paleo police? I said I eat dairy, many people on the “paleo” diet eat some dairy, I don’t recall reading in my secret Paleo handbook that it was against the Paleo law to eat dairy.

Again I will ask you,,,,,, and of course this is just a forum there is no rule saying you have to answer questions, but what diet plan do you follow?

freerange

This thread has become fractally stupid.

Was that a question? I mean I don't want to respond about the jester adding depth to the discussion if that was a question. But really have you ever added anything with any of your post other then just being a hater?