"Paleo diet" - 70% fat???
Replies
-
Yes, It is an interesting paper. Higher percentage of fats, yes. Higher level of activity, yes.
However, I was always active as a kid. I played baseball, football, basketball, and even golf. I did this because my parents made me. However, I still ate pizza, sugary foods, and mountains of candy. My friends who were fat, were never active, always sat around and did nothing. All my friends and peers who were active, I never saw a problem.
http://www.annals.org/content/133/2/92.1.short
It just shows, exercise is a factor in all of this. Diet alone can not save the obesity problem.0 -
I don’t believe I said the food pyramid “caused” Americans to get fat. What I was intimating is the food pyramid is not helping, and people that point to it as “the way to go” and that it’s so much more healthy than a diet based on cutting out grains, sugars, vegetable oils, and processed foods, are IMO fooling themselves.
Now to be clear, I do think the food pyramid is at least partially to blame by putting so much importance on grains. I don’t have the statistics to back this up, but I would bet the consumption of whole grain bread, pasta, chips, crackers, and what have you, has gone up 10 fold over the last 20 years. The FDA would have you believe that is a good thing. But is it? Where is the evidence, lower heart disease? Nope. Lower rates of diabetes? Nope. Lower rates of cancer? Nope. Thinner children, adults? Nope. Where is the evidence that grains, even whole grains should be the base of our diet pyramid?
http://www.ajcn.org/content/70/3/307.short
http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/5/848.short
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=608100
Copy and past links is so cool, you put a lot of thought into that. At least copy and past a couple lines that you think are important.
I've seen those studies,,,,,,,,, guess what they still don't know if the grains are helping or some other factor.
And I ask again where is the evidence?
The evidence is the same as yours. Thousand of success stories. More to the point there is no evidence that it doesn't work, just as there's no evidence that there's any thing really wrong with Paleo. They both work. Find what's right for you.
As for your point of order - I think he meant it as "anything you put in your mouth" and not just in the restricted calorie sense. Proper diet and exercise should be followed by everyone. Those trying to lose weight, those trying to maintain, and those trying to gain. And a way of living where what you put in your mouth is "based," not necessarily follows to the absolute letter, on the food groups does work. Again there are personal variations, but the idea is to eat in moderation from all the food groups for optimal health.
Yes whole grain consumption is up. So is fast food consumption, total calorie consumption, processed food consumption, eating out, and we get less exercise than ever before. Why do whole grains, with doctors and studies saying that they're good for you, get the blame over all those other things, with no doctors or studies saying anything good about them?You have to concede that whole grain consumption is up by at least double over 20 years ago, has any health risk gone down in that time?
I don't understand why you're so defensive. Nobody's saying Paleo sucks don't do it. But you seem to be saying that people that don't follow Paleo are deluding themselves and attacking others for their choices. Maybe it's just an internet thing since it's so hard to communicate a tone via message board posts, but the tone that I'm getting from you is rather angry.
And one last thing for the record - You're right you never did say that the food pyramid caused people to gain weight. I inferred it. Now I personally don't think it was a radically totally off base inference based on the things you'd written and continue to write, but you didn't "say" it, and I stand corrected.
Don't understand why we're defensive ? Well I copied a few post from this thread, I assume you didn't read all of them, so here you go.yes that sounds fishy....lol..I wouldnt do that. It doesnt sound safe for your body.
My biggest problem with this diet is that the basic logic of it is flawed.
I wrote out a long frustrated rant, but then decided it was unnecessary to berate anybody for their illogical opinions.
Some people are just too lazy to make the effort to do it right.
The primal blueprint has no scientific backing.
The Primitive humans weren't "healthy" at all
The debate isn't to convince the people who believe the quacks, as they are usually too far gone down the anti-scientific path. The debate is to convince the people who might listen to the unsafe information given, such as a diet consisting of 70% fat.
I have seen people on the paleo diet. I always see them dragging around. Sure, they have a burst of energy when they workout but after, I see them just slouching around.
I still think it's just another unhealthy fad diet.
So... You're entitled to your opinion but I'm not? Interesting.0 -
I can honestly say due to the "Standard American Diet" going the low calorie, low fat approach and working out got me fatter and fatter. The SAD has also caused inflammatory response to those foods and a major contributing factor to Type 2 Diabetes, PCOS, symptoms of arthritis and bi-polar symptoms.
I have always been an active person.
These things didn't go away until I gut out the grains, beans and legumes and most of the dairy.
I actually grew up eating the way I am back to eating now. Farm raised meats, eating the fat, home grown fruits and veggies (or came from a local orchard), nuts and drinking water. I was never over weight as a child.
Now by active, I mean you burned at least 500 calories by walking or things of that nature. I feel that 90% of americans just sit around and expect diet alone to save them.
Everytime I go to Europe or the middle east, everybody is so much more active. Not very many people depend on a car to get around. I remember when I was Germany I had to walk about 1.5 miles to get to a bar to meet up with my friends. Sure we could of called a taxi but they were not lazy like that. When I was in Bahrain, I had to walk about 1 mile to get to work. Even here, if i'm not running, I still try to be active.
There is a farmers market about 1 mile from where I live and a huge hill I got to get across. Unless it's raining, I still walk there. Pretty much anything else is an excuse.
That's what i'm talking about when I say active.
Yes, I was biking, working out at the gym and doing weight lifting. I used to be in the Army as well so I have always been very active..............
I used to be a weight lifter in the Army.0 -
And you have continued to be active throughout your life?
Weight lifting is not a very cardio intensive thing. I do it and I know I'm going to gain pounds and fat.0 -
Yes, It is an interesting paper. Higher percentage of fats, yes. Higher level of activity, yes.
However, I was always active as a kid. I played baseball, football, basketball, and even golf. I did this because my parents made me. However, I still ate pizza, sugary foods, and mountains of candy. My friends who were fat, were never active, always sat around and did nothing. All my friends and peers who were active, I never saw a problem.
http://www.annals.org/content/133/2/92.1.short
It just shows, exercise is a factor in all of this. Diet alone can not save the obesity problem.
Yes, a factor but nowhere near the influence diet is. Actually, across the board, "we" did start exercising more, just like "we" reduced our intake of fats. Yet "we" have also become more obese, and obese earlier in our life.
I believe this is caused by dietary changes first and foremost: more calories available surely, but also a greater intake of simple sugars, primarily of fructose. Obesity and insulin resistance go hand in hand in my opinion.0 -
Yes, It is an interesting paper. Higher percentage of fats, yes. Higher level of activity, yes.
However, I was always active as a kid. I played baseball, football, basketball, and even golf. I did this because my parents made me. However, I still ate pizza, sugary foods, and mountains of candy. My friends who were fat, were never active, always sat around and did nothing. All my friends and peers who were active, I never saw a problem.
http://www.annals.org/content/133/2/92.1.short
It just shows, exercise is a factor in all of this. Diet alone can not save the obesity problem.
Yes, a factor but nowhere near the influence diet is. Actually, across the board, "we" did start exercising more, just like "we" reduced our intake of fats. Yet "we" have also become more obese, and obese earlier in our life.
I believe this is caused by dietary changes first and foremost: more calories available surely, but also a greater intake of simple sugars, primarily of fructose. Obesity and insulin resistance go hand in hand in my opinion.
I completely agree with your last paragraph to a point. However, I don't see the average American becoming more active. At least to a point to where it is beneficial.
But the consumption of simple sugars, yes. I agree this is our biggest fault and one of the reasons we are the way we are. And I've seen plenty of studies of insulin resistance and obesity do go hand in hand.0 -
It is also called the Caveman or hunter gather diet. The idea is that we were healthier before modern agriculture was created to feed larger groups of people.
From what I can tell you are suppose to eat clean. Good fats, lean protein, lots of water, and very few carbs. You aren't suppose to eat anything you couldn't hunt or gather yourself.
My biggest problem with this diet is that the basic logic of it is flawed. Yes in a world where our main objectives for a day was to hunt and gather food of course you needed more fat because you were burning so many calories. And there is no way to know how healthy people where back then.
Personally it sounds like a fad diet to me. Here is a link to the wiki article if you have time to skim it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
Totally right, this "Diet" is soooo Flawed that it is ridiculous. The life span is sooo much better NOW compared even to 100 years ago. No, how we eat today IS NOT The Best, but it is FAR BETTER than Hunter and Gatherer Times; what was the life span then 20/25 years, Heck, 100 yrs. ago the average life span was 45 years.
There is NO way that the Conditions of living in Pre-Historic times can be reproduced for someone to actually eat like that. Someone sitting at a desk for 10 hours and going to the Gym for 1 even 2 hours PER DAY can not, in NO Way Duplicate the Physical Conditions (walking, running, adrenal rushes from "dodging" predatory animals, NOT eating every day because they could not find food everyday, eating wild vegetation of what was in season...) Some Teacher, Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant, Construction Worker, Banker...Think they can duplicate the way they ate back then and think that their Body will adjust is NUTS! I want to see REAL Statistics on this stuff...OH Yeah, There Is NONE!0 -
Another website I belong to recommended the following ratios: 65-70% fat, 25% protein, and 5-10% carbs. That is what I aim for.
What website is this?0 -
It is also called the Caveman or hunter gather diet. The idea is that we were healthier before modern agriculture was created to feed larger groups of people.
From what I can tell you are suppose to eat clean. Good fats, lean protein, lots of water, and very few carbs. You aren't suppose to eat anything you couldn't hunt or gather yourself.
My biggest problem with this diet is that the basic logic of it is flawed. Yes in a world where our main objectives for a day was to hunt and gather food of course you needed more fat because you were burning so many calories. And there is no way to know how healthy people where back then.
Personally it sounds like a fad diet to me. Here is a link to the wiki article if you have time to skim it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
Totally right, this "Diet" is soooo Flawed that it is ridiculous. The life span is sooo much better NOW compared even to 100 years ago. No, how we eat today IS NOT The Best, but it is FAR BETTER than Hunter and Gatherer Times; what was the life span then 20/25 years, Heck, 100 yrs. ago the average life span was 45 years.
There is NO way that the Conditions of living in Pre-Historic times can be reproduced for someone to actually eat like that. Someone sitting at a desk for 10 hours and going to the Gym for 1 even 2 hours PER DAY can not, in NO Way Duplicate the Physical Conditions (walking, running, adrenal rushes from "dodging" predatory animals, NOT eating every day because they could not find food everyday, eating wild vegetation of what was in season...) Some Teacher, Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant, Construction Worker, Banker...Think they can duplicate the way they ate back then and think that their Body will adjust is NUTS! I want to see REAL Statistics on this stuff...OH Yeah, There Is NONE!
It is not about duplicating the lifestyle of the prehistoric times............You are taking it and twisting it literally.
It is about living a more natural lifestyle away from all the chemicals and such that exist today. Yes, you can simulate a lot of the things from that time..........
Move slowly (walking)
Lift Heavy Things
Play, Laugh, Love
Sprint sometimes......
Eat natural foods free of chemicals, artificial sweeteners, non-nutritional grains, etc.............0 -
It is also called the Caveman or hunter gather diet. The idea is that we were healthier before modern agriculture was created to feed larger groups of people.
From what I can tell you are suppose to eat clean. Good fats, lean protein, lots of water, and very few carbs. You aren't suppose to eat anything you couldn't hunt or gather yourself.
My biggest problem with this diet is that the basic logic of it is flawed. Yes in a world where our main objectives for a day was to hunt and gather food of course you needed more fat because you were burning so many calories. And there is no way to know how healthy people where back then.
Personally it sounds like a fad diet to me. Here is a link to the wiki article if you have time to skim it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
Totally right, this "Diet" is soooo Flawed that it is ridiculous. The life span is sooo much better NOW compared even to 100 years ago. No, how we eat today IS NOT The Best, but it is FAR BETTER than Hunter and Gatherer Times; what was the life span then 20/25 years, Heck, 100 yrs. ago the average life span was 45 years.
There is NO way that the Conditions of living in Pre-Historic times can be reproduced for someone to actually eat like that. Someone sitting at a desk for 10 hours and going to the Gym for 1 even 2 hours PER DAY can not, in NO Way Duplicate the Physical Conditions (walking, running, adrenal rushes from "dodging" predatory animals, NOT eating every day because they could not find food everyday, eating wild vegetation of what was in season...) Some Teacher, Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant, Construction Worker, Banker...Think they can duplicate the way they ate back then and think that their Body will adjust is NUTS! I want to see REAL Statistics on this stuff...OH Yeah, There Is NONE!
It is not about duplicating the lifestyle of the prehistoric times............You are taking it and twisting it literally.
It is about living a more natural lifestyle away from all the chemicals and such that exist today. Yes, you can simulate a lot of the things from that time..........
Move slowly (walking)
Lift Heavy Things
Play, Laugh, Love
Sprint sometimes......
Eat natural foods free of chemicals, artificial sweeteners, non-nutritional grains, etc.............
Now see, I can agree with you there. Although I still like stuff with chemicals and the rest of the garbage in it. I've cut out a lot of it over the years but it's pretty hard unless you grow all the stuff yourself.
The diets I feel we should be following is what they were doing about 100 years ago though. A lot less complications then.0 -
It is also called the Caveman or hunter gather diet. The idea is that we were healthier before modern agriculture was created to feed larger groups of people.
From what I can tell you are suppose to eat clean. Good fats, lean protein, lots of water, and very few carbs. You aren't suppose to eat anything you couldn't hunt or gather yourself.
My biggest problem with this diet is that the basic logic of it is flawed. Yes in a world where our main objectives for a day was to hunt and gather food of course you needed more fat because you were burning so many calories. And there is no way to know how healthy people where back then.
Personally it sounds like a fad diet to me. Here is a link to the wiki article if you have time to skim it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
Totally right, this "Diet" is soooo Flawed that it is ridiculous. The life span is sooo much better NOW compared even to 100 years ago. No, how we eat today IS NOT The Best, but it is FAR BETTER than Hunter and Gatherer Times; what was the life span then 20/25 years, Heck, 100 yrs. ago the average life span was 45 years.
There is NO way that the Conditions of living in Pre-Historic times can be reproduced for someone to actually eat like that. Someone sitting at a desk for 10 hours and going to the Gym for 1 even 2 hours PER DAY can not, in NO Way Duplicate the Physical Conditions (walking, running, adrenal rushes from "dodging" predatory animals, NOT eating every day because they could not find food everyday, eating wild vegetation of what was in season...) Some Teacher, Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant, Construction Worker, Banker...Think they can duplicate the way they ate back then and think that their Body will adjust is NUTS! I want to see REAL Statistics on this stuff...OH Yeah, There Is NONE!
Our life span has become better because we have more or less eradicated the threat of infectious diseases, at least, in the west. Penicillin really has saved more lives than eating a grains based diet. Also the low average age of 100 years ago is caused by the influence of high perinatal death rates on the average age. Visit any graveyard and you'll find many graves of very young children, and of adults whose lifespan wasn't that much shorter than our average lifespan.
There is archaeological data to suggest that hunters/gatherers were certainly healthier and with a higher average age than the farming communities that succeeded them. Of course changes in diet are not the only factor here: the social structure also changed in a radical way and this too had its influence.0 -
It is also called the Caveman or hunter gather diet. The idea is that we were healthier before modern agriculture was created to feed larger groups of people.
From what I can tell you are suppose to eat clean. Good fats, lean protein, lots of water, and very few carbs. You aren't suppose to eat anything you couldn't hunt or gather yourself.
My biggest problem with this diet is that the basic logic of it is flawed. Yes in a world where our main objectives for a day was to hunt and gather food of course you needed more fat because you were burning so many calories. And there is no way to know how healthy people where back then.
Personally it sounds like a fad diet to me. Here is a link to the wiki article if you have time to skim it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
Totally right, this "Diet" is soooo Flawed that it is ridiculous. The life span is sooo much better NOW compared even to 100 years ago. No, how we eat today IS NOT The Best, but it is FAR BETTER than Hunter and Gatherer Times; what was the life span then 20/25 years, Heck, 100 yrs. ago the average life span was 45 years.
There is NO way that the Conditions of living in Pre-Historic times can be reproduced for someone to actually eat like that. Someone sitting at a desk for 10 hours and going to the Gym for 1 even 2 hours PER DAY can not, in NO Way Duplicate the Physical Conditions (walking, running, adrenal rushes from "dodging" predatory animals, NOT eating every day because they could not find food everyday, eating wild vegetation of what was in season...) Some Teacher, Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant, Construction Worker, Banker...Think they can duplicate the way they ate back then and think that their Body will adjust is NUTS! I want to see REAL Statistics on this stuff...OH Yeah, There Is NONE!
It is not about duplicating the lifestyle of the prehistoric times............You are taking it and twisting it literally.
It is about living a more natural lifestyle away from all the chemicals and such that exist today. Yes, you can simulate a lot of the things from that time..........
Move slowly (walking)
Lift Heavy Things
Play, Laugh, Love
Sprint sometimes......
Eat natural foods free of chemicals, artificial sweeteners, non-nutritional grains, etc.............
Now see, I can agree with you there. Although I still like stuff with chemicals and the rest of the garbage in it. I've cut out a lot of it over the years but it's pretty hard unless you grow all the stuff yourself.
The diets I feel we should be following is what they were doing about 100 years ago though. A lot less complications then.
A century ago, for instance, in northern europe, you wouldn't have had access to fruits to eat every day unless you were very very wealthy. Apples, certainly but not in summer, strawberries only during a few weeks, in summer, oranges, a few, during the winter months. Many more foods were preserved and fresh produce was pretty scarce, unless it was right in season. Our present situation, with lots of fresh produce available every day can't compare to that. Actually, that is a bit more like hunting and gathering, but of course hunters/gatherers went hungry a lot and had to fast often.0 -
It is also called the Caveman or hunter gather diet. The idea is that we were healthier before modern agriculture was created to feed larger groups of people.
From what I can tell you are suppose to eat clean. Good fats, lean protein, lots of water, and very few carbs. You aren't suppose to eat anything you couldn't hunt or gather yourself.
My biggest problem with this diet is that the basic logic of it is flawed. Yes in a world where our main objectives for a day was to hunt and gather food of course you needed more fat because you were burning so many calories. And there is no way to know how healthy people where back then.
Personally it sounds like a fad diet to me. Here is a link to the wiki article if you have time to skim it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet
Totally right, this "Diet" is soooo Flawed that it is ridiculous. The life span is sooo much better NOW compared even to 100 years ago. No, how we eat today IS NOT The Best, but it is FAR BETTER than Hunter and Gatherer Times; what was the life span then 20/25 years, Heck, 100 yrs. ago the average life span was 45 years.
There is NO way that the Conditions of living in Pre-Historic times can be reproduced for someone to actually eat like that. Someone sitting at a desk for 10 hours and going to the Gym for 1 even 2 hours PER DAY can not, in NO Way Duplicate the Physical Conditions (walking, running, adrenal rushes from "dodging" predatory animals, NOT eating every day because they could not find food everyday, eating wild vegetation of what was in season...) Some Teacher, Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant, Construction Worker, Banker...Think they can duplicate the way they ate back then and think that their Body will adjust is NUTS! I want to see REAL Statistics on this stuff...OH Yeah, There Is NONE!
Our life span has become better because we have more or less eradicated the threat of infectious diseases, at least, in the west. Penicillin really has saved more lives than eating a grains based diet. Also the low average age of 100 years ago is caused by the influence of high perinatal death rates on the average age. Visit any graveyard and you'll find many graves of very young children, and of adults whose lifespan wasn't that much shorter than our average lifespan.
There is archaeological data to suggest that hunters/gatherers were certainly healthier and with a higher average age than the farming communities that succeeded them. Of course changes in diet are not the only factor here: the social structure also changed in a radical way and this too had its influence.
Exactly. I just read an interview with a medical doctor who has also studied Anthropology. He actually stated that the reason the lifespan was very short was due to many children dying under the age of 5.............There were people that lived to be pretty old during the Stone Age.Longevity
S: When I talk to folks about trying to get back to our Stone Age roots in lifestyle, a common
answer is, “yeah, well they only lived to be 30,” meaning their life expectancy was short. Is
this a myth?
M: Yes, it is a myth. The average life expectancy was 35, but this was because half the population died
before the age of 5 and the other half lived to a much older age. There is clear evidence showing that
some people lived to be very old in the Stone Age.
S: So those people were able to live longer and pass on their genes?
M: Long life is another issue. We think that one of the keys to human longevity is when older men
had children with younger women it was much better for the tribe. This enabled them to pass on all
the traits that contributed to their longevity to the next generation.
Here is a link to the interview..............
http://startingstrength.com/articles/meller_interview_steel.pdf0 -
I don’t believe I said the food pyramid “caused” Americans to get fat. What I was intimating is the food pyramid is not helping, and people that point to it as “the way to go” and that it’s so much more healthy than a diet based on cutting out grains, sugars, vegetable oils, and processed foods, are IMO fooling themselves.
Now to be clear, I do think the food pyramid is at least partially to blame by putting so much importance on grains. I don’t have the statistics to back this up, but I would bet the consumption of whole grain bread, pasta, chips, crackers, and what have you, has gone up 10 fold over the last 20 years. The FDA would have you believe that is a good thing. But is it? Where is the evidence, lower heart disease? Nope. Lower rates of diabetes? Nope. Lower rates of cancer? Nope. Thinner children, adults? Nope. Where is the evidence that grains, even whole grains should be the base of our diet pyramid?
http://www.ajcn.org/content/70/3/307.short
http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/5/848.short
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=608100
Copy and past links is so cool, you put a lot of thought into that. At least copy and past a couple lines that you think are important.
I've seen those studies,,,,,,,,, guess what they still don't know if the grains are helping or some other factor.
And I ask again where is the evidence?
The evidence is the same as yours. Thousand of success stories. More to the point there is no evidence that it doesn't work, just as there's no evidence that there's any thing really wrong with Paleo. They both work. Find what's right for you.
As for your point of order - I think he meant it as "anything you put in your mouth" and not just in the restricted calorie sense. Proper diet and exercise should be followed by everyone. Those trying to lose weight, those trying to maintain, and those trying to gain. And a way of living where what you put in your mouth is "based," not necessarily follows to the absolute letter, on the food groups does work. Again there are personal variations, but the idea is to eat in moderation from all the food groups for optimal health.
Yes whole grain consumption is up. So is fast food consumption, total calorie consumption, processed food consumption, eating out, and we get less exercise than ever before. Why do whole grains, with doctors and studies saying that they're good for you, get the blame over all those other things, with no doctors or studies saying anything good about them?You have to concede that whole grain consumption is up by at least double over 20 years ago, has any health risk gone down in that time?
I don't understand why you're so defensive. Nobody's saying Paleo sucks don't do it. But you seem to be saying that people that don't follow Paleo are deluding themselves and attacking others for their choices. Maybe it's just an internet thing since it's so hard to communicate a tone via message board posts, but the tone that I'm getting from you is rather angry.
And one last thing for the record - You're right you never did say that the food pyramid caused people to gain weight. I inferred it. Now I personally don't think it was a radically totally off base inference based on the things you'd written and continue to write, but you didn't "say" it, and I stand corrected.
Don't understand why we're defensive ? Well I copied a few post from this thread, I assume you didn't read all of them, so here you go.yes that sounds fishy....lol..I wouldnt do that. It doesnt sound safe for your body.
My biggest problem with this diet is that the basic logic of it is flawed.
I wrote out a long frustrated rant, but then decided it was unnecessary to berate anybody for their illogical opinions.
Some people are just too lazy to make the effort to do it right.
The primal blueprint has no scientific backing.
The Primitive humans weren't "healthy" at all
The debate isn't to convince the people who believe the quacks, as they are usually too far gone down the anti-scientific path. The debate is to convince the people who might listen to the unsafe information given, such as a diet consisting of 70% fat.
I have seen people on the paleo diet. I always see them dragging around. Sure, they have a burst of energy when they workout but after, I see them just slouching around.
I still think it's just another unhealthy fad diet.
So... You're entitled to your opinion but I'm not? Interesting.
That is such BS, you asked why so defensive, I just quoted a few reasons for being so, never said anything about your opinion or mine. If your going to use straw man arguments you will have to do better than that.0 -
Another website I belong to recommended the following ratios: 65-70% fat, 25% protein, and 5-10% carbs. That is what I aim for.
What website is this?
Guys please! Calm down a little, lol. I posted this to find sources, and my posts are being skipped over by very long opinionated diatribes... :frown: So, (for the second time!), what is the site that recommends 65-70% fat, 25% protein, etc ?0 -
Another website I belong to recommended the following ratios: 65-70% fat, 25% protein, and 5-10% carbs. That is what I aim for.
What website is this?
Guys please! Calm down a little, lol. I posted this to find sources, and my posts are being skipped over by very long opinionated diatribes... :frown: So, (for the second time!), what is the site that recommends 65-70% fat, 25% protein, etc ?
I can't post the site because its against the TOS of this site as it is another forum site.
Do some searching for paleo forums.0 -
Another website I belong to recommended the following ratios: 65-70% fat, 25% protein, and 5-10% carbs. That is what I aim for.
What website is this?
Guys please! Calm down a little, lol. I posted this to find sources, and my posts are being skipped over by very long opinionated diatribes... :frown: So, (for the second time!), what is the site that recommends 65-70% fat, 25% protein, etc ?
I can't post the site because its against the TOS of this site as it is another forum site.
Do some searching for paleo forums.
You told another member on this thread that you messaged her with it. Please message me with the name of the forum/website. Thank you!
0 -
Repeat after me: Fat does not make you fat.
We ARE fat because of grain consumption, because we eat NOTHING BUT grain and grain by products. The food pyramid is why we are fat. But so is our food industry that promotes food that's terrible for you with lower prices. When you can get a box of rice krispy treats and a double cheesburger with a large coke for less than broccoli and lean naturally raised beef, there's an issue.
Fat, in the presence of excess carbohydrates is what makes you fat. Your body is too busy fighting off high blood sugar levels with insulin to where the fat in the diet is now not used for energy, but stored , because the carbs have become the primary fuel source.
When you diminish the carb intake, the body can't rely on them as a primary fuel source, and begins to burn fat. When the body has an excess of fat in the diet, it does not need to store this fat, and you burn that, along with stored body fat.
When these fat cells break down, they are processed by the liver and produce a by-product known as Ketones. The ketones are then flushed from the body in Urine - which you can check by using Ketostix. Essentially, you piss away fat.
If you eat 40+% of your diet from carbs, most likely they will be processed. If you do not work out enough, eat enough protein or fat, your diet will most likely be "low calorie" but will then consist of 50%+ of carbs - which is why people can still gain weight on low calorie diets.
Myths:
-You need to eat throughout the day: FALSE
-You shouldn't eat after 9pm: FALSE
-You shouldn't eat ice cream, pop tarts, etc or you will gain weight: FALSE
-Fat is what makes you fat, low fat is good!: FALSE
-Carbs are essential to function: FALSE
-You can only handle so much protein/carbs at one time: FALSE
Truths:
-You can eat what you please if it fits your macros: TRUE
-You can eat as much as your stomach can handle in one sitting: TRUE
-Fat helps promote hormonal balance, brain function and organ function: TRUE
-Carbs are not needed. Fructose is a foreign substance to our body and also not needed, fat and excess protein can be broken down and used as fuel: TRUE0 -
Thanks DeathTaco!!!!!!!
I have been saying these same things for the longest time.0 -
The truth about Saturated fats................
Well written article by Dr Mary Enig and Sally Fallon.
http://www.health-report.co.uk/saturated_fats_health_benefits.htm0 -
Repeat after me: Fat does not make you fat.
We ARE fat because of grain consumption, because we eat NOTHING BUT grain and grain by products. The food pyramid is why we are fat. But so is our food industry that promotes food that's terrible for you with lower prices. When you can get a box of rice krispy treats and a double cheesburger with a large coke for less than broccoli and lean naturally raised beef, there's an issue.
Fat, in the presence of excess carbohydrates is what makes you fat. Your body is too busy fighting off high blood sugar levels with insulin to where the fat in the diet is now not used for energy, but stored , because the carbs have become the primary fuel source.
When you diminish the carb intake, the body can't rely on them as a primary fuel source, and begins to burn fat. When the body has an excess of fat in the diet, it does not need to store this fat, and you burn that, along with stored body fat.
When these fat cells break down, they are processed by the liver and produce a by-product known as Ketones. The ketones are then flushed from the body in Urine - which you can check by using Ketostix. Essentially, you piss away fat.
If you eat 40+% of your diet from carbs, most likely they will be processed. If you do not work out enough, eat enough protein or fat, your diet will most likely be "low calorie" but will then consist of 50%+ of carbs - which is why people can still gain weight on low calorie diets.
Myths:
-You need to eat throughout the day: FALSE
-You shouldn't eat after 9pm: FALSE
-You shouldn't eat ice cream, pop tarts, etc or you will gain weight: FALSE
-Fat is what makes you fat, low fat is good!: FALSE
-Carbs are essential to function: FALSE
-You can only handle so much protein/carbs at one time: FALSE
Truths:
-You can eat what you please if it fits your macros: TRUE
-You can eat as much as your stomach can handle in one sitting: TRUE
-Fat helps promote hormonal balance, brain function and organ function: TRUE
-Carbs are not needed. Fructose is a foreign substance to our body and also not needed, fat and excess protein can be broken down and used as fuel: TRUE
1. Where is your evidence that I can cut carbs out of my diet? (A complete meat diet.)
2. How is the food pyramid the cause of us being fat? Again, it does not say eat McDonalds, Wendy's or Burger King. It doesn't even say eat processed foods.0 -
Human beings ate this way for 2 million years, so I always laugh when people call Paleo a "fad diet"
So our bodies are equipped to eat something that was around 2 million years ago? Ever heard of human evolution and all the different skeletons that were dug up? You're saying their digestive systems were the same as us???
Maybe this can help you put it in context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4 0 -
Go to Dr Mercola's site and type saturated fats in the search window and do some reading and research.
http://search.mercola.com/search/pages/Results.aspx?k=saturated fat0 -
Human beings ate this way for 2 million years, so I always laugh when people call Paleo a "fad diet"
So our bodies are equipped to eat something that was around 2 million years ago? Ever heard of human evolution and all the different skeletons that were dug up? You're saying their digestive systems were the same as us???
Maybe this can help you put it in context:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4
That did not answer my question at all.
And if I remember the experiment, (I'd have to dig through my books again.) those other countries were controls. Hmmm...
Whoever that was, needs to look up the definition of a hypothesis.0 -
Now, lets get back on track in discussing - high fat diet, healthy? What about low proteins?
From the studying I have done, low fat can be useful in limited circumstances and high fat can be useful in limited circumstances. What works for most people is a balanced diet of fat, carbs, and protein (and maybe a little alcohol). Mostly vegetables, some fruit, some fungus, some meat if you like, and some treats.
From a personal standpoint, a balanced approach works for me and is a lifestyle I can stick with for the rest of my life. I've lost 32 pounds in 90 days following this approach.0 -
Now, lets get back on track in discussing - high fat diet, healthy? What about low proteins?
Higher than average fat diets aren't all that bad I think. If you're burning them up, and especially if carbs are a problem for you than increasing your fat calories while decreasing the carbs could be a good and viable option.
As someone trying to get bigger and stronger I can't imagine going on a low protein diet though. And especially if your active, low protein isn't really that great of an idea. You need those essential amino acids to repair your muscles and also to prevent your body from catabalizing (ok so spell check failed me there) your muscles to get those acids.0 -
From the studying I have done, low fat can be useful in limited circumstances and high fat can be useful in limited circumstances. What works for most people is a balanced diet of fat, carbs, and protein (and maybe a little alcohol). Mostly vegetables, some fruit, some fungus, some meat if you like, and some treats.
From a personal standpoint, a balanced approach works for me and is a lifestyle I can stick with for the rest of my life. I've lost 32 pounds in 90 days following this approach.
What's a good balance (for carbs/protein/fat) ? I found that I've been following 45% carbs, 20% protein, 35% fat. But I might want to shake things up a bit.0 -
Now, lets get back on track in discussing - high fat diet, healthy? What about low proteins?
Higher than average fat diets aren't all that bad I think. If you're burning them up, and especially if carbs are a problem for you than increasing your fat calories while decreasing the carbs could be a good and viable option.
As someone trying to get bigger and stronger I can't imagine going on a low protein diet though. And especially if your active, low protein isn't really that great of an idea. You need those essential amino acids to repair your muscles and also to prevent your body from catabalizing (ok so spell check failed me there) your muscles to get those acids.
I'm trying to get bigger and stronger.. I'm extremely active: weight lifting 5x a week, and running 5k a couple times a week along with swimming & yoga. I want to build muscle and drop a little fat. Suggestions for appropriate protein/fat ratio??0 -
Yeah, I'm a low protein diet really sounds like a terrible diet. I'm not even sure how you would accomplish that. If you eat fats to make up the deficit you would most likely eat protein with it. I guess you could just eat whale blubber. Higher carbs are you are sure to contract diabetes.
I don't see anything wrong with a higher fat consumption to a point. Anything higher than 50% doesn't make sense.0 -
I go with 40/40/20 carbs/protein/fat. Most of the things I've read recommend .8 to 1 g per pound of body weight for people actively trying to gain size and strength. Which in my case is darn close to the 40%0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions