"Paleo diet" - 70% fat???
Replies
-
70% fat, 25% protein and 5% carbs
Ok, to bring this back to the original topic, what evidence is there to support this high fat diet? And sorry, lomg post here.
First off, if you believe in the paleo/primal diet and think that there is a Government/USDA/Monsanto conspiracy that wants us to be unhealthy, uninformed, etc., please stop reading. I don't want to offend you and we have no common base to have a discussion about diet, if you reject science based rational evidence. If it works for you go for it, but let's keep this a thread based on facts, scientific facts.
Secondly reading through some of these posts it strikes me there is a basic misunderstanding about what science can do and not do. First off science does not prove anything. Science is built around the concept that you propose a hypothesis, based on a framework of your understanding of a topic. Then you try to design an experiment to test this hypothesis and the results of the experiment either support or reject the hypothesis. Rejection is final, your framework of how you look at this issue is wrong and you need to change it. Support is not final, in your experiment and conditions your hypothesis is not rejected, but in other conditions or experiments it can be rejected, which means your framework at looking at this issue can still be wrong. This is a basic way science works and is, for instance, where the endless discussion that evolution is just a hypothesis comes from. Thus, this scientific way of making progress might be frustrating to many people, science does not provide final answers, science often changes its way of looking at issues as more evidence is available, and that's why bleeding is not the main medical treatment out there anymore. That’s why scientific recommendations change over time, like for the USDA food pyramid, food recommendations, etc. The beauty of this approach is that you get better at understanding your system/diet as you go along; you adjust to new data, and can improve your understanding of how things work. That's why there is no alternative to the scientific approach, that's the only way we can make progress. Note the average lifespan in the US is around 70 now, paleo it was 30 years. And for most of us, we live a better life than any of our ancestors, all because of science. In the last 200 years we have made more progress understanding the natural world than ever before, we have airplanes, cars, internet, cell phones, man on the moon, etc, all because we used a scientific approach to examine the natural word. If you reject this scientific approach, well go back to the Stone Age, and read the top couple of lines, we can't have a rational discussion if you reject science, so please stop reading this.
Thirdly, there are two lines of evidence that scientists use, correlational and experimental. Correlational is based on comparing natural patterns, like comparing health info and diet across countries. Obviously many other factors vary too across countries in addition to the factor that you are interested in and want to examine. But, many experiments, especially with humans, are not ethical, so this is often the only approach that you can use to examine patterns in nature and human health. Then the key is to have large sample sizes over long time periods, the more data you use, the better and solid the patterns are likely to be. This is obviously difficult and expensive, which limits the number of good studies. But the gold standard is experiments. In this you manipulate, ideally, just one factor, and examine what happens. Most human diet data that we have is observational, for good reasons, you can't ethically put humans on unhealthy diets. That's a problem, because this observational data might be biased, for instance, people who smoke tend to eat more junk food and be more sedentary, it is hard to separate these three, unless you have large sample sizes, which is rarely the case. Thus most experimental studies are animal studies or short-term human studies.
Fourth, any guru, or diet specialist, who gives you absolute answers about what the key diet or diet ingredient, is a quack. Lots of quacks out there, it is a lot easier to make a living making money of a cult/diet than any honest way. Read point three again, for better or worse, science does not have any absolute answers, anyone who provides you with absolute answers, well what can I say? I would avoid drinking the cool aid, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
So, fifth, what do we know based on data? Note this is my interpretation, there is a vast literature on any scientific topic including diets, and I only looked at some well cited and review articles. And I avoided the cult books / web sites, anyone can make anything up and post in on the internet these days.
1. There is overwhelming evidence that being overweight is not good for you. This is based on correlational data of humans and experimental data from fruit flies to mice and rats. Put animals or humans on a restricted diet and you live a lot longer and have less disease. This is the most important thing you can do for your health. And reading this thread, yes most Western people eat too many calories, be it carbohydrates or fat, and do not exercise enough, calories in versus calories eat. Eat more than you use and you will get fat, which is a big problem. Based on animal models and human data, being too fat seems to interfere with healthy insulin sensitivity and leads to many metabolic problems. Currently, in the US something like 20% of all people is obese and another 30% overweight. Predictions are that by 2020 50% of the US population will be diabetic; we have a major health crisis developing. Thus, my interpretation, bring your BMI down to the healthy range, and preferably to the low end of the healthy range. And as a country, we need to stop subsidizing and promoting calories and change our food system to less calories and a more healthy diet, but that's a separate political issue. Everyone has a free choice, you can change your diet and not be part of this problem and there is no point blaming the USDA/Monsanto/Government for what your health and weight is.
2. Secondly, exercising is good for your health too, based on both correlational and experimental data. Increasing your activity is good for you and, in addition, helps you also to lose weight.
3. Third, based on correlational studies, the Mediterranean diet, with low animal fat, high in unsaturated oils like olive oil, high in complex carbohydrates, high in fish, red wine, leafy green vegetables, cheese, and nuts seems to be healthier than other diets. However, this is correlational so it is hard to separate what specific factor is the key parameter. For the time being, until there is more data, a Mediterranean diet seems to have more benefits than other diets, so that's what I use mostly.
4. Fourth, there is lots of evidence that saturated animal fats are not good for you, both observational and in experimental animal studies. Thus, I think based on this, 70% fat, especially animal fat, is not a healthy diet. And, vegetarian is good, or keep meat low, and preferentially eat fish, and poultry. Also note most wild animals are low in fat and very lean, including range fed beef and bison.
5. There is increasingly correlational evidence that fish oil and fat is good for your health. Again, mainly correlational, but eating more fish seems best, based on the evidence currently available.
6. Similarly for nuts, eating more unsaturated fats is correlated with good health.
7. There is not a lot of evidence either way for saturated plant fats like coconut oil. There is nothing magically good about them in the scientific literature, but there are not a lot of good studies based on longer term data, showing it is bad for you either. So, for the time being, I would eat them in moderation, and keep your intake low, based on the evidence that we have that unsaturated oils are correlated with better health and saturated fats are not.
8. Fiber, there is increasingly, both observational and experimental evidence, that increased fiber, both soluble and insoluble is good for your colon and health. Thus eat whole grains whenever you can and increase your fiber intake to 30-40 grams per day. I think the USAD recommendation is too low.
9. Cholesterol, specifically LDL, high levels are correlated with high cardiovascular disease. Note again this is correlational. There is also strong experimental evidence that taking statins, when you have high LDL, lowers your LDL level and lowers your risk for cardiovascular disease. But the link between LDL and hearth disease is correlation, statins also lower inflammation, so there is no absolute proof. But, as Bill Clinton, found out, if your LDL is high, using statins and staying on them, is a good idea. I have seen statements that eating lots of fatty animal foods, high in cholesterol is good for your health. There is no evidence supporting this and lots of evidence contradicting this, and these posts are irresponsible at best. Again, whatever you read on any web site, remember to not drink the kool aid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
Read up on in reputable sources before you do anything or follow any advice.
So, to answer the question about the 70% fat diet. I would not do this nor advise this, especially if you get the majority of the fat from animals or sources like butter and coconut oil. There is much more evidence that unsaturated fats and a Mediterranean diet are better for your health. Secondly skip simple sugars and refined carbohydrates and stick to whole grains. But even more important bring your BMI down to a healthy range; this will help you the most. And exercise, this is good and will also help you bring your weight down
As always, that's my current view above, based on the evidence that I have seen so far. But show me credible studies and I will change my mind. But, please do not refer to blogs or books by quacks.
Wow, first let me say THANK YOU I have no idea what we poor fools would do without you telling us what scientific method is all about, again THAK YOU, (guy on knees bowing down goes here)
Your post is so condescending, it’s going to be hard but I’m going to show some rare restraint. I do want to point out a small scientific point, FISH ARE ANIMALS.
I quit reading at the ridiculous "Note the average lifespan in the US is around 70 now, paleo it was 30" comment.
Last time I checked, none of us were being considered "food" (which people were viewed as food by larger animals, I'd assume in paleo times) and really don't have to worry about getting bashed in the head with a rock while we sleep by one of our "tribe." Gonna have to prove that it was their way of eating that killed them before making such an uneducated, blanket statement.0 -
I have edited/removed some posts from this discussion due to negativity or insulting language. Please remember to keep the discussion on topic and respectful. You can disagree with the message or opinion - you CANNOT attack, insult or discuss the person.
Also remember, if you feel you have been attacked or insulted by another user, report the post and a moderator will investigate. Arguing on the boards detracts from the community and doesn't add to a discussion. If you retaliate, you are just as guilty.
Good debate is always welcome, just do it respectfully.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Ladyhawk00
MyFitnessPal Forum Moderator
0 -
Wow, first let me say THANK YOU I have no idea what we poor fools would do without you telling us what scientific method is all about, again THAK YOU, (guy on knees bowing down goes here)
Your post is so condescending, it’s going to be hard but I’m going to show some rare restraint. I do want to point out a small scientific point, FISH ARE ANIMALS.
What a rather rude reply. Someone goes out of their way to post an educational message and you attack them. You really should be ashamed.
Right, ashamed? Go back and read his tripe, tell me how many times he posted KOOL-AID.
That is not what you were objecting to in your message. You were objecting to him posting a description of the scientific method. Then you bizarrely go off trying to discredit him by saying fish are animals when nothing in his message implied otherwise.0 -
I always heard people who live in sub zero climates and have no heat source need more fat to keep them warm during harsh winters. I don't think people in north america can be compared to tribes in alaska.0
-
In regards to the average lifespan of the caveman.............
Please read this interview by a MD (medical doctor) who also studied anthropology..............
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.
http://startingstrength.com/articles/meller_interview_steel.pdf0 -
Wow, first let me say THANK YOU I have no idea what we poor fools would do without you telling us what scientific method is all about, again THAK YOU, (guy on knees bowing down goes here)
Your post is so condescending, it’s going to be hard but I’m going to show some rare restraint. I do want to point out a small scientific point, FISH ARE ANIMALS.
What a rather rude reply. Someone goes out of their way to post an educational message and you attack them. You really should be ashamed.
Right, ashamed? Go back and read his tripe, tell me how many times he posted KOOL-AID.
That is not what you were objecting to in your message. You were objecting to him posting a description of the scientific method. Then you bizarrely go off trying to discredit him by saying fish are animals when nothing in his message implied otherwise.
Maybe the good professor should post a lengthy post about how to read and comprehend what you read. Or maybe you just didn’t read his post but because I took offense to it you assumed it must be good.
Here since you didn’t read his post I will reprint the part I was talking about just for you.3. Third, based on correlational studies, the Mediterranean diet, with low animal fat, high in unsaturated oils like olive oil, high in complex carbohydrates, high in fish, red wine, leafy green vegetables, cheese, and nuts seems to be healthier than other diets. However, this is correlational so it is hard to separate what specific factor is the key parameter. For the time being, until there is more data, a Mediterranean diet seems to have more benefits than other diets, so that's what I use mostly.
Notice how in the same paragraph he writes “low in animal fat” and “high in fish”. I know it’s picky, but for someone that felt it necessary to educate us uneducated kool-aid drinkers I figured I would correct his blatant, un-scientific contradiction.0 -
Can someone ask a question about fat and carbs without it becoming the same argument between the same people all the time.
I am tired of both sides.
Why can't you just agree to disagree. Give the poster the simple facts to support your side and let them make their decision on their own.
It does not have to be a pi..... contest. EVERY TIME!!!!
You could do a private thread to make your arguments0 -
Wow, first let me say THANK YOU I have no idea what we poor fools would do without you telling us what scientific method is all about, again THAK YOU, (guy on knees bowing down goes here)
Your post is so condescending, it’s going to be hard but I’m going to show some rare restraint. I do want to point out a small scientific point, FISH ARE ANIMALS.
What a rather rude reply. Someone goes out of their way to post an educational message and you attack them. You really should be ashamed.
Right, ashamed? Go back and read his tripe, tell me how many times he posted KOOL-AID.
That is not what you were objecting to in your message. You were objecting to him posting a description of the scientific method. Then you bizarrely go off trying to discredit him by saying fish are animals when nothing in his message implied otherwise.
Maybe the good professor should post a lengthy post about how to read and comprehend what you read. Or maybe you just didn’t read his post but because I took offense to it you assumed it must be good.
Here since you didn’t read his post I will reprint the part I was talking about just for you.3. Third, based on correlational studies, the Mediterranean diet, with low animal fat, high in unsaturated oils like olive oil, high in complex carbohydrates, high in fish, red wine, leafy green vegetables, cheese, and nuts seems to be healthier than other diets. However, this is correlational so it is hard to separate what specific factor is the key parameter. For the time being, until there is more data, a Mediterranean diet seems to have more benefits than other diets, so that's what I use mostly.
Notice how in the same paragraph he writes “low in animal fat” and “high in fish”. I know it’s picky, but for someone that felt it necessary to educate us uneducated kool-aid drinkers I figured I would correct his blatant, un-scientific contradiction.
There is absolutely no "un-scientific contradiction" in that. There are a lot of fish that are low in fat. To have a diet that includes fish and is low in animal fat you would simply choose the types of fish, such as cod, haddock, mahi mahi, sole and many others that are low in fat. What you are saying is like saying you can't have a low fat vegetarian diet because avocados have a lot of fat.0 -
Can someone ask a question about fat and carbs without it becoming the same argument between the same people all the time.
I am tired of both sides.
Why can't you just agree to disagree. Give the poster the simple facts to support your side and let them make their decision on their own.
It does not have to be a pi..... contest. EVERY TIME!!!!
To plays devils advocate here...
There are new people signing up all the time who may benefit from reading a discussion of a topic such as this. Older discussions aren't always findable through the search.
There are 4,649 views of this topic and potentially more ad views as a result. Discussions such as this go a long way towards keeping this site free.0 -
. Some people do fine with 70% fat (although that is not the "typical" ratio for most Paleo diets), some do great with 30% fat. I'd say somewhere 10-40% carbs is the norm. This is room for flexibility and for experimenting with what your body can handle, whether that's dairy, more fruit, starchy veggies, or the occasional brownie. Whatever.
The 70% Fat/25%Protein/5%Carbs is the Atkins/Protein Power ratios. Most low carb diets/Ketogenic diets are in this range. Hope that clears up some of the confusion. There are lots of plans. Paleo is one of many that is working for thousands of folks.0 -
Switching to Paleo/Primal was like Neo taking the red pill in the Matrix.
Best quote ever.
I am a low carber... feel free to add me. I could always use more like minded friends.
0 -
I'm not on paleo, but I do about 60% fat in my diet and I feel A-M-A-Z-I-N-G. I'm probably the healthiest I've ever been in life right now 0
-
Do we think the mortality of humans was better or worse than today with this diet? I would stay away.0
-
. Some people do fine with 70% fat (although that is not the "typical" ratio for most Paleo diets), some do great with 30% fat. I'd say somewhere 10-40% carbs is the norm. This is room for flexibility and for experimenting with what your body can handle, whether that's dairy, more fruit, starchy veggies, or the occasional brownie. Whatever.
The 70% Fat/25%Protein/5%Carbs is the Atkins/Protein Power ratios. Most low carb diets/Ketogenic diets are in this range. Hope that clears up some of the confusion. There are lots of plans. Paleo is one of many that is working for thousands of folks.
Ultimately it all boils down to what feels good to each person. It takes a lot of trial and error to find the ratios that work for the individual person...................
I do know one thing, it is not about the calorie number, but the type of calories we eat that was important.0 -
Do we think the mortality of humans was better or worse than today with this diet? I would stay away.
it was worse, but there is no strong causal connection with diet. infectious diseases were definitely a greater killer than any diet, right up to the early twentieth century.
whereas today, intake of carbohydrates, most of them grain based, does seem to be linked to higher mortality0 -
To the OP-
I tried the food pyramid for about 6 months. I tried to follow it as closely as possible, but I kept going under on my whole grain servings. I felt really weak, and when I would go out for an afternoon walk after lunch, I was nearly blacking out. I was having a hard time lasting through my exercises (bodyrock, P90x and Insanity). I checked my blood sugar and it was dipping really low about 2 hours after I ate. That's about when I found the documentary called "Fathead" on Netflix...it is also on Hulu. I know, I know, I am going to get a lot of crap about saying, but it was a brief intro to what low-carbing is like and it will give you a lot of good references for low-carbing. I read some other books like "Good Calories, Gad Calories" and decided that FOR ME, it was a good idea to try a low-carb lifestyle.
Immediately, I had more energy, and I wasn't blacking out. I have lost more weight on a low-carb than I have with the Food Pyramid. An unexpected side effect is that my fibromyalgia symptoms have decreased significantly. I have had days where I switch back to a high-carb intake, and I feel like I have come down with the flu- sick stomach, low energy, and achy. Now I just stick to lots of veggies, meats, some dairy, and a little fruit.
If you are concerned about your bloodwork, there are several people out there who had had their bloodwork checked after low-carbing and it looks great. Here is a link to Gary Taubes, who was on Dr. Oz and refused to have a panal done at that moment, but has since done one for everyone to see. http://www.garytaubes.com/2011/04/before-sugar-were-talking-about-cholesterol/
His typical daily intake (from his blog) is: "I do indeed eat three eggs with cheese, bacon and sausage for breakfast every morning, typically a couple of cheeseburgers (no bun) or a roast chicken for lunch, and more often than not, a ribeye or New York steak (grass fed) for dinner, usually in the neighborhood of a pound of meat. I cook with butter and, occasionally, olive oil (the sausages). My snacks run to cheese and almonds."
Another good site is http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/
Jimmy Moore has lots of experts on his podcasts. They're full of great information.
Every body is different and reacts differently to other diets. I suggest do your homework, and find out if it is something you can handle. Cutting out sugar and breads can be really had, but for me it is worth it.
Good luck!0 -
Wow, first let me say THANK YOU I have no idea what we poor fools would do without you telling us what scientific method is all about, again THAK YOU, (guy on knees bowing down goes here)
Your post is so condescending, it’s going to be hard but I’m going to show some rare restraint. I do want to point out a small scientific point, FISH ARE ANIMALS.
What a rather rude reply. Someone goes out of their way to post an educational message and you attack them. You really should be ashamed.
Right, ashamed? Go back and read his tripe, tell me how many times he posted KOOL-AID.
That is not what you were objecting to in your message. You were objecting to him posting a description of the scientific method. Then you bizarrely go off trying to discredit him by saying fish are animals when nothing in his message implied otherwise.
Maybe the good professor should post a lengthy post about how to read and comprehend what you read. Or maybe you just didn’t read his post but because I took offense to it you assumed it must be good.
Here since you didn’t read his post I will reprint the part I was talking about just for you.3. Third, based on correlational studies, the Mediterranean diet, with low animal fat, high in unsaturated oils like olive oil, high in complex carbohydrates, high in fish, red wine, leafy green vegetables, cheese, and nuts seems to be healthier than other diets. However, this is correlational so it is hard to separate what specific factor is the key parameter. For the time being, until there is more data, a Mediterranean diet seems to have more benefits than other diets, so that's what I use mostly.
Notice how in the same paragraph he writes “low in animal fat” and “high in fish”. I know it’s picky, but for someone that felt it necessary to educate us uneducated kool-aid drinkers I figured I would correct his blatant, un-scientific contradiction.
There is absolutely no "un-scientific contradiction" in that. There are a lot of fish that are low in fat. To have a diet that includes fish and is low in animal fat you would simply choose the types of fish, such as cod, haddock, mahi mahi, sole and many others that are low in fat. What you are saying is like saying you can't have a low fat vegetarian diet because avocados have a lot of fat.
There is increasingly correlational evidence that fish oil and fat is good for your health.0 -
Wow, first let me say THANK YOU I have no idea what we poor fools would do without you telling us what scientific method is all about, again THAK YOU, (guy on knees bowing down goes here)
Your post is so condescending, it’s going to be hard but I’m going to show some rare restraint. I do want to point out a small scientific point, FISH ARE ANIMALS.
What a rather rude reply. Someone goes out of their way to post an educational message and you attack them. You really should be ashamed.
Right, ashamed? Go back and read his tripe, tell me how many times he posted KOOL-AID.
That is not what you were objecting to in your message. You were objecting to him posting a description of the scientific method. Then you bizarrely go off trying to discredit him by saying fish are animals when nothing in his message implied otherwise.
Maybe the good professor should post a lengthy post about how to read and comprehend what you read. Or maybe you just didn’t read his post but because I took offense to it you assumed it must be good.
Here since you didn’t read his post I will reprint the part I was talking about just for you.3. Third, based on correlational studies, the Mediterranean diet, with low animal fat, high in unsaturated oils like olive oil, high in complex carbohydrates, high in fish, red wine, leafy green vegetables, cheese, and nuts seems to be healthier than other diets. However, this is correlational so it is hard to separate what specific factor is the key parameter. For the time being, until there is more data, a Mediterranean diet seems to have more benefits than other diets, so that's what I use mostly.
Notice how in the same paragraph he writes “low in animal fat” and “high in fish”. I know it’s picky, but for someone that felt it necessary to educate us uneducated kool-aid drinkers I figured I would correct his blatant, un-scientific contradiction.
There is absolutely no "un-scientific contradiction" in that. There are a lot of fish that are low in fat. To have a diet that includes fish and is low in animal fat you would simply choose the types of fish, such as cod, haddock, mahi mahi, sole and many others that are low in fat. What you are saying is like saying you can't have a low fat vegetarian diet because avocados have a lot of fat.
There is increasingly correlational evidence that fish oil and fat is good for your health.
Okay, what is your point? That has zero to do with you saying I hadn't read the original post or that the original post was unscientific by saying that eating fish can be part of a low animal fat diet and you retorting that fish is an animal.0 -
I'm an elite athlete (rower) on the national team and I have come down from heavyweight to lightweight using the Paleo Diet. It is hands down the most effective way of eating and thinking. High level athletes do have to tweak this diet a little, due to the need for carbs to fuel workouts often burning more then 600 a session (I do 3 sessions a day). I don't consume 70% fat, but the fat intake is high (good fats ofcourse; nuts, avocardo, olive oil) and my protein level is also high (more then 25%) through eating lean/game meats, seafood and eggs. The body is quite capable of running on fat and with the such a high level of incoming fat and a low level of carbs the stored fats are used because the body thinks it doesn't need to have a store any longer.
Not doing paleo, but I started something similar last week. I have cut all grains, beans and starchy carbs. My plan does allow for pro-biotics in the form of yogurt and for some lower fat cheeses. 2 servings of fruit only, limited to citrus, berries, and apples, and must eat the last piece by 2pm. My energy levels are good, and my hunger has decreased dramatically. Probably because I am eating more protein.
I'm highly amused that everyone is OK w/consuming tons of "natural" sugar, but they balk @ consuming "natural" fats like avocado and nuts. Over the past few years, I have found sugar (even if it most of it is "natural') to have a bigger impact on my overall weight loss than fat. Different things work for different people, but don't knock it until you have tried it!0 -
To the OP-
I tried the food pyramid for about 6 months. I tried to follow it as closely as possible, but I kept going under on my whole grain servings. I felt really weak, and when I would go out for an afternoon walk after lunch, I was nearly blacking out. I was having a hard time lasting through my exercises (bodyrock, P90x and Insanity). I checked my blood sugar and it was dipping really low about 2 hours after I ate. That's about when I found the documentary called "Fathead" on Netflix...it is also on Hulu. I know, I know, I am going to get a lot of crap about saying, but it was a brief intro to what low-carbing is like and it will give you a lot of good references for low-carbing. I read some other books like "Good Calories, Gad Calories" and decided that FOR ME, it was a good idea to try a low-carb lifestyle.
Immediately, I had more energy, and I wasn't blacking out. I have lost more weight on a low-carb than I have with the Food Pyramid. An unexpected side effect is that my fibromyalgia symptoms have decreased significantly. I have had days where I switch back to a high-carb intake, and I feel like I have come down with the flu- sick stomach, low energy, and achy. Now I just stick to lots of veggies, meats, some dairy, and a little fruit.
If you are concerned about your bloodwork, there are several people out there who had had their bloodwork checked after low-carbing and it looks great. Here is a link to Gary Taubes, who was on Dr. Oz and refused to have a panal done at that moment, but has since done one for everyone to see. http://www.garytaubes.com/2011/04/before-sugar-were-talking-about-cholesterol/
His typical daily intake (from his blog) is: "I do indeed eat three eggs with cheese, bacon and sausage for breakfast every morning, typically a couple of cheeseburgers (no bun) or a roast chicken for lunch, and more often than not, a ribeye or New York steak (grass fed) for dinner, usually in the neighborhood of a pound of meat. I cook with butter and, occasionally, olive oil (the sausages). My snacks run to cheese and almonds."
Another good site is http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/
Jimmy Moore has lots of experts on his podcasts. They're full of great information.
Every body is different and reacts differently to other diets. I suggest do your homework, and find out if it is something you can handle. Cutting out sugar and breads can be really had, but for me it is worth it.
Good luck!
I eat very similar to Gary Taubes..............just not that much protein because I can't fit it all in my tummy. Same types of foods, just smaller quantities.0 -
I always get suspicious when some virtually removes an entire food group....0
-
whereas today, intake of carbohydrates, most of them grain based, does seem to be linked to higher mortality
Maybe high intakes of processed carbohydrates that have little fiber? That's likely, but whole grains with intact dietary fiber may have a protective effect.
Dietary fiber, specifically those *from* grains, correlates with lowered risk of mortality.
In the a follow up to a 500,000 participant NIH diet study, researchers examined the records of 30,000 who had since passed away of cardiovascular, infectious and respiratory disease. They found that those eating dietary fiber were 22% less likely to be in the postmortem group.
Specifically: "Dietary fiber from grains, but not from other sources, was significantly inversely related to total and cause-specific death in both men and women."
Source: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/archinternmed.2011.18v1
While it might be possible that the fiber/grain eaters maybe had healthier habits that could otherwise explain the correlation, an analysis point out, "this relationship persisted in analyses by smoking status and across body mass index categories."
Analysis: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/248690 -
I always get suspicious when some virtually removes an entire food group....
What is there to be suspicious be about when first of all you can get just as many nutrients from other foods such as vegetables as you can from dairy, grains, legumes or lentils?
Why would you continue to eat dairy if it causes major flare ups of seasonal allergies, excess phlegm and mucus?
Why would you continue to subject themselves to continue to eat grains when after eating them you feel lethargic, fluish, bloated, symptoms of arthritis, IBS, or other ailments?
That makes no sense to me. The majority of us that have cut these food items from our eating plans did so beause of some of the above mentioned reasons.............
Besides, the Food Pyramid is designed the way it is for a particular reason. Grains are cheap and fuel the food companies in this country.
They get no more of my money, ever!!0 -
Why would you continue to subject themselves to continue to eat grains when after eating them you feel lethargic, fluish, bloated, symptoms of arthritis, IBS, or other ailments?
Never had this problem period. Infact, I feel tired from eating fat.
Again, no solid proof that grains cause all of the above. You're complete lifestyle does, not just the diet.0 -
whereas today, intake of carbohydrates, most of them grain based, does seem to be linked to higher mortality
Maybe high intakes of processed carbohydrates that have little fiber? That's likely, but whole grains with intact dietary fiber may have a protective effect.
Dietary fiber, specifically those *from* grains, correlates with lowered risk of mortality.
In the a follow up to a 500,000 participant NIH diet study, researchers examined the records of 30,000 who had since passed away of cardiovascular, infectious and respiratory disease. They found that those eating dietary fiber were 22% less likely to be in the postmortem group.
Specifically: "Dietary fiber from grains, but not from other sources, was significantly inversely related to total and cause-specific death in both men and women."
Source: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/archinternmed.2011.18v1
While it might be possible that the fiber/grain eaters maybe had healthier habits that could otherwise explain the correlation, an analysis point out, "this relationship persisted in analyses by smoking status and across body mass index categories."
Analysis: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/24869
the abstract concludesDietary fiber may reduce the risk of death from cardiovascular, infectious, and respiratory diseases. Making fiber-rich food choices more often may provide significant health benefits.
I think all paleo eaters will agree with that. Only they don't eat whole grains.
You seem to forget that fiber is in other foodstuffs than whole grains.0 -
Why would you continue to subject themselves to continue to eat grains when after eating them you feel lethargic, fluish, bloated, symptoms of arthritis, IBS, or other ailments?
Never had this problem period. Infact, I feel tired from eating fat.
Again, no solid proof that grains cause all of the above. You're complete lifestyle does, not just the diet.
Your N=1 evidence is equally valid as all the so called anecdotal evidence you so readily dissmiss.
I totally agree that it's the lifestyle, not the diet alone.0 -
Some of the stuff was good. Some of it I have already seen. Point is, there still is no evidence that grains are going to wipe humans off the face of the earth. Doubt something will say it will. Grain products have been around for quite sometime, but these diseases are just coming up in numbers. Hmm...
Perhaps you're confusing your own rhetoric with Paleo? I've never seen anyone saying grains are going to wipe humans off the face of the Earth. The point is simply this: gluten has been implicated in a whole host of diseases and syndromes, many of which I linked to above. We all have the same gluten receptors in our gut (celiac / schizophrenic / pigs, or not), and it causes gut irritability. In some people, this can lead to muchos problemos. For me personally, I eat low carb, as clean as possible, and very few grains. I typically call this Paleo / Primal since it fits better than other diet descriptions. This way of eating works for me, even though I am not schizophrenic, celiac, or a pig. It works for many others as well. It certainly doesn't *hurt* anyone to try it, and could greatly help those that are suffering from celiac, rheumatoid arthritis, or other autoimmune disorders.
You asked for studies, I gave them. Your interpretation of over half of the studies is fairly absurd and makes me think that you haven't read many (any) journal articles. Science is all about baby steps, and large, longitudinal studies of human diets are nearly impossible to conduct since you would need a controlled environment and a ton of funding. There are plenty of other studies that you can find on Pubmed if you're interested in more research. I've already done the research on myself and this way of eating works for me. I dunno - this just seems like a curious amount of vitriol from someone who has apparently fallen hook, line, and sinker for the Tony Horton Marketing Machine.
I'm thinking you read what you wanted to read in the studies. I pointed out facts in the studies, not opinions except the last two.0 -
I'm a Beachbody coach too and I don't buy that crap they are selling in the form of "nutrition." If I would have followed their eating plan, as prescribed, for P90X my results would have sucked. I appreciate the workouts, which I no longer do for the most part (changed to Crossfit, more "bang", less time), but their nutrition isn't worth my time.
BTW...I'm probably the WORST Beachbody coach in that I don't peddle their products. Never have taken a sip of Shakeology in my life, nor do I want to. Became a coach to get discounts on the workout programs.0 -
Ok, my last post on this topic. Looking around I found these are two relevant, balanced peer-reviewed, well cited, articles. The second one is a follow-up to the original, which started most of this diet debate 25 years ago.
The first one lists the following numbers as an estimated ancestral Hunter-Gatherer diet (numbers are % of daily intake):
Carbohydrates: 35-40%
Protein: 25-30%
Fat: 20-35%
Saturated Fat: 7.5-12%
Added Sugar: 2%
Fiber: >70 g/d
Cholesterol: >500mg/d
Vitamin C: 500mg/d
Vitamin D 4000 IU/d
Sodium < 1000 mg/d
Potassium 7000 mg/d
Note these numbers are pretty similar to current diet recommendations, except, sugar and sodium is much lower, and fiber, Vit. C, Vit. D and potassium was much higher. Current research increasingly supports lowering sugar and sodium and increasing fiber, Vit. C and D in our diet.
Cholesterol intake also was much higher. However, physical activity was also much higher, weight lower and nobody smoked. Which are all other risk factors that add to cardiovascular risk. Thus, unless more evidence becomes available, keeping cholesterol intake low seems better to me.
And a final note, this is basically my diet, so I guess I too am on a hunter/gatherer diet. Except I sit at my desk way to much reading this and writing this. Getting out would be better, but being stalked by a sable tooth tiger cannot have been fun either.
Eaton SB, Konner M. Paleolithic nutrition: a consideration of its nature and current implications. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:283-289.
Paleolithic Nutrition : Twenty-Five Years Later. Melvin Konner and S. Boyd Eaton Nutr Clin Pract 2010 25: 594
http://ncp.sagepub.com/content/25/6/5940 -
Ok, my last post on this topic. Looking around I found these are two relevant, balanced peer-reviewed, well cited, articles. The second one is a follow-up to the original, which started most of this diet debate 25 years ago.
The first one lists the following numbers as an estimated ancestral Hunter-Gatherer diet (numbers are % of daily intake):
Carbohydrates: 35-40%
Protein: 25-30%
Fat: 20-35%
Saturated Fat: 7.5-12%
Added Sugar: 2%
Fiber: >70 g/d
Cholesterol: >500mg/d
Vitamin C: 500mg/d
Vitamin D 4000 IU/d
Sodium < 1000 mg/d
Potassium 7000 mg/d
Note these numbers are pretty similar to current diet recommendations, except, sugar and sodium is much lower, and fiber, Vit. C, Vit. D and potassium was much higher. Current research increasingly supports lowering sugar and sodium and increasing fiber, Vit. C and D in our diet.
Cholesterol intake also was much higher. However, physical activity was also much higher, weight lower and nobody smoked. Which are all other risk factors that add to cardiovascular risk. Thus, unless more evidence becomes available, keeping cholesterol intake low seems better to me.
And a final note, this is basically my diet, so I guess I too am on a hunter/gatherer diet. Except I sit at my desk way to much reading this and writing this. Getting out would be better, but being stalked by a sable tooth tiger cannot have been fun either.
Eaton SB, Konner M. Paleolithic nutrition: a consideration of its nature and current implications. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:283-289.
Paleolithic Nutrition : Twenty-Five Years Later. Melvin Konner and S. Boyd Eaton Nutr Clin Pract 2010 25: 594
http://ncp.sagepub.com/content/25/6/594
This is interesting. But I think at the end of the day the vast majority of people don't even need to measure their protein/carb/fat ratios, just eat food as minimally processed as possible, eliminate foods that cause them trouble, and the rest falls into place.
Jeez, I wandered away from this thread for a few days and here we go again with the vitriol. CANT WE JUST ALL GET ALONG??? AND HAVE A PEACEFUL DISCUSSION/DEBATE??? :frown: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