Paleo Diet

Teemo

Actually no, here is the data from MFP for the following

Without going into too much detail, for some reason I assumed you meant a bigger steak. I just ate a 14 oz steak myself, lol, and that's about typical.

And balanced diet doesn't mean "eat everything on your plate". It DOES mean you CAN eat everything on your plate if you want to, and if it fits into your goals.

freerange

Now you’re changing the argument. Let’s get back on track, I said you can do the Paleo diet without counting calories, and gave an example. You claimed my example was 2000 calories in one meal. You were wrong. You claimed it would be difficult to do the paleo diet because of the foolish rules (or something to that affect) I said no actually it’s the balanced diet approach that would be hard, here’s why.

Throw in a 14oz steak in both examples and the Paleo diet still wins, and if I’m eating the Paleo meal and chow on a 14oz steak I wouldn’t even come close to eating any of the rest of the meal, so my overall calories would still be in the range I need without having to think about it.

Teemo

Now you’re changing the argument. Let’s get back on track, I said you can do the Paleo diet without counting calories, and gave an example. You claimed my example was 2000 calories in one meal. You were wrong. You claimed it would be difficult to do the paleo diet because of the foolish rules (or something to that affect) I said no actually it’s the balanced diet approach that would be hard, here’s why.

Throw in a 14oz steak in both examples and the Paleo diet still wins, and if I’m eating the Paleo meal and chow on a 14oz steak I wouldn’t even come close to eating any of the rest of the meal, so my overall calories would still be in the range I need without having to think about it.

Wasn't intending to change the argument. Just explaining how I inadvertently came by the 2,000 calorie figure. How does the paleo diet "still" win? Again, you're assuming the OPTION of eating a balanced diet means NECESSARILY eating french fries, or a dinner roll, or ketchup, etc. Why?

If you're eating the paleo meal and the 14 oz steak fills you up why wouldn't the SAME 14 oz steak fill you up if you weren't bound by the paleo diet's restrictions?

That doesn't make any sense.

Teemo

Now you’re changing the argument. Let’s get back on track, I said you can do the Paleo diet without counting calories, and gave an example. You claimed my example was 2000 calories in one meal. You were wrong. You claimed it would be difficult to do the paleo diet because of the foolish rules (or something to that affect) I said no actually it’s the balanced diet approach that would be hard, here’s why.

Throw in a 14oz steak in both examples and the Paleo diet still wins, and if I’m eating the Paleo meal and chow on a 14oz steak I wouldn’t even come close to eating any of the rest of the meal, so my overall calories would still be in the range I need without having to think about it.

I didn't say you COULDN'T do the paleo diet without counting calories. I said the idea that you didn't need to count calories because you could eat whatever you wanted and still lose weight, the way the paleo diet is presented, is nonsense. If you eat more calories than you expend then you gain weight. It's as simple as that.

Just because you can't exceed your calories on a paleo diet doesn't mean it's impossible to do so. A handful of nuts will give you 500 calories. I can eat considerably more than that in a single sitting. But... but if I eat according to paleo principles I can have all the nuts I want? And still lose weight? That's ridiculous.

Edit: I meant to put emphasis on "you". As in just because you, personally, are somehow unable to eat more than 2,000 calories a day on the paleo diet doesn't mean it's impossible or difficult to do so. Hell, I did it easily on a ketogenic diet and that's even more restrictive than the paleo diet.

Zeromilediet

One of the reasons it's hard to go over a calorie count using the paleo/primal/hunter gatherer diet is because it's difficult to eat a lot of protein. I wish I had the reference handy--will try to locate it ... researchers were creating groups of participants for comparison eating high/low carb, high/low fat, high/low protein ... they abandoned the high protein group because participants were simply unable to eat the amount of meat specified for the duration of the study.

If given the opportunity at a hypothetical buffet to eat as much meat/poultry/fish as desired to feel satisfied, how many calories of protein would be consumed in order to accomplish that? Compare: take that identical buffet and take the opportunity to eat as much bread (go ahead & make it whole grain), potatoes (baked or fried your call), and pasta as you like ... how many calories of carbohydrates would be consumed in order to feel satisfied?

When a body consumes carbohydrates, it has a tremendous insulin spike compared to eating protein. Insulin interferes with numerous hormones in the body that are associated with appetitie control and the feeling of satiety. People can actually be craving food and feel like they're starving even though they've eaten hundreds of calories of food in the form of carbohydrates just an hour earlier ... been there done that. Four 6" pancakes : 113 carbs 596 calories - Oh wait, syrup: 4 tbsp : 53 carbs 210 calories ... is that enough for breakfast or will this person be hungry before noon?

To echo Freerange's observation about people who have a higher protein/fat percentage associated with the paleo diet, there are more days when I don't meet my calorie goal, than go over. And I'm not hungry and not craving. To someone who's accustomed to associating weight loss with calorie restrictions that drive you bat-crazy you're so hungry, the paleo diet seems to be too easy.

Re Atkins: One of the most important factors in weight loss success is a support system--the most successful programs have you eat their food and provide you with one on one or group support. When Atkins was developed, it was done so without the organized buddy system of other diets. I'm not overly familiar with Atkins, but I'm not aware that there's a structure in place to provide that to people following the guidelines. With online tools like MFP now available, any diet has the potential to have a support group/buddy. That being said, there's all kinds of reasons people stop using a diet. Some people may decide to give the paleo/primal/hunter gatherer approach a try and find it doesn't work for them. Everyone always has the choice.


For a general read about the hunter gatherer diet, this may be of interest:
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/79/1/101.abstract?sid=dafd63b1-0fc4-4488-b2e9-7dd0afe76ebd

lexiwho

bump for later reading

Teemo

If given the opportunity at a hypothetical buffet to eat as much meat/poultry/fish as desired to feel satisfied, how many calories of protein would be consumed in order to accomplish that? Compare: take that identical buffet and take the opportunity to eat as much bread (go ahead & make it whole grain), potatoes (baked or fried your call), and pasta as you like ... how many calories of carbohydrates would be consumed in order to feel satisfied?

I don't know. Probably 100-120g of carbs. That's why it's called eating a -nutritionally- (macro/micro) balanced diet and not the eating all the carbs you can fit into your mouth diet, lol. .

Again, to take the example used earlier: if you have a 14 oz steak on your plate and that fills you up so you can't eat anything else than the paleo diet is IDENTICAL to any other diet. Just because you CAN eat grains doesn't mean you suddenly and magically have more room in your stomach for grains and gluten after that same 14 oz steak. That's clearly not how it works.

If you have a 7 oz steak and that DOESN'T fill you up the paleo diet is unnecessarily more restrictive than any other diet. Let's say, hypothetically, the 7 oz steak comes close to filling you up but you have a little bit of room left. You could probably throw some steamed vegetables in there. Or more lean meat, I don't know.

On a non-paleo diet you could eat pretty much whatever you wanted. Baked beans? Sure! Want some toast with peanut butter? Why not! Don't like beans or peanut butter? Don't eat any! The possibilities are endless! :laugh:

Are you healthier on the paleo diet given that 7 oz steak + paleo options vs. that 7 oz steak + non-paleo options? At best, the science is unclear. All science to date indicates are that you ARE NOT any healthier... nor are you any less healthy. You're exactly the same (probably). Except you don't get to eat ice cream afterward.

Edit: Or Oreos. :bigsmile:

freerange

Now you’re changing the argument. Let’s get back on track, I said you can do the Paleo diet without counting calories, and gave an example. You claimed my example was 2000 calories in one meal. You were wrong. You claimed it would be difficult to do the paleo diet because of the foolish rules (or something to that affect) I said no actually it’s the balanced diet approach that would be hard, here’s why.

Throw in a 14oz steak in both examples and the Paleo diet still wins, and if I’m eating the Paleo meal and chow on a 14oz steak I wouldn’t even come close to eating any of the rest of the meal, so my overall calories would still be in the range I need without having to think about it.

I didn't say you COULDN'T do the paleo diet without counting calories. I said the idea that you didn't need to count calories because you could eat whatever you wanted and still lose weight, the way the paleo diet is presented, is nonsense. If you eat more calories than you expend then you gain weight. It's as simple as that.

Just because you can't exceed your calories on a paleo diet doesn't mean it's impossible to do so. A handful of nuts will give you 500 calories. I can eat considerably more than that in a single sitting. But... but if I eat according to paleo principles I can have all the nuts I want? And still lose weight? That's ridiculous.

Edit: I meant to put emphasis on "you". As in just because you, personally, are somehow unable to eat more than 2,000 calories a day on the paleo diet doesn't mean it's impossible or difficult to do so. Hell, I did it easily on a ketogenic diet and that's even more restrictive than the paleo diet.

Well that is the difference between you and I, I assume people have a brain, and use it on occasion. If a person goes into the Paleo diet thinking that eating as much of this or that as you want, means, to sit down and eat nuts until they are about ready to puke, and can’t figure out why they are gaining weight, well that person should come to you for their diet advice because they are not smart enough to eat like a caveman.

If you insist on taking the position people will take the highest calorie “paleo” food and gorge on it, proves the Paleo diet is inferior to a “balanced” diet. Well we have nothing further to discuss. But just incase I didn’t say it plan enough before I will try again. The reason you can eat all you want, and not “have” to count calories,,,,,, is,,,,,, because the foods you should be eating are not calorie dense, they are filling, and satiating.

Teemo

Well that is the difference between you and I, I assume people have a brain, and use it on occasion. If a person goes into the Paleo diet thinking that eating as much of this or that as you want, means, to sit down and eat nuts until they are about ready to puke, and can’t figure out why they are gaining weight, well that person should come to you for their diet advice because they are not smart enough to eat like a caveman.

Why wouldn't you assume the person who has the option of a non-paleo diet ALSO has a brain then? You seem to assume that person is going to sit down and have a steak and fries and the salad and the roll and whatever else you listed that made it come out to 500 calories more than your paleo diet.

If you insist on taking the position people will take the highest calorie “paleo” food and gorge on it, proves the Paleo diet is inferior to a “balanced” diet. Well we have nothing further to discuss. But just incase I didn’t say it plan enough before I will try again. The reason you can eat all you want, and not “have” to count calories,,,,,, is,,,,,, because the foods you should be eating are not calorie dense, they are filling, and satiating.

I think the paleo diet is "inferior" because it's pointlessly more restrictive. Also nuts are incredibly calorically dense, and I pick on nuts because I know you can eat them on the paleo diet... but not peanut butter. That's the kind of arbitrary exclusion that I find a little silly about the paleo diet.

freerange

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/two-year-study-shows-low-carb-diet-effective-for-weight-loss-improves-hdl-cardiovascular-health-risks/8686

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050326095632.htm

According to lead researcher, Guenther Boden, M.D., "When carbohydrates were restricted, study subjects spontaneously reduced their caloric intake to a level appropriate for their height, did not compensate by eating more protein or fat, and lost weight. We concluded that excessive overeating had been fueled by carbohydrates."

We concluded that excessive overeating had been fueled by carbohydrates."

freerange

Well that is the difference between you and I, I assume people have a brain, and use it on occasion. If a person goes into the Paleo diet thinking that eating as much of this or that as you want, means, to sit down and eat nuts until they are about ready to puke, and can’t figure out why they are gaining weight, well that person should come to you for their diet advice because they are not smart enough to eat like a caveman.

Why wouldn't you assume the person who has the option of a non-paleo diet ALSO has a brain then? You seem to assume that person is going to sit down and have a steak and fries and the salad and the roll and whatever else you listed that made it come out to 500 calories more than your paleo diet.

If you insist on taking the position people will take the highest calorie “paleo” food and gorge on it, proves the Paleo diet is inferior to a “balanced” diet. Well we have nothing further to discuss. But just incase I didn’t say it plan enough before I will try again. The reason you can eat all you want, and not “have” to count calories,,,,,, is,,,,,, because the foods you should be eating are not calorie dense, they are filling, and satiating.

I think the paleo diet is "inferior" because it's pointlessly more restrictive. Also nuts are incredibly calorically dense, and I pick on nuts because I know you can eat them on the paleo diet... but not peanut butter. That's the kind of arbitrary exclusion that I find a little silly about the paleo diet.

You do realize peanuts are not nuts,,,,,,,,,,,,, don't you?

Teemo

You do realize peanuts are not nuts,,,,,,,,,,,,, don't you?

Yes. No legumes on the paleo diet. Peanuts are amazing and peanut butter is incredibly healthy and the paleo diet doesn't allow for it.

Teemo

Edit: It's a holiday weekend, I didn't need to be insulting for no reason.

freerange

Well that is the difference between you and I, I assume people have a brain, and use it on occasion. If a person goes into the Paleo diet thinking that eating as much of this or that as you want, means, to sit down and eat nuts until they are about ready to puke, and can’t figure out why they are gaining weight, well that person should come to you for their diet advice because they are not smart enough to eat like a caveman.

Why wouldn't you assume the person who has the option of a non-paleo diet ALSO has a brain then? You seem to assume that person is going to sit down and have a steak and fries and the salad and the roll and whatever else you listed that made it come out to 500 calories more than your paleo diet.

If you insist on taking the position people will take the highest calorie “paleo” food and gorge on it, proves the Paleo diet is inferior to a “balanced” diet. Well we have nothing further to discuss. But just incase I didn’t say it plan enough before I will try again. The reason you can eat all you want, and not “have” to count calories,,,,,, is,,,,,, because the foods you should be eating are not calorie dense, they are filling, and satiating.

I think the paleo diet is "inferior" because it's pointlessly more restrictive. Also nuts are incredibly calorically dense, and I pick on nuts because I know you can eat them on the paleo diet... but not peanut butter. That's the kind of arbitrary exclusion that I find a little silly about the paleo diet.

You’re starting to make my brain hurt, I don’t know if you are missing the point, or purposely acting ignorant. You said you could have a roll, you said you could have fries, I was just showing that if you compare the two diets, with your parameters, and strictly looking at calories the paleo diet wins. The bigger point is you don’t have to think about the paleo diet if you don’t want to. (Remember how this comparing dinners started?) But if you are on the “balanced” diet as described by YOU, you will have to count calories, you will have to think about serving size. That was the line of argument, if you can’t maintain train of thought, maybe you need more fat in your diet.

I was not assuming either would sit down and eat everything on their plate, I was not assuming anyone would pick the most calorie dense item on their plate and order seconds, and thirds. If a person is on a calorie restricted “balanced” diet I assume they can figure it out, BUT it will take much more effort. Despite your assertion the Paloe diet is harder and restrictive, the facts point to the other way around.

freerange

You do realize peanuts are not nuts,,,,,,,,,,,,, don't you?

Yes. No legumes on the paleo diet. Peanuts are amazing and peanut butter is incredibly healthy and the paleo diet doesn't allow for it.

How so? What does the peanut have that can't be had from other sources, that would make me want to eat it?

freerange

3. Peanuts
Why is it good? Peanuts contain healthy fats that contribute to the reduction in triglycerides, which are known to promote cardiovascular disease. In addition to monosaturated fatty acids, peanuts also contain magnesium, vitamin E, arginine, fiber, copper and folate all of which help to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.
Why is it bad? Aside from being high in fat and calories, peanuts also are loaded with omega-6 fats that distort the omega-3 to omega-6 ratio. This ratio says that your intake of each omega fatty acid should be 1:1. The reasons why this ratio is recommended is a topic for a whole other article.
All we need to know is that the American diet is typically from 20:1 to 50:1 in favor of omega-6, so any effort to reverse this trend is important for combating over 10 different common diseases including Alzheimer’s, rheumatoid arthritis, and diabetes. Peanuts are often contaminated with a carcinogenic mold called aflatoxin, and they are also one of the most pesticide-contaminated crops.
Instead choose: almonds or all natural organic peanut butter, but pour off the top layer of oil and replace with olive oil if the resulting peanut brick is too stiff. Olive oil is very low in omega-6 fats.


Read more: http://www.projectswole.com/healthy-lifestyle/20-unhealthy-foods-that-you-think-are-healthy-but-are-actually-killing-you-slowly/#ixzz1NcCnvkii

hpsnickers1

3. Peanuts
Why is it good? Peanuts contain healthy fats that contribute to the reduction in triglycerides, which are known to promote cardiovascular disease. In addition to monosaturated fatty acids, peanuts also contain magnesium, vitamin E, arginine, fiber, copper and folate all of which help to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.
Why is it bad? Aside from being high in fat and calories, peanuts also are loaded with omega-6 fats that distort the omega-3 to omega-6 ratio. This ratio says that your intake of each omega fatty acid should be 1:1. The reasons why this ratio is recommended is a topic for a whole other article.
All we need to know is that the American diet is typically from 20:1 to 50:1 in favor of omega-6, so any effort to reverse this trend is important for combating over 10 different common diseases including Alzheimer’s, rheumatoid arthritis, and diabetes. Peanuts are often contaminated with a carcinogenic mold called aflatoxin, and they are also one of the most pesticide-contaminated crops.
Instead choose: almonds or all natural organic peanut butter, but pour off the top layer of oil and replace with olive oil if the resulting peanut brick is too stiff. Olive oil is very low in omega-6 fats.


Read more: http://www.projectswole.com/healthy-lifestyle/20-unhealthy-foods-that-you-think-are-healthy-but-are-actually-killing-you-slowly/#ixzz1NcCnvkii

What I have learned about legumes (peanuts included) is that they contain the same antinutrients as grains - and cause the same issues. And I have no interest in eating something my body can't even break down. And antinutrients are known for stopping the gut from absorbing nutrients that we need. And the nutrients they do contain are not bioavailble (in other words, our guts do not absorb them).

I'm still in the midst of research but the more I'm finding out the less I want to eat grains and legumes (interesting that every past culture/civilization that was introduced to grains, flours, and sugars - chronic illnesses and autoimmune deficiencies soon followed).

irridia

I have to weigh in here *giggle snort*. Some background. I have had college courses in anatomy and pysiology, I was a nursing student w/a 3.54 average when I had to quit because my kids kept getitng sick. Came down with diabetes in 95 and have had it under control mostly through exercise and diet. Then I got pregnant again and had gestational diabetes. (the original cause for me was autoimmune that reduced functionality of my basal insulin cells). I went hardcore on my symptoms and that is when I finally dropped all soda pop and juice from my diet. I also really tightened up on my diet alltogether. Unfortunately as often happens with gestational diabetes, diet wasn't enough. I was also walking a lot and my weight actually stayed the same throughout my pregnancy so I actually lost weight and the baby gained almost exactly the same. The first set of my children I nursed but still gained weight. With this one my diabetes went away and I lost weight while nursing. When I started weaning him my appetite didn't diminish and my diabetes came back. It didn't help that I had started a sedentary job at the same time.

So let me state the premise that I am not on a Paleo diet. But tommorrow I am starting w/choking my carbs down to 100g/day for a month to see how it affects my glucose levels and my HDL & LDL.

I don't know who said the things I'm about to reference but there were some erroneous statements made.
Carbohydrates do not store as fat. Actually since they upload (convert to glucose) into the system far more quickly than fat or protien, they can be stored as fat if not utilized immedeatly. My nutritionist (and my doctor) says that potatos are like eating sugar. It is one of the reasons that they start w/potatos for people who are starving. White rice is second, followed by sugar all refined starches.

The movie "Fat Head" describes glycogenisis and insulin resistance very very well. Also http://www.diabetes-book.com/book/chapter1.shtml has lots of good info especially under Articles. It is also what I'm basing my experiment on.

We'll see, I really love my whole grains, but I really want completely off insulin.

irridia

oh and adding fat , protien, and fiber to carbs slows down the conversion to glucose. This makes fruit better than fruit juice, and whole grains better than refined, however they still spike blood glucose levels and after that happens, the body produces more insulin and then by the time it reacts to the sugar in your blood you have dropped which then makes you hungry. usually for the very thing that caused the spike to begin with. Eventually the islet cells burn out and you are left insulin dependent.

A brief explaination of high fructose corn syrup: It causes the body to produce uric acid, which in turn prevents muscles from uptaking the glucose in the bloodstream. Nobody then gets to eat so the body starts catabolizing muscle. That means you now have a higher body fat %. Guess what is in most Bread... HFCS!

Zeromilediet

<clipped>
I don't know who said the things I'm about to reference but there were some erroneous statements made.
Carbohydrates do not store as fat. Actually since they upload (convert to glucose) into the system far more quickly than fat or protien, they can be stored as fat if not utilized immedeatly.

Have you read 'Good calories Bad Calories' or 'Why we get fat?' both books by Gary Taubes? Both well researched and cite extensive bibliographies for further reading and follow up.