Primal/Paleo Diet

dennydifferent

If you don't have a problem with weight gain on starchy carbs, you may not see much benefit in cutting out potatoes. If starchy carbs make you gain weight, giving them up might a good idea. I don't see why this is hard to understand, or why people feel the need to argue about it so much. Having lived many obese years basing my diet on wholewheat pasta, homemade wholegrain bread, and potatoes, and after giving them up and Iosing 65lbs, I can't see any earthly benefit in eating them. For me, personally. What you do is entirely up to you.

MaggieMay131

I am not promoting/bashing paleo, but from what I understand it, the true reason many people follow it is not for weight loss. I've done a lot of reading on the paleo "diet," and it seems that most people see a lot of health benefits by elminating grains and dairy. It's not so much about weight loss, although that can be a nice side effect. (to the contrary, paleo suggests eating a lot of fatty foods, which is awesome, but if your'e not active, it can be counterproductive.)

To answer the OP, potatoes are not typically a part of the strict paleo lifestyle. Sweet potatoes are, in moderation. I believe "starchy" vegetables (like green beans) are also supposed to be in moderation, but hey, the way I look at it: they're still green vegetables so eat away.

I did paleo for a couple weeks and really felt good. Once I started adding grains back in, I got headaches and was a lot more tired than normal. I am going to start it up again soon... 80/20, obviously... I can't just get rid of things forever!!

aweightymatter

I do paleo/primal on and off (more "off" and doing "clean eating" right now because I'm training for an endurance event). When I'm this mode I get plenty of calcium through things like nut milks, broccoli, spinach, etc., so that isn't much of a concern if you eat tons of cruciferous vegetables and other non-dairy, calcium-rich foods. From everything I read, there is no real *need* for the body to get carbohydrates from bread or grains. Also, a paleo/primal diet is not necessarily "low carb" -- you can get plenty of carbs for sufficient activity, even endurance training to some extent, from bananas, fruit, nuts, etc. Even on my cleanest paleo days I'm usually around 75 - 100 grms carbs, which is a lot more than the typical Atkins- or South Beach-style low carb diet.

I haven't read *any* iteration of paleo/primal that allows breads, though, like another poster suggested above. In fact, probably my biggest disappointment about the entire movement is that several years ago, when it was less trendy, there seemed to be a clear ideological/philosophical standpoint that was at least consistent, regardless of whether or not one agreed with the logic and science behind it.

These days as it continues to go more mainstream, each new primal/paleo guru seems to "allow" more and more. I love Mark's Daily Apple but it's funny to contrast some of his earliest posts with some of his more recent ones, which have begun to OK more dairy, grains like quinoa (ok, a grain-like seed, but w/e) and wild rice, etc. that would have been anathema to paleo thinking before. These days a lot of the "paleo"/primal approaches really amount to just clean eating, focused on whole foods. This is the approach that probably makes the most sense for most people, but I don't know why it needs a special label.

It's worth pointing out that one of the earliest paleo/primal writers, Don Matesz, famously gave up the WOE entirely not too long ago.

Just my $0.02... I think it's a great method if it works for you, but it's not a catch-all and I don't think "paleo" per se means much right now. Those bashing it should give it a shot though. I personally have to keep carbs on the low end to feel my best and drop fat, all other factors -- like calories -- being equal. Some people can eat 1200 calories of whatever and still drop weight; others of us need to focus way more on food quality.

tidmutt

If that's what it all boils down to, why wrap in mythology about how out ancestors ate and put a fancy label on it?

The evolutionary perspective is a framework, a starting point. An example is dairy, it's plainly a "whole food" but it doesn't strictly fit into the Paleo framework because we haven't been consuming it for that long (on an evolutionary timeline), nevertheless Primal suggests you consume all you want if you aren't lactose intolerant. Again, the point is this is quite a flexible WOE. So the framework, as hokey as it sounds to many, helps to frame the approach, but the ultimate determining factor is science and your own anecdotal experience. IMHO, having this framework helps communicate the basic tenants of the WOE. Many approaches to nutrition do this be it the food pyramid, food plate, Weight Watchers point system, so on and so on. I personally feel there is an element of truth that we should eat what we evolved to eat so I think there is more value in the Primal/Paleo framework even just as a general guideline. Of course, exactly what those foods/macros were is open to much debate.

To be honest, it's tough to say "eat a Paleo diet" because it's likely there was wide variation in what we ate prior to agriculture since we would have eaten what was available in the local area, nevertheless, there would be some common threads regardless of the geographic region such as not eating a lot of processed grain since this was very labor intensive and the tech didn't exist to produce it in large quantities until fairly recently.

I find it odd that people deride this approach to nutrition so much. Evolution is a seminal theory, is applied to many scientific disciplines and it's application to nutrition makes a great deal of sense.

aweightymatter

I would also suggest that those interested in traditional foods -- but maybe not necessarily the paleo approach -- to check out the Weston A. Price Foundation / the works of Sally Fallon, like her cookbook 'Nourishing Traditions' or her book with Mary Enig, 'Eat Fat Lose Fat.' They are kind of different branches of the same-ish tree. Fallon and WAPF advocate for "traditional" food ways but allow for "neolithic" foods and account for different cultural traditions. For instance, you can have your beans if you, like me, were raised with Latin food traditions, but you should soak them first, etc.

Beastette

I am vegan. Except for bacon and the occasional hobo.

That reminds me. I have another shipment of frozen hobo ready. Shall I send it tomorrow?

My ancestors ate their hobo fresh off the boxcar. Just bring him in alive, and I will bite him in the keester.

tidmutt

I do paleo/primal on and off (more "off" and doing "clean eating" right now because I'm training for an endurance event). When I'm this mode I get plenty of calcium through things like nut milks, broccoli, spinach, etc., so that isn't much of a concern if you eat tons of cruciferous vegetables and other non-dairy, calcium-rich foods. From everything I read, there is no real *need* for the body to get carbohydrates from bread or grains. Also, a paleo/primal diet is not necessarily "low carb" -- you can get plenty of carbs for sufficient activity, even endurance training to some extent, from bananas, fruit, nuts, etc. Even on my cleanest paleo days I'm usually around 75 - 100 grms carbs, which is a lot more than the typical Atkins- or South Beach-style low carb diet.

I haven't read *any* iteration of paleo/primal that allows breads, though, like another poster suggested above. In fact, probably my biggest disappointment about the entire movement is that several years ago, when it was less trendy, there seemed to be a clear ideological/philosophical standpoint that was at least consistent, regardless of whether or not one agreed with the logic and science behind it.

These days as it continues to go more mainstream, each new primal/paleo guru seems to "allow" more and more. I love Mark's Daily Apple but it's funny to contrast some of his earliest posts with some of his more recent ones, which have begun to OK more dairy, grains like quinoa (ok, a grain-like seed, but w/e) and wild rice, etc. that would have been anathema to paleo thinking before. These days a lot of the "paleo"/primal approaches really amount to just clean eating, focused on whole foods. This is the approach that probably makes the most sense for most people, but I don't know why it needs a special label.

It's worth pointing out that one of the earliest paleo/primal writers, Don Matesz, famously gave up the WOE entirely not too long ago.

Just my $0.02... I think it's a great method if it works for you, but it's not a catch-all and I don't think "paleo" per se means much right now. Those bashing it should give it a shot though. I personally have to keep carbs on the low end to feel my best and drop fat, all other factors -- like calories -- being equal. Some people can eat 1200 calories of whatever and still drop weight; others of us need to focus way more on food quality.

Primal allows for consumption of sprouted grain bread in moderation, even rice.

Also, that lack of consistent ideology that concerns you doesn't bother me at all. In fact, it's what I liked about Primal. It's open to change. Knowledge evolves, theories are proposed and disproved and the WOE evolves with them. If you read the old posts, they recommended lean meats, now they recommend fatty meats provided they are grass fed.

Agreed it's not a catch all, nothing is, other than eat less and exercise more, as depressing as that is.

Marll

Really in all the different things discussed in this thread the theme is the same:

Stop eating garbage. Garbage being defined as:

Grains
Sugar
Legumes
Processed Foods
Low/No Fat Dairy


It's a tough concept to get some people to wrap their brains around, but the more fat you EAT the less fat you CARRY on your body. It's not just something somebody made up, this is science and chemistry, and you don't need to be particularly active for it to work.

As for the people that scream "But it eliminates whole food groups!", does anyone have the same objections about vegitarianism/veganism? Typically I've found that isn't the case, so why the hypocricy? Also for the "food" groups being eliminated, it's mostly grains and sugars, why is that such a bad thing when more and more people are being diagnosed with food intolerances to grains these days? I've personally never heard of ANYONE, EVER being alergic to meat.....EVER.

bonkers5975

Hi. I read these threads and people balk because of the "restriction." Here's the thing: you are going to have to restrict something in order to lose weight. You got where you are by not restricting anything. Make sense?

That said, I've been doing primal since before it was trendy. I do it because I'm sensitive to wheat. I do not restrict dairy. I do moderate it, because face it, too much of anything makes you FAT! Try it, see if you like it.

It is classed as a "lower carb" plan, not low carb. To lose weight you can have up to 100g per day. 150 for maintenance.

You still must watch your calories to an extent. No chowing down on the all-you-can-eat bacon buffet. Red wine and dark chocolate (75% or higher) are allowed as treats. You basically cut sugar, grains, legumes, and I have managed to eliminate artificial sweeteners as well.

Try it, see how you feel. If you don't like it, restrict something else, like healthy fats, or calories, or Little Debbie. Do what works for ya, and good luck!

aweightymatter

Primal allows for consumption of sprouted grain bread in moderation, even rice.

Also, that lack of consistent ideology that concerns you doesn't bother me at all. In fact, it's what I liked about Primal. It's open to change. Knowledge evolves, theories are proposed and disproved and the WOE evolves with them. If you read the old posts, they recommended lean meats, now they recommend fatty meats provided they are grass fed.

Agreed it's not a catch all, nothing is, other than eat less and exercise more, as depressing as that is.

I have to admit I haven't checked up on MDA in a couple months since, when I started training for an endurance event, I already knew I was breaking one of Mark's #1 rules

BUT, I have read 'The Primal Blueprint' in the last year. The edition I read does not include sprouted-grain breads as a suggestion. Has it been updated or changed to reflect that? I don't remember if the book itself recommended wild rice or not, though I have seen arguments for that on MDA and a couple other blogs.

I have not read Robb Wolf's book either though as I've read the other main books & blogs and am not sure if that's going to hold any dramatically new info. Does it / is it worth a read?

I guess my thing is, I have taken a lot of ideas from a lot of the main paleo/primal thinkers, but as it changes to include dairy and grains, does it really need a special label any more? Otherwise, it seems to be an eat-whole-foods, eliminate-the-white-and-processed-stuff approach. I think that's a very important message for people, but not necessarily one that requires a specific marketable name -- especially if no longer goes by the original tenets behind the marketable name.

bonkers5975

I'm with you, aweightymatter. I don't recall any grains being allowed, sprouted or otherwise. I really hate when things do become trendy and start morphing to suit the masses, because the masses can't handle restriction :P Last time I checked, while gluten free, rice is indeed a grain!

For anyone looking into this WOE, like I said, try it. I for one have difficulties with many grains, but none with legumes. So once in awhile I treat myself to some black or red beans, because I enjoy them. Primal is a jumping off point, as with any other plan, there is no one size fits all. You must personalize your plan in order to succeed.

KokomoJoe

Some are allergic to wheat/grains?

A constantly under diagnosed problem in my opinion. I have currently stopped with wheat and will reduce some other grains, but I love my brown rice, quinoa (a seed actually) and my beans. I have a couple paleo cookbooks that I love cooking from. Oven baked okra (yum).

tidmutt

I'm with you, aweightymatter. I don't recall any grains being allowed, sprouted or otherwise. I really hate when things do become trendy and start morphing to suit the masses, because the masses can't handle restriction :P Last time I checked, while gluten free, rice is indeed a grain!

For anyone looking into this WOE, like I said, try it. I for one have difficulties with many grains, but none with legumes. So once in awhile I treat myself to some black or red beans, because I enjoy them. Primal is a jumping off point, as with any other plan, there is no one size fits all. You must personalize your plan in order to succeed.

Search Mark's Daily Apple for sprouted grain and you'll find he discusses it's occasional consumption. He also talks about soaking legumes, rice being okay from time to time etc.

It's not about being trendy because people can't handle restriction, it's about being open minded and not biased based on your own preconceptions and adhering to some dogma. There is nothing to say we couldn't one day invent the perfect synthetic food, should Primal exclude that? Of course not. The ideal WOE is informed by deep science which always evolves over time. People find this confusing and frustrating but that is how science works. I have been impressed with how Primal is open to change. I don't think it's the be all and end all, but there's quite a lot to like IMHO.

Now if science one day proves that prior to agriculture we were all incredibly unhealthy and died of disease at age 22 then perhaps it would be time to take Primal/Paleo out into the field and put it down.

weightofyourskin

Really in all the different things discussed in this thread the theme is the same:

Stop eating garbage. Garbage being defined as:

Grains
Sugar
Legumes
Processed Foods
Low/No Fat Dairy

What's wrong with legumes? The last I checked, they're low in fat, high in fibre (and occasionally protein), antioxidants, assorted minerals...

mjbrenner

What's wrong with legumes? The last I checked, they're low in fat, high in fibre (and occasionally protein), antioxidants, assorted minerals...

Many people, including followers of the Paleo diet, avoid legumes due to the comparatively high concentration of anti-nutrients and toxins. That said, the way that most people cook beans reduces toxins and anti-nutrients to negligible levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaseolus_vulgaris#Toxicity

If you like many of the Paleo ideas but need a less strict regimen, many people use a combination of Paleo and the "slow carb" diet from The Four-Hour Body to good effect. Ignoring the stupid name for the book, the slow carb diet is very manageable and has a decent amount of science behind it. It also allows a weekly cheat day, which means that you can have all the potatoes and pancakes you want - one day a week.

hpsnickers1

every diet is restrictive in its own way.

But not every diet eliminates entire categories of food.

I don't find not eating grains, beans and sugar restrictive at all. Because I get to eat meat, fish, poultry, healthy fats, veggies, some occasional berries. Will I never again eat a bowl of ice cream even though it clogs my sinuses and gives me gut pain the next day? No, I will still enjoy on occasion. What's wrong with eliminating a food group when that food group makes your body sick? I didn't need a doctor to tell me it. In fact the doctors were treating all my symptoms as separate issues.

The wheat that is in EVERYTHING these days is not the same wheat that our ancestors ate - even our great-grandparents ate. The wheat has been hybridized and genetically modified to the point where it can't grow without human intervention (also corn which is a nasty grain, too). This has also seriously increased the gluten content. Now all these people with Celiac markers and celiac disease are popping up. I eliminated it as an experiment and every digestive I have dealt with since my childhood disappeared. I'm 41. What's wrong with eliminating a food group when that food group makes your body sick? I didn't need a doctor to tell me to do it. In fact the doctors were treating all my symptoms as separate issues when in fact it was two things, grains and milk (I enjoy my cheese on occasion, too).

Rice is a grain though not on the same level as the nasty wheat today. But I know that rice does the exact same thing to my blood sugar levels as wheat, oats and sugar (including the "natural" sugar in fruit - fructose which goes straight to the liver and gets converted into fat - not even used as immediate fuel. Even my low-sugar berries spike my blood sugar levels pretty good). And I'm not diabetic nor am I prediabetic.

All Primal/Paleo is is going back to the basics. You can alter it to suit you and your needs.

But no one can tell me that eating real, whole foods is unhealthy and restrictive. It's freeing. I found freedom from counting calories, weighing and logging foods and spending my entire day worrying about food because I was told to eat 5-6 times a day (and when I was eating high-carb I was starving every couple of hours so I had to). I just make sure I get plenty of veggies, protein and fats. And if I want to raise my carbs some I throw in some fruit or a yummy sweet potato lathered in some butter. In fact, day one of Primal was a 36 hour fast that felt absolutely wonderful. (just a guess but my ratios are probably around 10/20/70 but they change day to day).

hpsnickers1

Primal allows for consumption of sprouted grain bread in moderation, even rice.

Also, that lack of consistent ideology that concerns you doesn't bother me at all. In fact, it's what I liked about Primal. It's open to change. Knowledge evolves, theories are proposed and disproved and the WOE evolves with them. If you read the old posts, they recommended lean meats, now they recommend fatty meats provided they are grass fed.

Agreed it's not a catch all, nothing is, other than eat less and exercise more, as depressing as that is.

I have to admit I haven't checked up on MDA in a couple months since, when I started training for an endurance event, I already knew I was breaking one of Mark's #1 rules

BUT, I have read 'The Primal Blueprint' in the last year. The edition I read does not include sprouted-grain breads as a suggestion. Has it been updated or changed to reflect that? I don't remember if the book itself recommended wild rice or not, though I have seen arguments for that on MDA and a couple other blogs.

I have not read Robb Wolf's book either though as I've read the other main books & blogs and am not sure if that's going to hold any dramatically new info. Does it / is it worth a read?

I guess my thing is, I have taken a lot of ideas from a lot of the main paleo/primal thinkers, but as it changes to include dairy and grains, does it really need a special label any more? Otherwise, it seems to be an eat-whole-foods, eliminate-the-white-and-processed-stuff approach. I think that's a very important message for people, but not necessarily one that requires a specific marketable name -- especially if no longer goes by the original tenets behind the marketable name.

Hop on MDA and go back through the articles a little bit. Last week he had 2 articles on "how to train for a marathon" at least when you are Primal/Paleo. A marathon is definitely an endurance event.

hpsnickers1

every diet is restrictive in its own way.

But not every diet eliminates entire categories of food.

I've seen paleo/primal diets with potatoes...it's really what you make of it. Some indigenous peoples eat mostly tubors and fruits, and others eat mostly meat and fat. The point is to eat a diet that's nutrient-dense, filling, and non-insulinogenic. The only grains I was eating were whole wheat pasta and oatmeal. I can certainly eat oatmeal if I want, but it doesn't stick with me like eggs.

I agree. I used to have a bowl of oatmeal and an apple in the morning. I would bloat up and then 90 minutes later I was STARVING!!! And shaky - turns out it was blood sugar heading up high and then crashing down - this caused the hunger even though I still had food in my stomach. Now my typical breakfast is 3 eggs, 4 pieces of uncured bacon and this will keep me full for 5-6 hours. Sometimes I just down a can of coconut milk (Love A Taste of Thai- 55g of fat - 50 of them saturated) and this will keep me feeling full for about 7 hours.

But what I really love? The feeling of being full and satisfied WITHOUT the disextended stomach and the pain from the grains bloating me up.

ahamm002

I am not promoting/bashing paleo, but from what I understand it, the true reason many people follow it is not for weight loss. I've done a lot of reading on the paleo "diet," and it seems that most people see a lot of health benefits by elminating grains and dairy. It's not so much about weight loss, although that can be a nice side effect. (to the contrary, paleo suggests eating a lot of fatty foods, which is awesome, but if your'e not active, it can be counterproductive.)

Actually, the Paleo diet is great for weight loss. People who are used to eating diets high in refined carbs will usually lose weight even if they eat lots of fatty foods on Paleo.

Marll

Paleo seems to be typically followed by people that are seeking overall health in their body, and the nice side effect is that heavier people pretty much always loose weight without even trying, and those that might be prone to being underweight/"skinny-fat" will likely notice better muscle tone and fat loss.