Primal/Paleo Diet

Contrarian

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?

ilookthetype

Any diet that says I can't have pancakes or ice cream isn't one I want any part of.

Silly, you still can.

CaptainGordo

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

I hear it's really gamey, as opposed to farm-raised people. Is that true?

Elizabeth_C34

Any diet that says I can't have pancakes or ice cream isn't one I want any part of.

or bacon.

tidmutt

Any diet that says I can't have pancakes or ice cream isn't one I want any part of.

LOL, for sure, although you CAN eat pancakes and ice cream. Primal for example suggests you follow the 80/20 rule, pancakes and ice cream would just fall into the 20% category. In fact, if you think about it, it's a pretty good guideline for eating in general.

I spent quite a while considering the Primal diet and when you cut through all the hype you're looking at a diet that:

- Promotes eating whole foods
- Includes lots of vegetables
- Lots of protein
- Foods high in omega 3
- You can eat plenty of carbs if you like
- Potatoes, some types of bread are allowed in moderation.
- Encourages plenty of exercise
- Has a vibrant online and offline community

To be clear, Primal != Atkins.

Whomever said it eliminates entire food groups is not correct, at least for Primal. These sorts of diets are relegated as fad diets where people eat like cavemen and probably dress like them too, it's just not the case. It's a great WOE.

UponThisRock

Any diet that says I can't have pancakes or ice cream isn't one I want any part of.

LOL, for sure, although you CAN eat pancakes and ice cream. Primal for example suggests you follow the 80/20 rule, pancakes and ice cream would just fall into the 20% category. In fact, if you think about it, it's a pretty good guideline for eating in general.

I spent quite a while considering the Primal diet and when you cut through all the hype you're looking at a diet that:

- Promotes eating whole foods
- Includes lots of vegetables
- Lots of protein
- Foods high in omega 3
- You can eat plenty of carbs if you like
- Potatoes, some types of bread are allowed in moderation.
- Encourages plenty of exercise
- Has a vibrant online and offline community

To be clear, Primal != Atkins.

Whomever said it eliminates entire food groups is not correct, at least for Primal. These sorts of diets are relegated as fad diets where people eat like cavemen and probably dress like them too, it's just not the case. It's a great WOE.

Please explain the health benefits of limiting/moderating my potato intake. Thanks.

Grokette

Any diet that says I can't have pancakes or ice cream isn't one I want any part of.

In my household we make Paleo Pumpkin pancakes and Vanilla Coconut Milk ice cream.

tidmutt

Please explain the health benefits of limiting/moderating my potato intake. Thanks.

My point wasn't to argue the finer points of the WOE but to illustrate that it's not restrictive and does not eliminate entire food groups completely. To prove the point, here is a post from the site on Potatoes:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/paleo-potatoes/

You can agree or disagree with parts of his narrative but the reality is, he says make up your own mind based on your own n=1.

UponThisRock

You can agree or disagree with parts of his narrative but the reality is, he says make up your own mind based on your own n=1.

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?

UponThisRock

In my household we make Paleo Pumpkin pancakes and Vanilla Coconut Milk ice cream.

I'll stick with the real mccoy. Probably more tasty, and not nearly as much of a pain in the *kitten*.

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.