Let's talk about...the Paleo Diet

LorinaLynn

HDL, Triglycerides, LDL, Total cholesterol, Blood Glucose ... has this been talked about. Doesn't the Paleo lifestyle improve the numbers almost always? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of this. At least enough for it to be considered.

There is more to health than what you see in the mirror when you are 25 years old.

I'll admit I haven't had my BW checked since I lost weight, but all of those numbers were perfect at my heaviest 2 years ago @ 38 years old, so I have no reason to believe they would have gotten worse with improved fitness.

I don't even bother with salt on my boiled or baked potatoes. Just a sprinkle of pepper. Although my favorite way would be loaded with bacon, chives, cheese and ranch dressing instead of sour cream.

callmeBAM

Paleo diets haven’t yet drawn the attention of many researchers, so to demand statistics and studies is pointless. We have anecdotal evidence (people making a change in their diet and seeing results), we have theory, we have books. So, unless you are willing to consider those the conversation is pointless.

What if the thread were on cell phones causing cancer. Or better yet, increasing the risk for cancer. I bet we could fill up pages upon pages of opinions and links and pasted "data". Yet, the The National Cancer Institute;s own website states "Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck. More research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly." So, the jury is still out on something very popular to debate like cell phones and their dangers.

PJilly

The advantage isn't from a caloric stand point, it's from a satiety stand point. Which does result in a lower caloric consumption.

I think this is why it works better for some than others. I have no doubt that eating more fat makes some people feel more satisfied. However, that is not the effect it has on me. I feel better and fuller if I get more food in my belly, regardless of the fat content. When I eat a high-fat diet, it makes me feel sick to my stomach. Hence, a 50/25/25 ratio is a superior way of eating for ME. No matter how many times someone tells me eating more fat will make me feel more satiated, it still doesn't make it true.

Fat also has a little effect on me in terms of satiety. I just feel fuller eating more protein, the leaner it is the less calories it has.So he more volume I can consume.

Fat has a high satiety factor with me. I can consume coffee with a tablespoon of coconut milk and a tablespoon of coconut oil and be fine until around 1 or 2 pm. And I drink my coffee with my husband at 5:30 in the morning.

I am usually forcing myself to eat lunch around 11:30 or 12:00 so that I will want supper later in the evening.

This just confirms for me that variety truly is the spice of life. I think it's awesome you've found a way that works for you and makes you feel good. For me, eating food I love is one of the greatest pleasures in life, so my philosophy is "eat early, eat often." I've figured out a way to make that work for me. In my most amazing fantasies, I'd be able to add "in unlimited quantities" to that, but that's where I've had to make adjustments.

ArroganceInStep

Paleo diets haven’t yet drawn the attention of many researchers, so to demand statistics and studies is pointless. We have anecdotal evidence (people making a change in their diet and seeing results), we have theory, we have books. So, unless you are willing to consider those the conversation is pointless.

What if the thread were on cell phones causing cancer. Or better yet, increasing the risk for cancer. I bet we could fill up pages upon pages of opinions and links and pasted "data". Yet, the The National Cancer Institute;s own website states "Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck. More research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly." So, the jury is still out on something very popular to debate like cell phones and their dangers.

That's a fair point, but I think the intent behind this post is different than you may be interpreting.

It's not "prove to me that your diet works"
But rather "I would be willing to consider this diet if I could see more definitive research on the matter. I haven't been able to find any that convince me and I'm wondering if anyone else has information that they'd be willing to share"

At least that's the way I think Acg meant it. And since I'm clearly Acg I can totally talk for him.

callmeBAM

Well, found this with some Googling.

**University of California San Francisco School of Medicine**
Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209185?dopt=Abstract


Published Research
http://thepaleodiet.com/published-research

Acg67

.

Acg67

Paleo diets haven’t yet drawn the attention of many researchers, so to demand statistics and studies is pointless. We have anecdotal evidence (people making a change in their diet and seeing results), we have theory, we have books. So, unless you are willing to consider those the conversation is pointless.

What if the thread were on cell phones causing cancer. Or better yet, increasing the risk for cancer. I bet we could fill up pages upon pages of opinions and links and pasted "data". Yet, the The National Cancer Institute;s own website states "Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck. More research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly." So, the jury is still out on something very popular to debate like cell phones and their dangers.

That's a fair point, but I think the intent behind this post is different than you may be interpreting.

It's not "prove to me that your diet works"
But rather "I would be willing to consider this diet if I could see more definitive research on the matter. I haven't been able to find any that convince me and I'm wondering if anyone else has information that they'd be willing to share"

At least that's the way I think Acg meant it. And since I'm clearly Acg I can totally talk for him.

Close, it was to examine the claims that the Paleo diet was the diet for optimal health. What are such claims based on? If there is evidence to support such an assertion I'd like to study it and in the process expand my knowledge on the subject. Specifically I wanted to look at the rationale and evidence behind the exclusion of grains, legumes and dairy.

So back to BAM, if this is a new diet and doesn't have much published research on it, in your opinion if you took 2 identical diets and match calories and macros but one diet contains only so called Paleo foods and the other includes both Paleo foods and the foods it excludes, what differences do you think we'd see between them on blood markers of health, weight loss etc?

tigersword

Do you have these studies for us to look at, because I haven't found any. All the studies I've seen that show an advantage for low carb were either very short term (12 weeks or less) which can be explained by water weight loss due to glycogen restriction, or had higher protein levels for the low carb diet, which then leads to the obvious confounder of was it lower carbs or higher protein that led to the advantage? All studies I've read that lasted a year and controlled for protein and total calories have shown no advantage for either type of diet. And, other than the studies that have used diabetic test subjects, none of the studies I've read have shown any health advantages for lower carb diets, either. So if you have studies that prove otherwise, I'd love to see them.

So you ask me to do your homework, BUT put restrictions on what "studies" you will accept. Sorry I have played this game before. No one is so blind as one that will not see.

In other words, since I won't let you just cherry pick the studies that agree with your point of view, you don't actually have any studies to show anybody, just the mysterious phantom "some studies" phrase, but you don't actually have any real evidence. Gotcha.

Acg67

Well, found this with some Googling.

**University of California San Francisco School of Medicine**
Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209185?dopt=Abstract


Published Research
http://thepaleodiet.com/published-research

If you're interested, the full study is here

www.yaboga.com/paleo-metabolic.pdf

and while it is an interesting study

Nutrient comparisons between paleolithic and usual diets

The usual diet was obtained from one or two 24-h food
recalls by an experienced research dietician. Comparison
between the usual and Paleo diet intakes and 24-h urine
excretion is shown in Table 1, whereas Table 2 lists the
menus for the actual foods consumed during the metabolic
diet phases of the study. The usual diet had a calculated K/Na
intake ratio of 0.6±0.3 and averaged 18% of calories from
protein, 44% from carbohydrates and 38% from fats. An
analyzed paleolithic diet composite had a K/Na intake ratio
of 4.3 (Po0.0001) and contained 30% of calories from
proteins, 32% from fat (mainly unsaturated) and 38% from
carbohydrates.

tigersword

HDL, Triglycerides, LDL, Total cholesterol, Blood Glucose ... has this been talked about. Doesn't the Paleo lifestyle improve the numbers almost always? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of this. At least enough for it to be considered.

There is more to health than what you see in the mirror when you are 25 years old.

Have you read about the Twinkie Diet? A professor of nutrition ate a diet that consisted of 1800 calories per day. He ate one can of vegetables, drank one protein shake, took a multivitamin, and the rest of the diet was filled with Twinkies, cupcakes, sugary cereals, and other convenience store junk food. His HDL, LDL, blood pressure, Triglycerides all improved, and he dropped 27 pounds in 10 weeks. All of those things are improved just by the act of losing weight, the specifics of the diet don't matter as much.

Every study I've read that has compared different diets, and controlled for calories, has shown no statistically significant difference in health markers from one type of diet to another.

ElPumaMex

Well, found this with some Googling.

**University of California San Francisco School of Medicine**
Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209185?dopt=Abstract


Published Research
http://thepaleodiet.com/published-research

If you're interested, the full study is here

www.yaboga.com/paleo-metabolic.pdf

and while it is an interesting study

Nutrient comparisons between paleolithic and usual diets

The usual diet was obtained from one or two 24-h food
recalls by an experienced research dietician. Comparison
between the usual and Paleo diet intakes and 24-h urine
excretion is shown in Table 1, whereas Table 2 lists the
menus for the actual foods consumed during the metabolic
diet phases of the study. The usual diet had a calculated K/Na
intake ratio of 0.6±0.3 and averaged 18% of calories from
protein, 44% from carbohydrates and 38% from fats. An
analyzed paleolithic diet composite had a K/Na intake ratio
of 4.3 (Po0.0001) and contained 30% of calories from
proteins, 32% from fat (mainly unsaturated) and 38% from
carbohydrates.

I have started to read that study.
Really, really interesting !

Thanks for sharing.

"Meat, fish, poultry, eggs, fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, canola oil, mayonnaise and honey were included in the Ramp and Paleo phases of the diet.
We excluded dairy products, legumes, cereals, grains, potatoes and products containing potassium chloride..."

Not sure I would exclude legumes from my diet (I love beans, etc), but I have no problem to keep my current diet (modern Okinawa / DASH targets for ratios on carbs, protein, fat ) and follow some of what the above plan shows.
I already eat a small qty of cereals and grains, so I would not change that.
I could exclude potatoes, most of dairy I already exclude.

And certainly I could do without food with Potassium Chloride: (from http://www.ehow.com/way_5380427_foods-high-potassium-chloride.html)
"Potassium Chloride in Foods
Potassium chloride is an additive as well. Foods which are high in potassium chloride include artificially sweetened jellies and foods containing carrageenan. Potassium chloride is also used to replace sodium in low sodium foods. As a stabilizer, potassium chloride is found in chocolate milk and other dairy products to keep ingredients suspended."

Although it also seems to be in fruits?? (same source)
"Potassium chloride is readily available in fruits and vegetables. It is also the main ingredient in salt substitutes. Potassium, chloride and sodium are the three electrolyte elements. They are called electrolytes because when they are dissolved in water, they become ions and conduct electricity. Potassium chloride is also a food additive classified in the CODEX Alimentarius that acts as a stabilizer and thickener."

Definitively that would contradict the Paleo (or my diet).

Again thanks, this is "food for thought" :smokin:

tigersword

Why would you eliminate potassium? Required mineral, and people in the US are notoriously deficient in it.

ElPumaMex

Why would you eliminate potassium? Required mineral, and people in the US are notoriously deficient in it.

I think that is a TYPO in the study.
Clearly they introduce large quantities of potassium during their tests, since they feed their subjects a LOT of carrot juice.

So Potassium is ok for them.

The limitations on this study are clearly shown in it.
Nevertheless, it is an interesting one.

Here is an extract:
"Owing to the small sample size of this study one cannot confidently predict that paleolithic diets induce the same metabolic effects in different populations or different subjects.
On the other hand, if our basic hypothesis holds, namely, that humans should be better adapted physiologically to this kind of diet, then we might expect many subjects to improve on this diet, and that is exactly the consistency we saw.
Only large clinical trials among diverse groups can settle the issue.
With this and two other promising studies (Lindeberg et al., 2007; Osterdahl et al., 2007), perhaps we can justify such trials.
A third limitation could be that we did not have a separate group of participants as a control group"

sweet_lotus

Well, found this with some Googling.

**University of California San Francisco School of Medicine**
Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209185?dopt=Abstract

Meh. It's nice that they controlled for weight loss, but, it would be more convincing if they put the paleo dieters head to head with vegans (who are known to have low CVD risk factors like those measured in the study) or even people eating a balanced, non processed diet.

Does not answer the Q: is paleo > all other kinds of eating?

fteale

Well, found this with some Googling.

**University of California San Francisco School of Medicine**
Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209185?dopt=Abstract

Meh. It's nice that they controlled for weight loss, but, it would be more convincing if they put the paleo dieters head to head with vegans (who are known to have low CVD risk factors like those measured in the study) or even people eating a balanced, non processed diet.

Does not answer the Q: is paleo > all other kinds of eating?

Exactly what I was thinking! I would like to see a paleo vs vegan or strict vegetarian diet. That would get my attention. I am not interested in any study that compares it to the average American diet, as I never have had, and never will have any kind of American diet!

Isolt

Does not answer the Q: is paleo > all other kinds of eating?

I'd simply say that it's better than a diet that's based purely on restricting calories, without any care about what those calories are made up,of. When I look at these boards I seem to see a fair old number of people whose food diaries are made up entirely of pre-packaged food.....and very low in raw ingredients that you could actually cook a meal from scratch with. One diary yesterday, from some woman who was cutting back to what I'd deem starvation rations, had a diary that had heaps of protein grams left over a day, but had sodium waaaaaay in the red. Every single thing was manufactured, processed 'crap'. So I look at a menu like that and think that organic/pasture-fed raw ingredients that you cook from scratch HAS to be better than eating pure junk....but less of it.

Actually, quite a few diaries I've seen make me really depressed because I come away with the impression that some people are simply too bloody lazy to cook *shrug*

Adrenaline_Queen

Love this xxxxxxxxxxxxx I eat paleo........... Only as it works for me........... I have not lost any weight, I put on 1lb, but am happy with how I feel.............

Thank you so much for all this reading xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

almc170

Does not answer the Q: is paleo > all other kinds of eating?

I'd simply say that it's better than a diet that's based purely on restricting calories, without any care about what those calories are made up,of. When I look at these boards I seem to see a fair old number of people whose food diaries are made up entirely of pre-packaged food.....and very low in raw ingredients that you could actually cook a meal from scratch with. One diary yesterday, from some woman who was cutting back to what I'd deem starvation rations, had a diary that had heaps of protein grams left over a day, but had sodium waaaaaay in the red. Every single thing was manufactured, processed 'crap'. So I look at a menu like that and think that organic/pasture-fed raw ingredients that you cook from scratch HAS to be better than eating pure junk....but less of it.

Actually, quite a few diaries I've seen make me really depressed because I come away with the impression that some people are simply too bloody lazy to cook *shrug*

Or perhaps they work full time, juggle childcare responsibilities, travel extensively, care for an elderly parent, etc. Or maybe they are on a strict budget and can't afford "organic/pasture-fed raw ingredients." Quite simply, you can't infer anything about an individual's character from a freakin' food diary posted to a public website.

PJilly

Does not answer the Q: is paleo > all other kinds of eating?

I'd simply say that it's better than a diet that's based purely on restricting calories, without any care about what those calories are made up,of. When I look at these boards I seem to see a fair old number of people whose food diaries are made up entirely of pre-packaged food.....and very low in raw ingredients that you could actually cook a meal from scratch with. One diary yesterday, from some woman who was cutting back to what I'd deem starvation rations, had a diary that had heaps of protein grams left over a day, but had sodium waaaaaay in the red. Every single thing was manufactured, processed 'crap'. So I look at a menu like that and think that organic/pasture-fed raw ingredients that you cook from scratch HAS to be better than eating pure junk....but less of it.

Actually, quite a few diaries I've seen make me really depressed because I come away with the impression that some people are simply too bloody lazy to cook *shrug*

Any thoughtful diet is likely to be better than one based on not caring what your calories are made up of.

freerange

And if you did the research, about 50% of ad lib studies do show greater fat loss on low carb diets, but 50% do not. Then take a look at calories being tightly controlled and the vast majority show no difference in fat loss. So in your opinion what does the current body of evidence point towards that there is a metabolic advantage or there is not?

In my opinion it's a fools errand to argue with someone that has their mind made up. It's also a fool that believes anything put out by the latest "study", I find much comfort in listening to people who have actually done what it is I want to do, I find even more comfort in testing what others have done with my own diet. If you don't want to listen to the THOUSANDS of people who have changed their diet to more closely relate to the "paleo" diet, that is on you, if you are so marrow minded that you have to have a study done for years, by FDA approved method, have fun. We will enjoy optimal health, of both mind and body, while you search out the latest "study"

Night kids it's time for for bed.

tigersword

Thousands of people that live paleo, compared to the BILLIONS that don't and are healthy. Yeah, you might want to rethink that argument.

Acg67

And if you did the research, about 50% of ad lib studies do show greater fat loss on low carb diets, but 50% do not. Then take a look at calories being tightly controlled and the vast majority show no difference in fat loss. So in your opinion what does the current body of evidence point towards that there is a metabolic advantage or there is not?

In my opinion it's a fools errand to argue with someone that has their mind made up. It's also a fool that believes anything put out by the latest "study", I find much comfort in listening to people who have actually done what it is I want to do, I find even more comfort in testing what others have done with my own diet. If you don't want to listen to the THOUSANDS of people who have changed their diet to more closely relate to the "paleo" diet, that is on you, if you are so marrow minded that you have to have a study done for years, by FDA approved method, have fun. We will enjoy optimal health, of both mind and body, while you search out the latest "study"

Night kids it's time for for bed.

And that was what this post was about, what backing does the claim that the Paleo diet is the diet for optimal health actually have? Obviously when you say mind and body, the Paleo diet does nothing for reading comprehension.

Who is the one that had their mind already made up? You want to believe that fat loss is greater on low carb diets so you just ignored my rebuttal to your assertion that there are "some" studies that do in fact show that.

AntWrig

And if you did the research, about 50% of ad lib studies do show greater fat loss on low carb diets, but 50% do not. Then take a look at calories being tightly controlled and the vast majority show no difference in fat loss. So in your opinion what does the current body of evidence point towards that there is a metabolic advantage or there is not?

In my opinion it's a fools errand to argue with someone that has their mind made up. It's also a fool that believes anything put out by the latest "study", I find much comfort in listening to people who have actually done what it is I want to do, I find even more comfort in testing what others have done with my own diet. If you don't want to listen to the THOUSANDS of people who have changed their diet to more closely relate to the "paleo" diet, that is on you, if you are so marrow minded that you have to have a study done for years, by FDA approved method, have fun. We will enjoy optimal health, of both mind and body, while you search out the latest "study"

Night kids it's time for for bed.

You're the one who is very narrow minded.

I direct you to your own very comments...

It's also a fool that believes anything put out by the latest "study", I find much comfort in listening to people who have actually done what it is I want to do, I find even more comfort in testing what others have done with my own diet.

And this...

If you don't want to listen to the THOUSANDS of people who have changed their diet to more closely relate to the "paleo" diet, that is on you, if you are so marrow minded that you have to have a study done for years, by FDA approved method, have fun. We will enjoy optimal health, of both mind and body, while you search out the latest "study"

Once again, how is eating Paleo any better than a traditional diet?

And I don't care about how others "changed" their diets. I changed my diet too, but I am not touting that a high carb and a high protein intake will save the world.

suziecue66

What's better - a paleo diet or vegan?

tigersword

I find it humorous that the narrow minded Paleo people (not all of them, just the narrow minded ones) love to talk about how the Paleo diet is superior, and go on and on about this ONE diet, like there was only one type of diet eaten by humans during the Paleolithic Era. There were probably hundreds of thousands of different "paleo diets," based on geographic location, time of year, specific period of the Era, etc. How do you decide which one was the best? It's not like the Paleolithic spans over 2.5 million years or anything...

The dirty secret is that the Paleo diet is just a diet made up by some guy, and it's all marketing.

It's not a bad diet, but it's Got nothing to do with Paleo anything.

albinogorilla

I'm still perplexed why people want to follow a "diet" whose practitioners barely ever survived into their 30's. . . . . .

PaleoPath4Lyfe

Well, found this with some Googling.

**University of California San Francisco School of Medicine**
Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209185?dopt=Abstract


Published Research
http://thepaleodiet.com/published-research

If you're interested, the full study is here

www.yaboga.com/paleo-metabolic.pdf

and while it is an interesting study

Nutrient comparisons between paleolithic and usual diets

The usual diet was obtained from one or two 24-h food
recalls by an experienced research dietician. Comparison
between the usual and Paleo diet intakes and 24-h urine
excretion is shown in Table 1, whereas Table 2 lists the
menus for the actual foods consumed during the metabolic
diet phases of the study. The usual diet had a calculated K/Na
intake ratio of 0.6±0.3 and averaged 18% of calories from
protein, 44% from carbohydrates and 38% from fats. An
analyzed paleolithic diet composite had a K/Na intake ratio
of 4.3 (Po0.0001) and contained 30% of calories from
proteins, 32% from fat (mainly unsaturated) and 38% from
carbohydrates.

I have started to read that study.
Really, really interesting !

Thanks for sharing.

"Meat, fish, poultry, eggs, fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, canola oil, mayonnaise and honey were included in the Ramp and Paleo phases of the diet.
We excluded dairy products, legumes, cereals, grains, potatoes and products containing potassium chloride..."

Not sure I would exclude legumes from my diet (I love beans, etc), but I have no problem to keep my current diet (modern Okinawa / DASH targets for ratios on carbs, protein, fat ) and follow some of what the above plan shows.
I already eat a small qty of cereals and grains, so I would not change that.
I could exclude potatoes, most of dairy I already exclude.

And certainly I could do without food with Potassium Chloride: (from http://www.ehow.com/way_5380427_foods-high-potassium-chloride.html)
"Potassium Chloride in Foods
Potassium chloride is an additive as well. Foods which are high in potassium chloride include artificially sweetened jellies and foods containing carrageenan. Potassium chloride is also used to replace sodium in low sodium foods. As a stabilizer, potassium chloride is found in chocolate milk and other dairy products to keep ingredients suspended."

Although it also seems to be in fruits?? (same source)
"Potassium chloride is readily available in fruits and vegetables. It is also the main ingredient in salt substitutes. Potassium, chloride and sodium are the three electrolyte elements. They are called electrolytes because when they are dissolved in water, they become ions and conduct electricity. Potassium chloride is also a food additive classified in the CODEX Alimentarius that acts as a stabilizer and thickener."

Definitively that would contradict the Paleo (or my diet).

Again thanks, this is "food for thought" :smokin:

There study is flawed in the fact that Canola Oil is used and with Paleo philosophy that I have read says to ditch the liquid vegetable oils due to the O3:O6 ratio being skewed.

If they are going to do the studies, they will have to include the foods that are natural and Canola oil is a very highly processed oil.

This is why I don't trust these "so-called" studies and such. Most times they are setting out to seek a result they want to see or want to dismiss.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

I'm still perplexed why people want to follow a "diet" whose practitioners barely ever survived into their 30's. . . . . .

This is actually not true. There is a lot of evidence that says that many Paleolithic people lived to old ages, up to 80 and 90 years old.

The reason the "average" age is such is due to high infant mortality, females dying during child birth, young men that died in battle (war) and other injuries.

There is a huge research article written by a Paleontologist that I thought I saved from a while back where he went into great detail on some of his findings. I have not been able to find the article again and I guess I didn't save it because it is not in the folder in my favorites.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

I find it humorous that the narrow minded Paleo people (not all of them, just the narrow minded ones) love to talk about how the Paleo diet is superior, and go on and on about this ONE diet, like there was only one type of diet eaten by humans during the Paleolithic Era. There were probably hundreds of thousands of different "paleo diets," based on geographic location, time of year, specific period of the Era, etc. How do you decide which one was the best? It's not like the Paleolithic spans over 2.5 million years or anything...

The dirty secret is that the Paleo diet is just a diet made up by some guy, and it's all marketing.

It's not a bad diet, but it's Got nothing to do with Paleo anything.

The Paleo lifestyle is a fancy way of saying Eat clean, natural foods - that is all. There are probably not 2 people that eat exactly alike.........

In my Paleo Facebook group there is a woman that only eats raw ruminant meats, eggs and starches such as sweet potatoes. She is pretty anal about her eating. This is what works for her. Even though pictures of her meals with raw hamburger and a baked sweet potato do not look apetitizing to me.

There are others that do a lot of baking and re-creating traditional muffins, cookies, cakes, etc in a so-called Paleo manner.

There are some in my group that eat NO grains whatsoever. There are others that eat white rice as it has been deemed a "safe" starch..

Some people include a lot of dairy, some just a bit and then there are others that eat no dairy at all.

I eat pretty boring and simple, but it works for me. I stick to eating fats (mostly coconut oil and grass fed butter), eggs, grass fed beef, pastured pork, very little chicken and I do eat a lot of green vegetables. I eat minimal fruit and nuts. I also have some raw, local honey - which many say is not Paleo, but I find it hard to believe that they didn't find honey from time to time.


Paleo isn't a set plan...............it is more of a template for people to experiment and find what works for their bodies. The meal plans vary greatly from person to person.

Acg67