Let's talk about...the Paleo Diet
Replies
-
another one for you, this one pretty much backs up everything said by the paleo people:
http://www.jacn.org/content/20/1/5.full
How so?
Do people actually read the studies before posting them?
The paleo people claim that emulating paleolithic diet the way to go. They interpret this way of eating, from what I can tell, by cutting out entire food groups - ditching grains, beans, dairy, and sometimes fruit. They come up with various rearrangements of the macronutrients, etc.
THIS particular evaluation of the Nurses Health Study that you cited says nothing of the such. It is merely points out how their findings contradict the previous recommendations of low-fat eating of the '90s.
In fact, your citation recommendations go against the fundamentals of the paleo diet:
"Moreover, the AHA major guidelines recommend the public to substitute unsaturated fatty acids from vegetable oils, fish, nuts and **legumes** for saturated and trans fatty acids. These guidelines, if followed, can have substantial potential in further reducing rates of CHD in the U.S."
Further, the cited article is pretty much anti-saturated fat, which is something paleo dieters either don't care about or seem to think is beneficial. There is one lady on the boards that eats loads of it and thinks it is good for her.
How you can cite this as supporting of paleo, I don't know, beyond a major reading comprehension fail.0 -
It all just boils down to snobbishness. You think your diet is superior. And you know what? It probably is. But that doesn't mean it's necessary or practical for EVERYONE to eat that way.
My brother's Mustang is a faster car than my Chevy Tracker. His car is frickin' gorgeous and I'd admit I kind of covet it. My Tracker is kind of goofy looking. But I couldn't afford the payments nor the insurance on a sports car, and it wouldn't fit my lifestyle. It's more important for me to have a vehicle that's good on gas, is good in the snow, is small enough that I can park it easily but roomy enough to have enough cargo room to lug all the crap I often lug around.
I'm sure your diet is very healthy. But my diet is fine for me. You can't or won't eat pasta and bagels and garlic bread and all the other foods I love so much... but I'm perfectly happy with my progress and health. If it gets me where I want to go... then that's good enough for me. It fits my lifestyle. Just like my goofy little truck.0 -
another one for you, this one pretty much backs up everything said by the paleo people:
http://www.jacn.org/content/20/1/5.full
How so?
Do people actually read the studies before posting them?
The paleo people claim that emulating paleolithic diet the way to go. They interpret this way of eating, from what I can tell, by cutting out entire food groups - ditching grains, beans, dairy, and sometimes fruit. They come up with various rearrangements of the macronutrients, etc.
THIS particular evaluation of the Nurses Health Study that you cited says nothing of the such. It is merely points out how their findings contradict the previous recommendations of low-fat eating of the '90s.
In fact, your citation recommendations go against the fundamentals of the paleo diet:
"Moreover, the AHA major guidelines recommend the public to substitute unsaturated fatty acids from vegetable oils, fish, nuts and **legumes** for saturated and trans fatty acids. These guidelines, if followed, can have substantial potential in further reducing rates of CHD in the U.S."
Further, the cited article is pretty much anti-saturated fat, which is something paleo dieters either don't care about or seem to think is beneficial. There is one lady on the boards that eats loads of it and thinks it is good for her.
How you can cite this as supporting of paleo, I don't know, beyond a major reading comprehension fail.
this excerpt is what i was referring to when i made that pervious statement. let me clear it up for your simple mind:
"A major purported benefit of a low-fat diet is weight loss. But long-term clinical trials have not provided convincing evidence that reducing dietary fat can lead to substantial weight loss [141]. On the contrary, there is some evidence that a diet containing a high amount of refined carbohydrates may increase hunger and promote overeating, which can lead to weight gain and obesity [142]"0 -
these links are pertinent because the poster is asking for studies that show the paleo diet is healthy or best or whatever. these studies are showing that the main components of the paleo diet are in fact, HEALTHY! that is why these have substance on this thread. sorry to upset you with scientific facts. also, carbs are not the enemy. carbs are a necessary part of a healthy diet. its where the carbs come from. if they come from sources that quickly spike your blood sugar, then high ammounts of insulin are released and thus fat is stored. what spikes your blood sugar??? starches and sugar!!!! so eat carbs and plenty of them from veggies and nuts and other sources that occur in nature! god you people just dont like facts do you??
Why do you continue to post epidemiological studies? Did you read the OP? BTW you know what is also an epidemiological study, the one that everyone posted about red meat being bad for you.0 -
another one for you, this one pretty much backs up everything said by the paleo people:
http://www.jacn.org/content/20/1/5.full
How so?
Do people actually read the studies before posting them?
The paleo people claim that emulating paleolithic diet the way to go. They interpret this way of eating, from what I can tell, by cutting out entire food groups - ditching grains, beans, dairy, and sometimes fruit. They come up with various rearrangements of the macronutrients, etc.
THIS particular evaluation of the Nurses Health Study that you cited says nothing of the such. It is merely points out how their findings contradict the previous recommendations of low-fat eating of the '90s.
In fact, your citation recommendations go against the fundamentals of the paleo diet:
"Moreover, the AHA major guidelines recommend the public to substitute unsaturated fatty acids from vegetable oils, fish, nuts and **legumes** for saturated and trans fatty acids. These guidelines, if followed, can have substantial potential in further reducing rates of CHD in the U.S."
Further, the cited article is pretty much anti-saturated fat, which is something paleo dieters either don't care about or seem to think is beneficial. There is one lady on the boards that eats loads of it and thinks it is good for her.
How you can cite this as supporting of paleo, I don't know, beyond a major reading comprehension fail.
I also eat a lot of saturated fat and have nothing but improvements on my lipid profile.
I eat protein, saturated fats, lots of vegetables and some fruit a couple of times per week.
Lots of improvement in my overall health.0 -
like i said before, im not arguing. this post was antagonistic in nature and i provided facts and scientific studies to support the main principles behind the "paleo diet" but of course for people who arent getting enough fat to their brains, that isnt good enough. oh well. and as far as me "missing out" on all those aformentioned foods, i feel 100X better now than i ever did, and i have celiac so i couldnt eat those disgusting things even if i wanted to. they make me sick to even think about now because i realize how bad they are and how bad they make me feel. enjoy though!0
-
these links are pertinent because the poster is asking for studies that show the paleo diet is healthy or best or whatever. these studies are showing that the main components of the paleo diet are in fact, HEALTHY! that is why these have substance on this thread. sorry to upset you with scientific facts. also, carbs are not the enemy. carbs are a necessary part of a healthy diet. its where the carbs come from. if they come from sources that quickly spike your blood sugar, then high ammounts of insulin are released and thus fat is stored. what spikes your blood sugar??? starches and sugar!!!! so eat carbs and plenty of them from veggies and nuts and other sources that occur in nature! god you people just dont like facts do you??
I'm not offended or disputing the benefits of a Paleo diet, I'm only saying that its futile to try to win this argument against the OP.
Exactly. All the OP and a couple others that have participated in this thread is find ways to discount the studies when you post them, so I give up.
I see the success I am having as well as many others - mentally and physically.
I just don't see how anyone can rationally say that eating grass fed proteins and fat sources, vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds (maybe occasional dairy or starches) is a pretty ideal way of eating that every human being could benefit from.
They don't go bashing the vegans and vegetarians even though there is more evidence that removing meat from the human way of eating is detrimental to ones' health.
First, when did I bash this diet?
Second if you took time to actually read the OP, I stated
"To preface this, I do think the main idea of eating mostly whole, nutrient dense foods is a good thing to follow, however I am not convinced on the evils of grains, legumes and dairy. Nor am I convinced sugar or processed foods are singularly evil in moderation. "0 -
these links are pertinent because the poster is asking for studies that show the paleo diet is healthy or best or whatever. these studies are showing that the main components of the paleo diet are in fact, HEALTHY! that is why these have substance on this thread. sorry to upset you with scientific facts. also, carbs are not the enemy. carbs are a necessary part of a healthy diet. its where the carbs come from. if they come from sources that quickly spike your blood sugar, then high ammounts of insulin are released and thus fat is stored. what spikes your blood sugar??? starches and sugar!!!! so eat carbs and plenty of them from veggies and nuts and other sources that occur in nature! god you people just dont like facts do you??
Why do you continue to post epidemiological studies? Did you read the OP? BTW you know what is also an epidemiological study, the one that everyone posted about red meat being bad for you.
Now there is one today saying white rice causes diabetes.0 -
and as far as the AHA goes, they license out their logo to "heart healhty" foods like COCOA PUFFS! that organization doesnt give a rats *kitten* about heart health. they care about clever marketing and million dollar licensing agreements.0
-
just take a look next time you are at the grocery store and see what the aha calls "heart healthy". it will shock you what kinds of processed chemical laden high sodium foods they call healthy.0
-
these links are pertinent because the poster is asking for studies that show the paleo diet is healthy or best or whatever. these studies are showing that the main components of the paleo diet are in fact, HEALTHY! that is why these have substance on this thread. sorry to upset you with scientific facts. also, carbs are not the enemy. carbs are a necessary part of a healthy diet. its where the carbs come from. if they come from sources that quickly spike your blood sugar, then high ammounts of insulin are released and thus fat is stored. what spikes your blood sugar??? starches and sugar!!!! so eat carbs and plenty of them from veggies and nuts and other sources that occur in nature! god you people just dont like facts do you??
I'm not offended or disputing the benefits of a Paleo diet, I'm only saying that its futile to try to win this argument against the OP.
Exactly. All the OP and a couple others that have participated in this thread is find ways to discount the studies when you post them, so I give up.
I see the success I am having as well as many others - mentally and physically.
I just don't see how anyone can rationally say that eating grass fed proteins and fat sources, vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds (maybe occasional dairy or starches) is a pretty ideal way of eating that every human being could benefit from.
They don't go bashing the vegans and vegetarians even though there is more evidence that removing meat from the human way of eating is detrimental to ones' health.
Another reading comprehension fail?
First, when did I bash this diet?
Second if you took time to actually read the OP, I stated
"To preface this, I do think the main idea of eating mostly whole, nutrient dense foods is a good thing to follow, however I am not convinced on the evils of grains, legumes and dairy. Nor am I convinced sugar or processed foods are singularly evil in moderation. "
I don't really believe you started this thread to engage in serious scientific debate. I think your intention was to make people look foolish in attempting to do so as a way to demonstrate that no diet is superior overall.0 -
these links are pertinent because the poster is asking for studies that show the paleo diet is healthy or best or whatever. these studies are showing that the main components of the paleo diet are in fact, HEALTHY! that is why these have substance on this thread. sorry to upset you with scientific facts. also, carbs are not the enemy. carbs are a necessary part of a healthy diet. its where the carbs come from. if they come from sources that quickly spike your blood sugar, then high ammounts of insulin are released and thus fat is stored. what spikes your blood sugar??? starches and sugar!!!! so eat carbs and plenty of them from veggies and nuts and other sources that occur in nature! god you people just dont like facts do you??
Why do you continue to post epidemiological studies? Did you read the OP? BTW you know what is also an epidemiological study, the one that everyone posted about red meat being bad for you.
Now there is one today saying white rice causes diabetes.
Panic!0 -
these links are pertinent because the poster is asking for studies that show the paleo diet is healthy or best or whatever. these studies are showing that the main components of the paleo diet are in fact, HEALTHY! that is why these have substance on this thread. sorry to upset you with scientific facts. also, carbs are not the enemy. carbs are a necessary part of a healthy diet. its where the carbs come from. if they come from sources that quickly spike your blood sugar, then high ammounts of insulin are released and thus fat is stored. what spikes your blood sugar??? starches and sugar!!!! so eat carbs and plenty of them from veggies and nuts and other sources that occur in nature! god you people just dont like facts do you??
I'm not offended or disputing the benefits of a Paleo diet, I'm only saying that its futile to try to win this argument against the OP.
Exactly. All the OP and a couple others that have participated in this thread is find ways to discount the studies when you post them, so I give up.
I see the success I am having as well as many others - mentally and physically.
I just don't see how anyone can rationally say that eating grass fed proteins and fat sources, vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds (maybe occasional dairy or starches) is a pretty ideal way of eating that every human being could benefit from.
They don't go bashing the vegans and vegetarians even though there is more evidence that removing meat from the human way of eating is detrimental to ones' health.
Another reading comprehension fail?
First, when did I bash this diet?
Second if you took time to actually read the OP, I stated
"To preface this, I do think the main idea of eating mostly whole, nutrient dense foods is a good thing to follow, however I am not convinced on the evils of grains, legumes and dairy. Nor am I convinced sugar or processed foods are singularly evil in moderation. "
I don't really believe you started this thread to engage in serious scientific debate. I think your intention was to make people look foolish in attempting to do so as a way to demonstrate that no diet is superior overall.
Now what would make you think that?0 -
I'm not offended or disputing the benefits of a Paleo diet, I'm only saying that its futile to try to win this argument against the OP.
Well I gave up on the thread when I realised that I was wasting precious time arguing against a 'never grown up frat boy' who maintains a bad posture in his photo in order to maximise the appearance of his abs (yes boys...the 'lets hunch up and roll our shoulders thing')
I've decided it's better to let the self-appointed forum gurus and their vacuous bimbo fanclub to get on with it.
(yes, yes, I know someone's going to report me....I don't care)
hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!0 -
exactly. i dont care to get involved really in a debate but when most paleo people say they eat as much as they want...thats what they mean. they eat until they are done. there is no urge to snack and overeat bcause you are getting actual nourishment from the natural foods you are eating. there is no need to measure because your body tells you when it is done. on other diets that are loaded with crap foods with barely any nutrients its easy to over eat because although your calories are high your body is still starving for nutrients.
also, i found a finnish study that determined when a population was given larger ammounts of CLA (a specific lipid) their rates of cancer went down. what has the most dense source of CLA you may ask??? GRASSFED BEEF, which is one of the main components of a true healthy paleo diet. is that enough for you? probably not but good luck sucking on granola bars every two hours because your body is starving for nutrients.
So, basically you're saying that only people who eat Paleo eat grass fed beef? Seriously? You honestly believe that every single person who eats grass fed beef eats a Paleo diet, and that it's impossible for people that don't eat Paleo to eat grass fed beef? That may be the weakest argument I've ever seen.
PEOPLE WHO DON'T EAT A PALEO DIET ARE ALLOWED TO EAT ANY FOODS WE WANT THAT ARE "PALEO APPROVED." It's the Paleo diet that is unnecessarily restrictive on foods with no good basis for doing so. So, picking a random food item that Paleos eat really does not prove in any way how a Paleo diet is superior.0 -
Thats not what i implied at all. what i meant was one of the main tennants of the paleo diet is to eat meat from natural grassfed sources. how you got your interpretation just proves you have no common sense in that fat lacking brain. really? the thing about paleo is that its not about restriction. its not a strict diet like atkins or zone or south beach. its just getting your nourishment from natural sources as much as possible. and i understand not eveeryone on paleo can get those types of meats. because they are pricey and hard to find. myself included. i cant always afford that. but it doesnt mean im restricted. how can a diet thats based on eating whole natural foods cause such controversy???
I think a lot of folks consider Paleo to be extremely restrictive. It's possible I misunderstood the diet (though I do recognize there are different 'templates' for it) but I thought there was a large list of foods that you simply couldn't eat, ever. If it's just about choosing healthier foods and accepting that you might eat the 'bad' stuff from time to time in moderation, I think of that more like 'eating smart' than 'Paleo'. Just my $0.02.0 -
i mean my goodness. eating food with nutrients that are natural and healthy really causes this much of a stir?? i dont get it.0
-
Thats not what i implied at all. what i meant was one of the main tennants of the paleo diet is to eat meat from natural grassfed sources. how you got your interpretation just proves you have no common sense in that fat lacking brain. really? the thing about paleo is that its not about restriction. its not a strict diet like atkins or zone or south beach. its just getting your nourishment from natural sources as much as possible. and i understand not eveeryone on paleo can get those types of meats. because they are pricey and hard to find. myself included. i cant always afford that. but it doesnt mean im restricted. how can a diet thats based on eating whole natural foods cause such controversy???
I think a lot of folks consider Paleo to be extremely restrictive. It's possible I misunderstood the diet (though I do recognize there are different 'templates' for it) but I thought there was a large list of foods that you simply couldn't eat, ever. If it's just about choosing healthier foods and accepting that you might eat the 'bad' stuff from time to time in moderation, I think of that more like 'eating smart' than 'Paleo'. Just my $0.02.
exactly. there are many people who have adopted their take on paleo, but the thing is there really isnt one paleo diet. the true focus is on eating whole natural foods. some people eliminate dairy. i dont. i tend to stick with it about 80% of the time and i allow myself to eat "non-paleo" 20% of the time. i have lost weight and my bloodowrk is excellent. there is no true paleo diet. its just a philosphy that people have misconstrued into this crazy controversy. anyone on paleo will tell you its about eating HEALTHY first and foremost.
i eat cheese and drink milk, i go out, i am a normal 24 year old. but the bulk of my food i try to eat un-processed. how can that be so bad???0 -
i eat cheese and drink milk, i go out, i am a normal 24 year old. but the bulk of my food i try to eat un-processed. how can that be so bad???
And how is that any different than the way a lot of the rest of us who don't identify themselves as paleo eat?
I have some processed foods because it's more cost effective and convenient to buy them rather than make them from scratch. (Such as frozen pizza. I can probably make one from scratch for under the $5 I might spend on one, but I'd have a big pile of dirty dishes instead of a dirty pizza cutter and two plates.) But for the most part... it's meat and veggies, purchased fresh, sometimes frozen. I just add more starch (rice, pasta, potatoes), and as a runner, the extra carbs are used as fuel, and I love adding a some marinades and sauces.0 -
Thats not what i implied at all. what i meant was one of the main tennants of the paleo diet is to eat meat from natural grassfed sources. how you got your interpretation just proves you have no common sense in that fat lacking brain. really? the thing about paleo is that its not about restriction. its not a strict diet like atkins or zone or south beach. its just getting your nourishment from natural sources as much as possible. and i understand not eveeryone on paleo can get those types of meats. because they are pricey and hard to find. myself included. i cant always afford that. but it doesnt mean im restricted. how can a diet thats based on eating whole natural foods cause such controversy???
I think a lot of folks consider Paleo to be extremely restrictive. It's possible I misunderstood the diet (though I do recognize there are different 'templates' for it) but I thought there was a large list of foods that you simply couldn't eat, ever. If it's just about choosing healthier foods and accepting that you might eat the 'bad' stuff from time to time in moderation, I think of that more like 'eating smart' than 'Paleo'. Just my $0.02.
exactly. there are many people who have adopted their take on paleo, but the thing is there really isnt one paleo diet. the true focus is on eating whole natural foods. some people eliminate dairy. i dont. i tend to stick with it about 80% of the time and i allow myself to eat "non-paleo" 20% of the time. i have lost weight and my bloodowrk is excellent. there is no true paleo diet. its just a philosphy that people have misconstrued into this crazy controversy. anyone on paleo will tell you its about eating HEALTHY first and foremost.
i eat cheese and drink milk, i go out, i am a normal 24 year old. but the bulk of my food i try to eat un-processed. how can that be so bad???
Who said it was bad?0 -
Thats not what i implied at all. what i meant was one of the main tennants of the paleo diet is to eat meat from natural grassfed sources. how you got your interpretation just proves you have no common sense in that fat lacking brain. really? the thing about paleo is that its not about restriction. its not a strict diet like atkins or zone or south beach. its just getting your nourishment from natural sources as much as possible. and i understand not eveeryone on paleo can get those types of meats. because they are pricey and hard to find. myself included. i cant always afford that. but it doesnt mean im restricted. how can a diet thats based on eating whole natural foods cause such controversy???
I think a lot of folks consider Paleo to be extremely restrictive. It's possible I misunderstood the diet (though I do recognize there are different 'templates' for it) but I thought there was a large list of foods that you simply couldn't eat, ever. If it's just about choosing healthier foods and accepting that you might eat the 'bad' stuff from time to time in moderation, I think of that more like 'eating smart' than 'Paleo'. Just my $0.02.
exactly. there are many people who have adopted their take on paleo, but the thing is there really isnt one paleo diet. the true focus is on eating whole natural foods. some people eliminate dairy. i dont. i tend to stick with it about 80% of the time and i allow myself to eat "non-paleo" 20% of the time. i have lost weight and my bloodowrk is excellent. there is no true paleo diet. its just a philosphy that people have misconstrued into this crazy controversy. anyone on paleo will tell you its about eating HEALTHY first and foremost.
i eat cheese and drink milk, i go out, i am a normal 24 year old. but the bulk of my food i try to eat un-processed. how can that be so bad???
From Acg's original post, you are abiding by exactly what he claimed should be equivalent to 'true Paleo' (I'm just using the term to reference complete restrictiveness with no cheats). You're getting good nutrition from whole food sources, and are having good results with that, but also allow yourself 'cheats' in moderation.
Perhaps it's just because the most extreme in everything tend to be louder, but my impression of Paleo was of one that was a great deal more restrictive.0 -
oh you're clear all right, you tried to relate your eating 8 pounds of meat to being paleo, and it's not even close. I guessing you realize this, and this is the reason you won't tell us what else you ate during this period. Paleo isn't just one meal, it's a lifestyle.
*sigh
I was making a point that it's possible to overeat even on Paleo, which you admitted was true. I wasn't trying to say I was eating Paleo or that I follow that diet, just that it could be done under the 'Paleo' constraint. As I had already mentioned, it's very common to hear someone say 'and I can eat as much as I want and still lose weight' regarding their diet which is bogus.
It's possible to overeat on any diet, depending on the person it may be harder to do on certain diets than others, but it's still possible. Whatever lifestyle you're living doesn't change the law of thermodynamics. Whether you're on Paleo, or the cabbage soup diet, or HCG, or whatever weird crap you can think up, calories are STILL a concern, period. Even if you personally don't count calories, they still matter and will dictate whether you lose weight, stay the same, or gain weight.
That was my WHOLE point. I gave a scenario where, for a given meal, it was possible to overeat and stay within the Paleo paradigm. Would I eat that same meal every single day forever? No, but there are scenarios where you can consume an excess of calories while on the Paleo diet. Doing that too often would result in weight gain. If you eat too many calories, you will gain weight, regardless of if those calories happen to come from a food source that make you feel good about yourself or not. That's IT. I'm not wrong in that regard. You really didn't get my point.
You've claimed studies that Paleo is superior, but won't stand by to them being scrutinized. You claim anecdotal evidence as the basis for your argument, but can't get across the simple question: Given comparable caloric and nutritional intake, is a strictly-Paleo diet better than other dieting tactics?
That isn't a hit job on Paleo. It simply gives people more options. If there is no measurable difference between Paleo and other dieting techniques, someone who really likes foods that are disallowed by the Paleo paradigm could opt for a different diet that has the same nutritional merit. If they can give up those foods, they might choose Paleo if they find fewer issues with hunger, for example.
You're fixating on minor points and making large assumptions about other's intentions without actually getting clarification from them. I honestly have nothing against Paleo, I just think it's as good as other diet paradigms rather than the best of all of them. What is extremely aggravating is to say the same thing over and over and OVER and still have the point missed.
If you really want to know what I ate fine: I had a diet extremely heavy in meat. Beef, pork, fish, and chicken was easily 60% of my calorie intake, if not more. After that bread and cheese took up the large majority. Following that was fruits, then junk food like ice cream and alcohol and candy, and lastly vegetables. I recognize it was an unhealthy diet, but to say it wasn't the meat's fault is completely missing the point I was trying to make.
Here we go. The classic strawman used against low-carbers, that we all believe you cannot gain weight on a low-carb diet because calories don't matter. Nobody who has spent enough time researching the diet actually believes that. What we ALWAYS mean when we say "eat as much as you want", is that you can eat to "satiety" and it will still lead to a caloric deficit. I don't know why this is an unimportant benefit for anyone who wants to lose weight.
I've always believed the key to weight loss is managing appetite, not manual calorie intervention. Appetite controls calories which control weight loss. You don't want to leave your appetite unsatisfied by artificially reducing calories, otherwise you will eventually cave in.
So what if you want to bulk and put on weight? By default you are saying doing Paleo wouldn't work because you will be full and still in a deficit, and you cannot add lean muscle mass while in a deficit.0 -
oh you're clear all right, you tried to relate your eating 8 pounds of meat to being paleo, and it's not even close. I guessing you realize this, and this is the reason you won't tell us what else you ate during this period. Paleo isn't just one meal, it's a lifestyle.
*sigh
I was making a point that it's possible to overeat even on Paleo, which you admitted was true. I wasn't trying to say I was eating Paleo or that I follow that diet, just that it could be done under the 'Paleo' constraint. As I had already mentioned, it's very common to hear someone say 'and I can eat as much as I want and still lose weight' regarding their diet which is bogus.
It's possible to overeat on any diet, depending on the person it may be harder to do on certain diets than others, but it's still possible. Whatever lifestyle you're living doesn't change the law of thermodynamics. Whether you're on Paleo, or the cabbage soup diet, or HCG, or whatever weird crap you can think up, calories are STILL a concern, period. Even if you personally don't count calories, they still matter and will dictate whether you lose weight, stay the same, or gain weight.
That was my WHOLE point. I gave a scenario where, for a given meal, it was possible to overeat and stay within the Paleo paradigm. Would I eat that same meal every single day forever? No, but there are scenarios where you can consume an excess of calories while on the Paleo diet. Doing that too often would result in weight gain. If you eat too many calories, you will gain weight, regardless of if those calories happen to come from a food source that make you feel good about yourself or not. That's IT. I'm not wrong in that regard. You really didn't get my point.
You've claimed studies that Paleo is superior, but won't stand by to them being scrutinized. You claim anecdotal evidence as the basis for your argument, but can't get across the simple question: Given comparable caloric and nutritional intake, is a strictly-Paleo diet better than other dieting tactics?
That isn't a hit job on Paleo. It simply gives people more options. If there is no measurable difference between Paleo and other dieting techniques, someone who really likes foods that are disallowed by the Paleo paradigm could opt for a different diet that has the same nutritional merit. If they can give up those foods, they might choose Paleo if they find fewer issues with hunger, for example.
You're fixating on minor points and making large assumptions about other's intentions without actually getting clarification from them. I honestly have nothing against Paleo, I just think it's as good as other diet paradigms rather than the best of all of them. What is extremely aggravating is to say the same thing over and over and OVER and still have the point missed.
If you really want to know what I ate fine: I had a diet extremely heavy in meat. Beef, pork, fish, and chicken was easily 60% of my calorie intake, if not more. After that bread and cheese took up the large majority. Following that was fruits, then junk food like ice cream and alcohol and candy, and lastly vegetables. I recognize it was an unhealthy diet, but to say it wasn't the meat's fault is completely missing the point I was trying to make.
Here we go. The classic strawman used against low-carbers, that we all believe you cannot gain weight on a low-carb diet because calories don't matter. Nobody who has spent enough time researching the diet actually believes that. What we ALWAYS mean when we say "eat as much as you want", is that you can eat to "satiety" and it will still lead to a caloric deficit. I don't know why this is an unimportant benefit for anyone who wants to lose weight.
I've always believed the key to weight loss is managing appetite, not manual calorie intervention. Appetite controls calories which control weight loss. You don't want to leave your appetite unsatisfied by artificially reducing calories, otherwise you will eventually cave in.
So what if you want to bulk and put on weight? You are saying doing Paleo wouldn't work because you will be full and still in a deficit, and you cannot add lean muscle mass while in a deficit.
bulking up is unnatural, therefore it would require unnatural dietary intervention. Besides, you could even on Paleo manually overeat and create a surplus, but its not as easy as if you eat other kinds of foods.0 -
Well its a good thing you were able to educate yourself on the subject. I shouldn't have used the term "bad" in my other post. I mean controversial. Why all the controversy over something that focuses on un-processed natural food?0
-
0
-
Haven't read the whole thread but from what I've read on this and other threads is that some Paleo people seem to think that we should all eat this way and preach that all grains are bad. So, this open up the debate/controversy. For the most part, people really don't care what others eat.Well its a good thing you were able to educate yourself on the subject. I shouldn't have used the term "bad" in my other post. I mean controversial. Why all the controversy over something that focuses on un-processed natural food?0 -
these links are pertinent because the poster is asking for studies that show the paleo diet is healthy or best or whatever. these studies are showing that the main components of the paleo diet are in fact, HEALTHY! that is why these have substance on this thread. sorry to upset you with scientific facts. also, carbs are not the enemy. carbs are a necessary part of a healthy diet. its where the carbs come from. if they come from sources that quickly spike your blood sugar, then high ammounts of insulin are released and thus fat is stored. what spikes your blood sugar??? starches and sugar!!!! so eat carbs and plenty of them from veggies and nuts and other sources that occur in nature! god you people just dont like facts do you??
I'm not offended or disputing the benefits of a Paleo diet, I'm only saying that its futile to try to win this argument against the OP.
Exactly. All the OP and a couple others that have participated in this thread is find ways to discount the studies when you post them, so I give up.
I see the success I am having as well as many others - mentally and physically.
I just don't see how anyone can rationally say that eating grass fed proteins and fat sources, vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds (maybe occasional dairy or starches) is a pretty ideal way of eating that every human being could benefit from.
They don't go bashing the vegans and vegetarians even though there is more evidence that removing meat from the human way of eating is detrimental to ones' health.
Another reading comprehension fail?
First, when did I bash this diet?
Second if you took time to actually read the OP, I stated
"To preface this, I do think the main idea of eating mostly whole, nutrient dense foods is a good thing to follow, however I am not convinced on the evils of grains, legumes and dairy. Nor am I convinced sugar or processed foods are singularly evil in moderation. "
So smoking in "moderation" isn't harmful? It's not about the initial consequences, it's about the consequences over time. Why would you put unnecessary stress on a system if it's not beneficial?
And how long have humans been eating grains, legumes, dairy and sugar?0 -
oh you're clear all right, you tried to relate your eating 8 pounds of meat to being paleo, and it's not even close. I guessing you realize this, and this is the reason you won't tell us what else you ate during this period. Paleo isn't just one meal, it's a lifestyle.
*sigh
I was making a point that it's possible to overeat even on Paleo, which you admitted was true. I wasn't trying to say I was eating Paleo or that I follow that diet, just that it could be done under the 'Paleo' constraint. As I had already mentioned, it's very common to hear someone say 'and I can eat as much as I want and still lose weight' regarding their diet which is bogus.
It's possible to overeat on any diet, depending on the person it may be harder to do on certain diets than others, but it's still possible. Whatever lifestyle you're living doesn't change the law of thermodynamics. Whether you're on Paleo, or the cabbage soup diet, or HCG, or whatever weird crap you can think up, calories are STILL a concern, period. Even if you personally don't count calories, they still matter and will dictate whether you lose weight, stay the same, or gain weight.
That was my WHOLE point. I gave a scenario where, for a given meal, it was possible to overeat and stay within the Paleo paradigm. Would I eat that same meal every single day forever? No, but there are scenarios where you can consume an excess of calories while on the Paleo diet. Doing that too often would result in weight gain. If you eat too many calories, you will gain weight, regardless of if those calories happen to come from a food source that make you feel good about yourself or not. That's IT. I'm not wrong in that regard. You really didn't get my point.
You've claimed studies that Paleo is superior, but won't stand by to them being scrutinized. You claim anecdotal evidence as the basis for your argument, but can't get across the simple question: Given comparable caloric and nutritional intake, is a strictly-Paleo diet better than other dieting tactics?
That isn't a hit job on Paleo. It simply gives people more options. If there is no measurable difference between Paleo and other dieting techniques, someone who really likes foods that are disallowed by the Paleo paradigm could opt for a different diet that has the same nutritional merit. If they can give up those foods, they might choose Paleo if they find fewer issues with hunger, for example.
You're fixating on minor points and making large assumptions about other's intentions without actually getting clarification from them. I honestly have nothing against Paleo, I just think it's as good as other diet paradigms rather than the best of all of them. What is extremely aggravating is to say the same thing over and over and OVER and still have the point missed.
If you really want to know what I ate fine: I had a diet extremely heavy in meat. Beef, pork, fish, and chicken was easily 60% of my calorie intake, if not more. After that bread and cheese took up the large majority. Following that was fruits, then junk food like ice cream and alcohol and candy, and lastly vegetables. I recognize it was an unhealthy diet, but to say it wasn't the meat's fault is completely missing the point I was trying to make.
Here we go. The classic strawman used against low-carbers, that we all believe you cannot gain weight on a low-carb diet because calories don't matter. Nobody who has spent enough time researching the diet actually believes that. What we ALWAYS mean when we say "eat as much as you want", is that you can eat to "satiety" and it will still lead to a caloric deficit. I don't know why this is an unimportant benefit for anyone who wants to lose weight.
I've always believed the key to weight loss is managing appetite, not manual calorie intervention. Appetite controls calories which control weight loss. You don't want to leave your appetite unsatisfied by artificially reducing calories, otherwise you will eventually cave in.
So what if you want to bulk and put on weight? You are saying doing Paleo wouldn't work because you will be full and still in a deficit, and you cannot add lean muscle mass while in a deficit.
bulking up is unnatural, therefore it would require unnatural dietary intervention. Besides, you could even on Paleo manually overeat and create a surplus, but its not as easy as if you eat other kinds of foods.
Wouldn't losing weight be just as in not more unnatural then gaining? For losing weight to be healthy, you would have had to gain at some point, or you wouldn't have fat to lose. Shouldn't the goal be to be to ingest at maintenance levels, and be hungry if under and overfull if over? I also though back in Paleo times that people gained weight when food was available and lost when it was scarce.0 -
So smoking in "moderation" isn't harmful? It's not about the initial consequences, it's about the consequences over time. Why would you put unnecessary stress on a system if it's not beneficial?
And that would be precisely the restrictiveness I was referring to.0 -
Haven't read the whole thread but from what I've read on this and other threads is that some Paleo people seem to think that we should all eat this way and preach that all grains are bad. So, this open up the debate/controversy. For the most part, people really don't care what others eat.Well its a good thing you were able to educate yourself on the subject. I shouldn't have used the term "bad" in my other post. I mean controversial. Why all the controversy over something that focuses on un-processed natural food?
There is no shortage of people saying you *need* to eat lots of carbs, or that it is *unnecessary* to cut them. Its really not up to them to determine what is needed or what is necessary without knowing about the individual person's health. So it goes both ways. Personally I've witnessed more people discouraging low-carb dieting than people actually promoting Paleo dieting.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions