Oh yes.. the Paleo diet ...

weathergirl320

Notice how when the thread was mostly paleo supporters and some intelligent people with things to contribute, there was no negativity and lots of support for the op. Then it got hijacked and all the anti paleo turned this into a negative nasty insulting thread. And the paleo people are supposed to be the zealots. Seems like the grain lovers get a little touchy when someone says the truth about their beloved crack...er I mean grains. Interesting.

Seriously? You believe that? Seems to me like everyone was saying, "It's a great way to eat for those who shouldn't eat grains or dairy." It only got fuzzy when the people who think it's the ONLY way to eat started posting.

I mean... you yourself said you're not strict with it, and from what you say, it sounds as though you wouldn't avoid grains if you didn't have tolerance issues. So why should those who don't have issues avoid it?

Well I only have a diagnosed intolorance to gluten. When I found out I could easily get all types of gluten free products. But a choco chip cookie made with wheat flour vs rice flour is still a cookie. Not necessarily more nutritious. So Thats what led me to eliminate "all" grains. Because I could eat rice and potatoes and gluten free stuff to my hearts content but that wouldn't help me in the ways of losing weight. And believe me I tried the "normal" way. Counting calories endlessly, working out like a hamster on a treadmill the works. I gained and gained until I cut grains and legumes. But I am sure cutting the wheat contributed at least somewhat to the weight loss.

LabRat529

Well let's talk this calorie in vs. calorie out thing. We've got people suggesting that a diet high in fat and/or high in protein but equal in calories to a diet high in carbs will make you lose weight even in the absence of a calorie deficit. That is the premise, right? I'm understanding the claim correctly?

If that is true, can you explain to me where the energy goes? Calories are just a measure of energy, after all. So how does it work?

If I burn 2000 calories a day and I eat 2500 calories a day of mostly protein and fat... and I LOSE weight... where do the surplus calories go? Where does the surplus energy go? You're saying it doesn't get stored as fat... and you can't claim it's lost in heat because that's "burning calories" just as much as exercising/living is... so where does it go?

Do you see my problem? Calories are JUST a measure of energy.

So if what people are saying is really true and I can lose weight while eating paleo even without a calorie deficit, I have one of two logically possible ways to explain what is happening:

1) I'm not digesting the food- aka I'm pooping it out without the nutrients actually entering my system.

2) I'm somehow not extracting the available calories from my food. If a gram of protein is 4 calories... perhaps I'm only extracting 3.5 of those calories? After all, calories ARE measured/estimated in food content before it's eaten, so maybe scientists are wrong. Maybe protein is 4 grams of calories in the lab, but the body only "sees" 3.5 calories.

I could believe either or both of the two possible explanations above.... but even if they are true (and I've seen no scientific evidence to suggest that they are really true... or at least that they're true enough to make a big difference in weightless)... you still must have a net calorie deficit to lose weight. If you're eating 2500 calories, but you're body only can use 1800 calories and you're burning 2000 calories... there's your deficit.

But the deficit has to be there.

spngebobmyhero

I have had great success with the paleo diet, but I am more on the primal side of things because I eat some dairy. Eating grain free makes my stomach feel better, gives me more energy, and helps me eat better foods.

I would check out the forum over at Mark's Daily Apple if you are looking for successes and failures. There are lots of people over there with varying success rates. You could also check out the Weston A Price dietary guidelines, which are not completely grain free in case that is your hold up about Paleo.

funkycamper

Paleo is okay for diabetics, Atkins, however, is not. High fat is incredibly bad for diabetics, as they have issues with processing it too. Especially saturated fats as in Atkins. Just FYI!

I don't believe this is true at all. As a diabetic, I've done Atkins at induction levels and then moved up the carb ladder to where I now eat about 80-100 grams/day of carbs and I don't monitor my fats at all. Some days I eat a bunch of fat, some days not, just depends on my food choices that day. I have most excellent lipids, etc. High HDL, low LDL, etc. And I know of many diabetics eating low-carb/high-fat who have had the same results.

It may be true for some diabetics in particular and some people in general but I don't think it's as common in diabetics as you think it is.

weathergirl320

Well let's talk this calorie in vs. calorie out thing. We've got people suggesting that a diet high in fat and/or high in protein but equal in calories to a diet high in carbs will make you lose weight even in the absence of a calorie deficit. That is the premise, right? I'm understanding the claim correctly?

If that is true, can you explain to me where the energy goes? Calories are just a measure of energy, after all. So how does it work?

If I burn 2000 calories a day and I eat 2500 calories a day of mostly protein and fat... and I LOSE weight... where do the surplus calories go? Where does the surplus energy go? You're saying it doesn't get stored as fat... and you can't claim it's lost in heat because that's "burning calories" just as much as exercising/living is... so where does it go?

Do you see my problem? Calories are JUST a measure of energy.

So if what people are saying is really true and I can lose weight while eating paleo even without a calorie deficit, I have one of two logically possible ways to explain what is happening:

1) I'm not digesting the food- aka I'm pooping it out without the nutrients actually entering my system.

2) I'm somehow not extracting the available calories from my food. If a gram of protein is 4 calories... perhaps I'm only extracting 3.5 of those calories? After all, calories ARE measured/estimated in food content before it's eaten, so maybe scientists are wrong. Maybe protein is 4 grams of calories in the lab, but the body only "sees" 3.5 calories.

I could believe either or both of the two possible explanations above.... but even if they are true (and I've seen no scientific evidence to suggest that they are really true... or at least that they're true enough to make a big difference in weightless)... you still must have a net calorie deficit to lose weight. If you're eating 2500 calories, but you're body only can use 1800 calories and you're burning 2000 calories... there's your deficit.

But the deficit has to be there.

I totally get the confusion. I really can't answer that because I honestly don't know. The only thing I can go by is what I notice in my body. And that is hardly scientific proof. Also lots and lots of people who do the diet can attest to this as well but again Thats not proof the reason I feel so strongly about it is because I tried so hard for so long with no results and then one month of eating this way and my body saw progress that took me 7 years and 50 lbs to attain.

digitalsteel

Well let's talk this calorie in vs. calorie out thing. We've got people suggesting that a diet high in fat and/or high in protein but equal in calories to a diet high in carbs will make you lose weight even in the absence of a calorie deficit. That is the premise, right? I'm understanding the claim correctly?

If that is true, can you explain to me where the energy goes? Calories are just a measure of energy, after all. So how does it work?

If I burn 2000 calories a day and I eat 2500 calories a day of mostly protein and fat... and I LOSE weight... where do the surplus calories go? Where does the surplus energy go? You're saying it doesn't get stored as fat... and you can't claim it's lost in heat because that's "burning calories" just as much as exercising/living is... so where does it go?

Do you see my problem? Calories are JUST a measure of energy.

So if what people are saying is really true and I can lose weight while eating paleo even without a calorie deficit, I have one of two logically possible ways to explain what is happening:

1) I'm not digesting the food- aka I'm pooping it out without the nutrients actually entering my system.

2) I'm somehow not extracting the available calories from my food. If a gram of protein is 4 calories... perhaps I'm only extracting 3.5 of those calories? After all, calories ARE measured/estimated in food content before it's eaten, so maybe scientists are wrong. Maybe protein is 4 grams of calories in the lab, but the body only "sees" 3.5 calories.

I could believe either or both of the two possible explanations above.... but even if they are true (and I've seen no scientific evidence to suggest that they are really true... or at least that they're true enough to make a big difference in weightless)... you still must have a net calorie deficit to lose weight. If you're eating 2500 calories, but you're body only can use 1800 calories and you're burning 2000 calories... there's your deficit.

But the deficit has to be there.

You make a good point, perhaps I am miss-thinking it. What if I where say I think removing grains and refined sugars from the diet prevents your body from demanding more calories than you need via a feeling of hunger. That seems to be a more accurate portrayal of what happens to me.

Acg67

Well let's talk this calorie in vs. calorie out thing. We've got people suggesting that a diet high in fat and/or high in protein but equal in calories to a diet high in carbs will make you lose weight even in the absence of a calorie deficit. That is the premise, right? I'm understanding the claim correctly?

If that is true, can you explain to me where the energy goes? Calories are just a measure of energy, after all. So how does it work?

If I burn 2000 calories a day and I eat 2500 calories a day of mostly protein and fat... and I LOSE weight... where do the surplus calories go? Where does the surplus energy go? You're saying it doesn't get stored as fat... and you can't claim it's lost in heat because that's "burning calories" just as much as exercising/living is... so where does it go?

Do you see my problem? Calories are JUST a measure of energy.

So if what people are saying is really true and I can lose weight while eating paleo even without a calorie deficit, I have one of two logically possible ways to explain what is happening:

1) I'm not digesting the food- aka I'm pooping it out without the nutrients actually entering my system.

2) I'm somehow not extracting the available calories from my food. If a gram of protein is 4 calories... perhaps I'm only extracting 3.5 of those calories? After all, calories ARE measured/estimated in food content before it's eaten, so maybe scientists are wrong. Maybe protein is 4 grams of calories in the lab, but the body only "sees" 3.5 calories.

I could believe either or both of the two possible explanations above.... but even if they are true (and I've seen no scientific evidence to suggest that they are really true... or at least that they're true enough to make a big difference in weightless)... you still must have a net calorie deficit to lose weight. If you're eating 2500 calories, but you're body only can use 1800 calories and you're burning 2000 calories... there's your deficit.

But the deficit has to be there.

You make a good point, perhaps I am miss-thinking it. What if I where say I think removing grains and refined sugars from the diet prevents your body from demanding more calories than you need via a feeling of hunger. That seems to be a more accurate portrayal of what happens to me.

Increased satiety from higher protein/fat intakes is quite a bit different then a metabolic advantage due to lower carb intake

twinmom01

Well let's talk this calorie in vs. calorie out thing. We've got people suggesting that a diet high in fat and/or high in protein but equal in calories to a diet high in carbs will make you lose weight even in the absence of a calorie deficit. That is the premise, right? I'm understanding the claim correctly?

If that is true, can you explain to me where the energy goes? Calories are just a measure of energy, after all. So how does it work?

If I burn 2000 calories a day and I eat 2500 calories a day of mostly protein and fat... and I LOSE weight... where do the surplus calories go? Where does the surplus energy go? You're saying it doesn't get stored as fat... and you can't claim it's lost in heat because that's "burning calories" just as much as exercising/living is... so where does it go?

Do you see my problem? Calories are JUST a measure of energy.

So if what people are saying is really true and I can lose weight while eating paleo even without a calorie deficit, I have one of two logically possible ways to explain what is happening:

1) I'm not digesting the food- aka I'm pooping it out without the nutrients actually entering my system.

2) I'm somehow not extracting the available calories from my food. If a gram of protein is 4 calories... perhaps I'm only extracting 3.5 of those calories? After all, calories ARE measured/estimated in food content before it's eaten, so maybe scientists are wrong. Maybe protein is 4 grams of calories in the lab, but the body only "sees" 3.5 calories.

I could believe either or both of the two possible explanations above.... but even if they are true (and I've seen no scientific evidence to suggest that they are really true... or at least that they're true enough to make a big difference in weightless)... you still must have a net calorie deficit to lose weight. If you're eating 2500 calories, but you're body only can use 1800 calories and you're burning 2000 calories... there's your deficit.

But the deficit has to be there.

No the claim is not you can eat all you want with a disregard for calories on the Paleo lifestyle IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR WEIGHT LOSS...I know I have found that by eating higher fat/protien i stay fuller longer and therefore am not hungry so I don't munch which means less calories taken in...but part of that is listening to your body and knowing when you are hungry vs just eating for the hell of it (which you can do on a Paleo lifestyle)

yes the general scientific rule is if you expell more energy then you consume there will be a net loss...if everything was mechanical that is the way it should work...

however there are a million little things that play into it...especially for a human being...the first and foremost being your BMR - everyone's is different and the only way to have it truely tested is to go to a Dr. - the BMR on sites like MFP are manucatured from a mathmatical equation and may not be true...

for example if MFP calculates my BMR is 1900 then it calculates how much I should eat a day calorie wise to eat in a deficit in order to loose say 1 lb a week...

In reality my BMR maybe something like 1600 and not 1900...so the calculations aren't going to work for me...

your BMR can be effected by all sorts of things...how much lean muscle mass you have, how active you are, what medications you take - all these things can affect your BMR and ultimately your weight loss goals...

I know for me PERSONALLY once I took out grains and beans (I wasn't a big bean eater anyway - so mainly grains) eating the SAME calorie's over the period of a week - I saw greater losses with the removal of the grains (1 lbs pre week vs maybe 2 lbs a month)...BTW as I have said before PALEO is not Low Carb - however, people who eat the lifestyle will have a tendancy to have lower carbs in their overall diet. I know I did watch my carbs as well over the past few weeks....

To ME I attribute my body ramping up and loosing a lb a week to the reduction of carbs - not neccesarily Paleo per se - BUT the thing is if one wants to restrict carbs one pretty much would have to remove grain sources - so for me that winds back up at basically eating a Paleo lifestyle - which if I wanted to go all whole hog and eat a bunch of fruit I would ramp my carbs back up and probably stall out on my weight loss...because apparently my body does better on lower carbs...not necessarily lower calories....i.e. if I have lower carbs I can eat more calories and still lose some weight...

Going back to the BMR - all these things play together - it could be my body reacts a lot better to eating tons of fats and protiens and very little carbs and than in turn boosts my BMR which in turns allows me to burn calories more efficiently...as it is the NUTRIENTS in our food as well as what other things we put in our body that can vastly affect how we gain or loose weight...think about certain prescriptions that cause people to gain weight...they are eating the same things they ate before but with the introduction of a chemical druig into their system - their system slows down and doesn't burn the intake at the same levels as before...

Acg67

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

meeulk

bump

ArroganceInStep

twinmom01 and weathergirl32, in the same way you probably feel misunderstood by 'anti-Paleo' people I think you may be misinterpreting what a lot of these folks are saying. Paleo, even strict Paleo with no cheating, is fine as a diet (or lifestyle, whatever you want to call it). Eating whole and nutrient dense foods is good for you, certainly better than eating junk processed crap. I do honestly think that someone following the Paleo diet is following a nutritionally sound plan. I try to eat foods on the Paleo "do-list" (I'm making that term up, and I know that what people do and don't eat varies depending on the person, I'm just trying to make a point) far more often than the "don't list". I'm a bread and rice FIEND, and try to limit my intake of those items to keep my overall calorie count low while I'm losing. The primary reason why I don't align my views with Paleo is that I don't believe bread and rice (I'm just naming those, I know there's more to it than that) are inherently bad for me. What's bad is that they are so f***ing delicious I want to eat bunches and bunches.

There are two types of comments that often come up that I take issue with:

1) On Paleo you don't need to count calories!

---

If you don't need to actively count calories on a diet that's great for you, but I feel it's misinformation to say as much to others. For a lot of people (myself included) overeating is psychological, and doesn't get fixed just because your diet changes. Regardless of diet, at least initially, it is still important to count calories and confirm that you're on track. Touting increased satiety is a much better means of communicating that (in my opinion)

2) Paleo is a better diet than [insert whatever diet you're on]

---

If you're on a diet long term, I would hope it was because you thought it was the best one out there, or at least the one that works best for you. However there are no studies showing that eating strictly Paleo is better than eating some other balanced diet (assuming calories and nutrients remain constant). It may be easier to get your nutritional requirements in on the Paleo diet, and it may be easier to control hunger with it, but that doesn't make it 'better'. That's not to say that Paleo is bad, I do believe it's a very healthy lifestyle. I just don't think it's "healthier" or "better" than my own.

twinmom01

twinmom01 and weathergirl32, in the same way you probably feel misunderstood by 'anti-Paleo' people I think you may be misinterpreting what a lot of these folks are saying. Paleo, even strict Paleo with no cheating, is fine as a diet (or lifestyle, whatever you want to call it). Eating whole and nutrient dense foods is good for you, certainly better than eating junk processed crap. I do honestly think that someone following the Paleo diet is following a nutritionally sound plan. I try to eat foods on the Paleo "do-list" (I'm making that term up, and I know that what people do and don't eat varies depending on the person, I'm just trying to make a point) far more often than the "don't list". I'm a bread and rice FIEND, and try to limit my intake of those items to keep my overall calorie count low while I'm losing. The primary reason why I don't align my views with Paleo is that I don't believe bread and rice (I'm just naming those, I know there's more to it than that) are inherently bad for me. What's bad is that they are so f***ing delicious I want to eat bunches and bunches.

There are two types of comments that often come up that I take issue with:

1) On Paleo you don't need to count calories!

---

If you don't need to actively count calories on a diet that's great for you, but I feel it's misinformation to say as much to others. For a lot of people (myself included) overeating is psychological, and doesn't get fixed just because your diet changes. Regardless of diet, at least initially, it is still important to count calories and confirm that you're on track. Touting increased satiety is a much better means of communicating that (in my opinion)

2) Paleo is a better diet than [insert whatever diet you're on]

---

If you're on a diet long term, I would hope it was because you thought it was the best one out there, or at least the one that works best for you. However there are no studies showing that eating strictly Paleo is better than eating some other balanced diet (assuming calories and nutrients remain constant). It may be easier to get your nutritional requirements in on the Paleo diet, and it may be easier to control hunger with it, but that doesn't make it 'better'. That's not to say that Paleo is bad, I do believe it's a very healthy lifestyle. I just don't think it's "healthier" or "better" than my own.

I agree with you - and I am very quick to point out that everyone is different so what works for me may not work for someone else...

In the same vein though I have really lessened what i say on a non Paleo thread...I believe if you go back through things I have posted on other Paleo threads I do my best to dispell myths that people have about Paleo...i.e. linking it to Atkins or South Beach...or stating it's Low Carb...

I know for me personally this has been a journey going on for 2 years...during that time I have read a lot of diet, nutrition, exercise and have come up with something that works for me....

So because of that I feel like when someone blasts the way i eat because I choose to remove certain food groups from the way i eat and tell me I am somehow wrong about the way i eat it sort of raises my hackels and i feel like I have to defend myself - now not everyone does it...and I commend you for being open and asking questions and not linking to some article about how you need carbs and bread isnt' bad...because I don't think it is...it's not evil...heck I feed it to my kids...all I know is I have found a way - after struggling for a year a half - that works for me...

I know personally in the past when people post topics about how they are struggling and they are watching thier calories and measuring their food and exercising and still not seeing any results and why should they bother...my heart goes out to them because i have been that person and as much as I would love to go and write - hey why don't you try cutting out the bulk of your carb sources - I have learned when i do that I basically get called out and then it divulges into a thread with people putting pictures of bread with knives with the caption "Evil Carbs" (yes this has happened) and chastizing and saying Carbs aren't bad...(which BTW there are numerous studies that have shown lower carbs = weight loss - but as with any study - it is mostly mathmatical numbers that can be bent to show an desired outcome)

As far as your two things you mentioned...i.e. counting calories....I agree some people can mistake that...it's a broad spectrum of saying you dont' have to count calories vs....you eat what you want within moderation...with the understanding that if you are eating under the guidelines the fats will keep you saitated so you don't overeat and therefore you won't have higher calories. I have friends who eat the Paleo way and they don't bother counting calories because they aren't looking to loose or gain weight so the overall calorie intake is negliagable to them. I however am looking to loose weight WHILE eating a paleo lifestyle - so I have to keep track so I have a decent idea

My diet is better than your diet thing...I know there are some hard core people out there that will defend it...I am the first to say - if what you are doing is working for you then keep truckin'...if that means eating grains then go for it...