Paleo -- ur doin it wrong.

jdgarrett22

IMHO Paleo is 1)too meat heavy (it doesn't make sense that ancient people were able to get meat in the volumes that we can) and 2)is not necessarily good for someone who is a casual dieter.

I can see how it SUPER helps crossfitters, but I found that, while I was eating "cleaner" I didn't lose any weight. Most paleo enthusiasts I know don't advocate for tracking calories. Even if it's clean food, too much will add weight if you're output doesn't match.

My husband and I have been eating this way for 16 days and even though it is "meat heavy" we have lost weight. My husband in particular (who is eating a "crazy" amount of steak and chicken) has lost 16lbs. A pound a day! This diet is really a lifestyle change and we see it as more of a life away from all the processed crap and man-made food that is pushed on us daily rather than "going back to what our ancestors ate".

I would recommend that every once in awhile you have your cholesterol checked.

joannea1988

bump want to read later

Marll

IMHO Paleo is 1)too meat heavy (it doesn't make sense that ancient people were able to get meat in the volumes that we can) and 2)is not necessarily good for someone who is a casual dieter.

I can see how it SUPER helps crossfitters, but I found that, while I was eating "cleaner" I didn't lose any weight. Most paleo enthusiasts I know don't advocate for tracking calories. Even if it's clean food, too much will add weight if you're output doesn't match.

My husband and I have been eating this way for 16 days and even though it is "meat heavy" we have lost weight. My husband in particular (who is eating a "crazy" amount of steak and chicken) has lost 16lbs. A pound a day! This diet is really a lifestyle change and we see it as more of a life away from all the processed crap and man-made food that is pushed on us daily rather than "going back to what our ancestors ate".

I would recommend that every once in awhile you have your cholesterol checked.

Agreed, you'll see a great improvement in your cholesterol numbers!

beckajw

That being said, yes from an anthropological standpoint, our bodies are geared to eat fruits, veggies, and some meats. We are not evolutionarily far enough from that time for our bodies to have evolved to this new manner of eating...in other means…a diet true to our evolution would avoid all processed or man-made foods like bread, potato chips, fries..... Diabetes is the result of our human bodies being unable to process refined sugar. There is even references to "sweet urine" in ancient Egypt... Many of our common illnesses are the results of how we eat and the lifestyles we lead.

Therefore we should eat fruits, veggies, nuts, roots, meats, unrefined oils,....(now if I could just listen to what I just said...laughs...gotta have my chocolate and wine:laugh:

I was all about everything you were saying until you said that "Diabetes is the result of our human bodies being unable to process refined sugar." While it is true that a diabetic cannot properly use sugar, it's not refined sugar that caused the problem. It's not merely refined sugar that causes blood sugar in a Type 1 diabetic to rise. Type 1 diabetes is CAUSED by an immune deficiency in which your immune system attacks the insulin producing cells in the body. It has nothing to do with whether the person ate refined sugar or not. The inability to process sugar (or glucose of any kind, including those that are generated by protein) is a result.

BrianSharpe

And the average life span of paleolithic man was?????

I'm all for eating clean, nutrient dense foods, lots of fruits and vegetables etc but I don't think I want to make my dietary choices based on some notion of what my prehistoric ancestors (who may have lived into their twenties & thirties) may or may not have eaten. (I'll also stick to modern textiles for clothing and continue to live in my house rather than a cave)

beckajw

But even our veggies and fruits aren't 100% clean these days. They've undergone all kinds of genetic altering, not to mention the chemicals they get sprayed with. I don't think there's such a thing as a perfect diet these days but I'd wager those genetically altered veggies are better then that bag of chips I just ate...

There is very little clean meat in the U.S. as well. Even when you go hunt your own, you'r'e supposed to take it to a meat processing plant where they treat it according to mandated standards. You can get non-GMO animal protein unaffected by hormone-laced foods but unless you illegally butcher your own meat, you are getting processed food.

Where do you live? This isn't true where I live.

sapalee

IMHO Paleo is 1)too meat heavy (it doesn't make sense that ancient people were able to get meat in the volumes that we can) and 2)is not necessarily good for someone who is a casual dieter.

I can see how it SUPER helps crossfitters, but I found that, while I was eating "cleaner" I didn't lose any weight. Most paleo enthusiasts I know don't advocate for tracking calories. Even if it's clean food, too much will add weight if you're output doesn't match.

My husband and I have been eating this way for 16 days and even though it is "meat heavy" we have lost weight. My husband in particular (who is eating a "crazy" amount of steak and chicken) has lost 16lbs. A pound a day! This diet is really a lifestyle change and we see it as more of a life away from all the processed crap and man-made food that is pushed on us daily rather than "going back to what our ancestors ate".

I would recommend that every once in awhile you have your cholesterol checked.

Agreed, you'll see a great improvement in your cholesterol numbers!

bump

exacerbe

mmm peanut butter m&ms....

wait, what are we talking about?

cloud2011

But even our veggies and fruits aren't 100% clean these days. They've undergone all kinds of genetic altering, not to mention the chemicals they get sprayed with. I don't think there's such a thing as a perfect diet these days but I'd wager those genetically altered veggies are better then that bag of chips I just ate...

There is very little clean meat in the U.S. as well. Even when you go hunt your own, you'r'e supposed to take it to a meat processing plant where they treat it according to mandated standards. You can get non-GMO animal protein unaffected by hormone-laced foods but unless you illegally butcher your own meat, you are getting processed food.

Where do you live that this is necessary? I've never heard of such nonsense, and don't know any self respecting hunter that would take their kill to a processing plant. Field dress it, and then take it to a local butcher at the very most.

I'm not a hunter but have known a few over the years. I agree, never heard of such a law, unless maybe you're looking to sell venison or some other meat. But for personal consumption you MUST take it to a government sanctioned plant? How would that be enforced, through home inspections?

minadeathclutch

diets dont work.

sapalee

And the average life span of paleolithic man was?????

I'm all for eating clean, nutrient dense foods, lots of fruits and vegetables etc but I don't think I want to make my dietary choices based on some notion of what my prehistoric ancestors (who may have lived into their twenties & thirties) may or may not have eaten. (I'll also stick to modern textiles for clothing and continue to live in my house rather than a cave)

An excellent academic paper to read for those with the short and brutal life argument. Addresses other dismissive concerns as well. Here is the Abstract, link to the full paper. Don't throw out a potentially lifesaving lifestyle over some preconceptions, let's see the research unfold.

The proposal that Late Paleolithic (50,000-10,000 BP) ancestral experience might serve as a model for prevention research and even, if justified by experiment, as a paradigm for health promotion recommendations is sometimes discounted, before critical assessment, because of reservations based on unjustified preconceptions. Most often such biases involve comparative life expectancy, potential genetic change since agriculture, the heterogeneity of ancestral environments, and/or innate human adaptability. This paper examines these topics and attempts to show that none of them justifies a priori dismissal of the evolutionary approach to preventive medicine. Evolutionary health promotion may ultimately be invalidated because of its falsification by experiment or because another theory accords better with known facts, but these commonly held prejudices should not forestall its thoughtful consideration and investigative evaluation.

http://thepaleodiet.com/archives/2595

I'd venture to suggest that this thread has been hashed out pretty well at this point.

sapalee

diets dont work.

exactly, lifestyles do.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

But even our veggies and fruits aren't 100% clean these days. They've undergone all kinds of genetic altering, not to mention the chemicals they get sprayed with. I don't think there's such a thing as a perfect diet these days but I'd wager those genetically altered veggies are better then that bag of chips I just ate...

There is very little clean meat in the U.S. as well. Even when you go hunt your own, you'r'e supposed to take it to a meat processing plant where they treat it according to mandated standards. You can get non-GMO animal protein unaffected by hormone-laced foods but unless you illegally butcher your own meat, you are getting processed food.

Where do you live that this is necessary? I've never heard of such nonsense, and don't know any self respecting hunter that would take their kill to a processing plant. Field dress it, and then take it to a local butcher at the very most.

The processing plants in my area don't "process meat" that is killed from local farmers or from those hunting. They merely cut the meat into manageable sized pieces and wrap it in butchers paper.

That is NOT processed meat. It is not canned, jarred or anything added to it.

tigersword

But even our veggies and fruits aren't 100% clean these days. They've undergone all kinds of genetic altering, not to mention the chemicals they get sprayed with. I don't think there's such a thing as a perfect diet these days but I'd wager those genetically altered veggies are better then that bag of chips I just ate...

There is very little clean meat in the U.S. as well. Even when you go hunt your own, you'r'e supposed to take it to a meat processing plant where they treat it according to mandated standards. You can get non-GMO animal protein unaffected by hormone-laced foods but unless you illegally butcher your own meat, you are getting processed food.

Where do you live that this is necessary? I've never heard of such nonsense, and don't know any self respecting hunter that would take their kill to a processing plant. Field dress it, and then take it to a local butcher at the very most.

The processing plants in my area don't "process meat" that is killed from local farmers or from those hunting. They merely cut the meat into manageable sized pieces and wrap it in butchers paper.

That is NOT processed meat. It is not canned, jarred or anything added to it.

Cutting up a carcass is "processing meat." So yes, anything you don't physically do yourself is processed by someone else. You can't change the definition of a term just because you want to, that's not how language works.

Anything you buy from a store or a farmer's market is processed.

aSunflower

"Farming" was started about 10,000 years ago in the middle east- Asia and South America as a result of climate change.

AeolianHarp

Didn't bother reading the whole thread. The Paleo premise is bunk and paleo dieting is restrictive and nonsensical. Anyone who eats like that thinking it actually makes a difference has, unfortunately, no clue.

If the paleo premise were true then the Okinawans shouldn't be the longest live culture or the other Blue Zone areas, which plough back a lot of carbohydrates and anti-Paleo food. I am not suggesting to eat like Okinawans since they live long for reasons beyond dieting.

Also, lean meats aren't better than fatty meats. I laugh a little when Paleos say they need to eat lean meats. Are you trying to tell me that your ancestor sat a carcass and trimmed the fat off his food before cooking it so he can make it lean? Such an absurd and ridiculous notion. Enough with the lean meats. They aren't "healthier."

And, I had assumed this was obvious but it isn't to some, health goes beyond mere food. It is your emotional well-being as well.

tigersword

You think Primal or Paleo is ridiculous or crazy? Then don't eat that way! These posts and the arguments about how bad or good these lifestyles are crack me up - to each their own and who cares what the next person is doing? It's all about finding what works for you. Primal has changed my life - my weight, my labs, my health, my energy - its what works for me, but if you think it's a fad or it doesn't work for you who cares?? To each their own!

Some of us care because we are deeply disturbed by the billions of animals that are dying to feed people who *PREFER* (notice I didn't use the word "NEED") to eat this way. Not to mention the massive environmental harm the meat industry is causing to the planet we all have to share, even those of us who want nothing to do with it. The idea that what you personally prefer to eat (animal flesh) is something that shouldn't bother the rest of us compassionate citizens of this planet is absurd. It affects everyone!

And if we stopped eating them tomorrow, all those billions of animals would just be slaughtered to extinction, as they take up tons of space, and require tons of resources to keep alive. They cannot survive in the wild. They would either be slaughtered in slaughterhouses, or just left alone to die horrible starvation deaths. So you'd prefer widespread extinction?

grinch031

Didn't bother reading the whole thread. The Paleo premise is bunk and paleo dieting is restrictive and nonsensical. Anyone who eats like that thinking it actually makes a difference has, unfortunately, no clue.

If the paleo premise were true then the Okinawans shouldn't be the longest live culture or the other Blue Zone areas, which plough back a lot of carbohydrates and anti-Paleo food. I am not suggesting to eat like Okinawans since they live long for reasons beyond dieting.

Also, lean meats aren't better than fatty meats. I laugh a little when Paleos say they need to eat lean meats. Are you trying to tell me that your ancestor sat a carcass and trimmed the fat off his food before cooking it so he can make it lean? Such an absurd and ridiculous notion. Enough with the lean meats. They aren't "healthier."

And, I had assumed this was obvious but it isn't to some, health goes beyond mere food. It is your emotional well-being as well.

So is the Okinawans' ability to thrive on high carb diets representative of the entire human population?

neanderthin

Didn't bother reading the whole thread. The Paleo premise is bunk and paleo dieting is restrictive and nonsensical. Anyone who eats like that thinking it actually makes a difference has, unfortunately, no clue.

If the paleo premise were true then the Okinawans shouldn't be the longest live culture or the other Blue Zone areas, which plough back a lot of carbohydrates and anti-Paleo food. I am not suggesting to eat like Okinawans since they live long for reasons beyond dieting.

Also, lean meats aren't better than fatty meats. I laugh a little when Paleos say they need to eat lean meats. Are you trying to tell me that your ancestor sat a carcass and trimmed the fat off his food before cooking it so he can make it lean? Such an absurd and ridiculous notion. Enough with the lean meats. They aren't "healthier."

And, I had assumed this was obvious but it isn't to some, health goes beyond mere food. It is your emotional well-being as well.

So is the Okinawans' ability to thrive on high carb diets representative of the entire human population?

I would say yes. Of course we would need to look at it from a total health perspective and not just diet. The Okinawans are famous for longevity and overall health, but there are cultures all over the world that share the same old age and their diets are very different as we could imagine that the geographic location would be paramount in regards to what they eat. They all do share similarities. Take a look at the Blue Zone Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone and take a look at the Kitavan population http://www.theiflife.com/carb-diets-overrated-part-ii-kitavan-okinawa-diets/ Obviously there's more to diet than the popular nutritional myths surrounding, well just about everything including carbs, fat, protein, sugar, HFCS, meat etc........reality is quite different but that still doesn't stop people believing some of those myths, hense we have a plethera of diets.

grinch031

Didn't bother reading the whole thread. The Paleo premise is bunk and paleo dieting is restrictive and nonsensical. Anyone who eats like that thinking it actually makes a difference has, unfortunately, no clue.

If the paleo premise were true then the Okinawans shouldn't be the longest live culture or the other Blue Zone areas, which plough back a lot of carbohydrates and anti-Paleo food. I am not suggesting to eat like Okinawans since they live long for reasons beyond dieting.

Also, lean meats aren't better than fatty meats. I laugh a little when Paleos say they need to eat lean meats. Are you trying to tell me that your ancestor sat a carcass and trimmed the fat off his food before cooking it so he can make it lean? Such an absurd and ridiculous notion. Enough with the lean meats. They aren't "healthier."

And, I had assumed this was obvious but it isn't to some, health goes beyond mere food. It is your emotional well-being as well.

So is the Okinawans' ability to thrive on high carb diets representative of the entire human population?

I would say yes. Of course we would need to look at it from a total health perspective and not just diet. The Okinawans are famous for longevity and overall health, but there are cultures all over the world that share the same old age and their diets are very different as we could imagine that the geographic location would be paramount in regards to what they eat. They all do share similarities. Take a look at the Blue Zone Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone and take a look at the Kitavan population http://www.theiflife.com/carb-diets-overrated-part-ii-kitavan-okinawa-diets/ Obviously there's more to diet than the popular nutritional myths surrounding, well just about everything including carbs, fat, protein, sugar, HFCS, meat etc........reality is quite different but that still doesn't stop people believing some of those myths, hense we have a plethera of diets.

I feel like there is a bias on this forum where it is argued that everyone should be able to eat plenty of carbs without ill effects on health, and that restricting them unless you have one of the most extreme cases of metabolic syndrome or diabetes is unnecessary. That contradicts the idea that some people are genetically predetermined to become obese when they eat an abundance of carbohydrates.

Here is a reading "The Carnivore Connection" that talks about this, and I've also seen various health sources around the web mentioning the same kind of thing.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobes/2012/258624/

neanderthin

Didn't bother reading the whole thread. The Paleo premise is bunk and paleo dieting is restrictive and nonsensical. Anyone who eats like that thinking it actually makes a difference has, unfortunately, no clue.

If the paleo premise were true then the Okinawans shouldn't be the longest live culture or the other Blue Zone areas, which plough back a lot of carbohydrates and anti-Paleo food. I am not suggesting to eat like Okinawans since they live long for reasons beyond dieting.

Also, lean meats aren't better than fatty meats. I laugh a little when Paleos say they need to eat lean meats. Are you trying to tell me that your ancestor sat a carcass and trimmed the fat off his food before cooking it so he can make it lean? Such an absurd and ridiculous notion. Enough with the lean meats. They aren't "healthier."

And, I had assumed this was obvious but it isn't to some, health goes beyond mere food. It is your emotional well-being as well.

So is the Okinawans' ability to thrive on high carb diets representative of the entire human population?

I would say yes. Of course we would need to look at it from a total health perspective and not just diet. The Okinawans are famous for longevity and overall health, but there are cultures all over the world that share the same old age and their diets are very different as we could imagine that the geographic location would be paramount in regards to what they eat. They all do share similarities. Take a look at the Blue Zone Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone and take a look at the Kitavan population http://www.theiflife.com/carb-diets-overrated-part-ii-kitavan-okinawa-diets/ Obviously there's more to diet than the popular nutritional myths surrounding, well just about everything including carbs, fat, protein, sugar, HFCS, meat etc........reality is quite different but that still doesn't stop people believing some of those myths, hense we have a plethera of diets.

I feel like there is a bias on this forum where it is argued that everyone should be able to eat plenty of carbs without ill effects on health, and that restricting them unless you have one of the most extreme cases of metabolic syndrome or diabetes is unnecessary. That contradicts the idea that some people are genetically predetermined to become obese when they eat an abundance of carbohydrates.

Here is a reading "The Carnivore Connection" that talks about this, and I've also seen various health sources around the web mentioning the same kind of thing.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobes/2012/258624/

I don't have a bias at all and I do eat low carb. I've found that after 10 years of studing nutrition as a hobby that an open mind to the fact that everything in regards to nutrition is not created in a vacuum, has helped me tremendously. The fact that I believe that carbs are not the evil nutrient that is the cause of all the woes of North America has not influenced my decision to eat more carbs, it only reenforced my position, that natural foods and an active and happy environment is key to my health, and that a variety/type of diets plays a minor role in that. If I did believe that carbs were evil, then I would have to share the stage with every other person that believes their diet is optimal like vegans for example....otherwise I would be showing an extreme biased, which is exactly what what your complaining about.

grinch031

Didn't bother reading the whole thread. The Paleo premise is bunk and paleo dieting is restrictive and nonsensical. Anyone who eats like that thinking it actually makes a difference has, unfortunately, no clue.

If the paleo premise were true then the Okinawans shouldn't be the longest live culture or the other Blue Zone areas, which plough back a lot of carbohydrates and anti-Paleo food. I am not suggesting to eat like Okinawans since they live long for reasons beyond dieting.

Also, lean meats aren't better than fatty meats. I laugh a little when Paleos say they need to eat lean meats. Are you trying to tell me that your ancestor sat a carcass and trimmed the fat off his food before cooking it so he can make it lean? Such an absurd and ridiculous notion. Enough with the lean meats. They aren't "healthier."

And, I had assumed this was obvious but it isn't to some, health goes beyond mere food. It is your emotional well-being as well.

So is the Okinawans' ability to thrive on high carb diets representative of the entire human population?

I would say yes. Of course we would need to look at it from a total health perspective and not just diet. The Okinawans are famous for longevity and overall health, but there are cultures all over the world that share the same old age and their diets are very different as we could imagine that the geographic location would be paramount in regards to what they eat. They all do share similarities. Take a look at the Blue Zone Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone and take a look at the Kitavan population http://www.theiflife.com/carb-diets-overrated-part-ii-kitavan-okinawa-diets/ Obviously there's more to diet than the popular nutritional myths surrounding, well just about everything including carbs, fat, protein, sugar, HFCS, meat etc........reality is quite different but that still doesn't stop people believing some of those myths, hense we have a plethera of diets.

I feel like there is a bias on this forum where it is argued that everyone should be able to eat plenty of carbs without ill effects on health, and that restricting them unless you have one of the most extreme cases of metabolic syndrome or diabetes is unnecessary. That contradicts the idea that some people are genetically predetermined to become obese when they eat an abundance of carbohydrates.

Here is a reading "The Carnivore Connection" that talks about this, and I've also seen various health sources around the web mentioning the same kind of thing.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jobes/2012/258624/

I don't have a bias at all and I do eat low carb. I've found that after 10 years of studing nutrition as a hobby that an open mind to the fact that everything in regards to nutrition is not created in a vacuum, has helped me tremendously. The fact that I believe that carbs are not the evil nutrient that is the cause of all the woes of North America has not influenced my decision to eat more carbs, it only reenforced my position, that natural foods and an active and happy environment is key to my health, and that a variety/type of diets plays a minor role in that. If I did believe that carbs were evil, then I would have to share the stage with every other person that believes their diet is optimal like vegans for example....otherwise I would be showing an extreme biased, which is exactly what what your complaining about.

I think one of the problems is there is this large-scale straw man on this board targeted at low carbers and paleo dieters. The first part of that is that *we* all suggest everybody needs to be on one of these diets. No, people who continue to struggle with their weight even after trying out their more preferred methods (like eating junk food in moderation) should consider a low-carb/more natural food/paleo approach. So if you can eat high carb and have the ability to sustain weight loss with a calorie restrictive diet, then of course there is no need to convert to a paleo diet. But the reality is, many cannot do this.

Its not carbohydrates that are inherently bad per se, its chronically high levels of insulin (among other things like leptin resistance) that is bad. And for that reason not only do the source of carbs matter, but even the source of protein. Some of the people with the worst genetic predisposition to obesity have no choice but to go fully ketogenic if they want to lose weight and sustain it. That means low carb, moderate protein, high fat.

This is why I don't think people should be criticized for following a paleo diet. Paleo is a framework that makes decision making very easy for people that seek to lower insulin levels or improve leptin resistance.

twinmom01

here is the thing....I choose to eat the Paleo way because it works for me and my body...does it work for everyone - nope...some people have wonderful results by simply eating smaller portion sizes so they have no reason to look at other ways to eat...and i'm happy for you if you are one of those people - congrats conventional wisdom works for you....

Do I eat it because I feel strongly that I should eat the way the "Caveman" does - nope...

I read and read and read some more because for me "conventional wisdom" didn't get me anywhere,...that got to a point where I dropped out most factory processed food sources and most higher carb sources like breads and pastas - well once you drop those out of your diet you are basically left with meat, veggies, fruits, nuts...

In looking around I found that the Primal/Paleo way of eating was basically how I was eating - so I "lump" myself into this specific eating style - just as if someone who chooses not to eat meat lumps themselves as Vegetarian...

I will say a lot of times I find Paleo comes under attack - when people ASK for studies or articles explaining why it MAY BE a better way to eat and people give links to studies and papers they get attacked and told the sources being quoted are quacks or the theories are bunk and that not eating grains is stupid...to each their own I guess...at one time smoking was good for you (and they had "studies" to prove it) and Dr.'s prescribed cigarettes....

The thing is there are so many conflicting studies for just about anything...oh a glass of wine is good...oh no it's bad...eat some dark chocolate everyday...stay away from chocolate...so who is to say 30 or 40 years from now the "studies" someone describes as "bunk" now are actually beyond truthful....

I know personally I've tried eating the "standard" way and it just didn't work for me in regards to loosing weight on a consistant basis - after a lot of research and trying it out for myself I have found something that works for me personally...everyone is different - if you tried eating a Paleo lifestyle and it didn't work for you and you could not maintain it then it didn't work for YOU but the overall way of eating isn't bad....

Now I will say Paleo is NOT low carb...but one can make it low carb - just as with any way of eating...I find it is easier for myself to lump myself in with the Primal/Paleo crowd because I have a "group" a group that can keep me on track, that can provide me with some great tips and tricks and some downright tasty and delicious recipies....

I also don't think it can be diet - you really have to be willing to make a whole change in your eating habits for long term success...for me it is easier to stay within a set of boundries and know the choices I am making for my own personal eating style are going to work for me

I actually find it funny that some people would bash a way of eating which at it's core is based on eating whole, healthy food sources but don't have a problem talking about taking fat burning chemicals or drinking a diet shake to loose weight - to me things like that are an exercise in futility and aren't going to help anyone in the long haul...

What does it matter if I choose to have spaghetti squash instead of whole grain pasta with my marina sauce or if I choose to eat red pepper strips instead of pretzels...

BTW - I have nothing against grains and beans and whatever...the rest of my family eats bread and pasta and beans...I simply choose to go another route because it works for me...I don't find it restrictive nor do I feel deprived in anyway...but that is my personal reaction to it...I am fully aware some people don't want to give up pasta and bread...I fully belive life is to short to do things you don't want to do...(hence why I don't do Burpees during my workouts...life is to short to do something I hate... )

SarahSwimmer

^^^ I'm with Twinmom. I like it and I don't understand why people think it's unhealthy. Or if they they think its "no healthier than any other clean eating" why they feel the need to express themselves, saying that is not value added at this point.

weathergirl320

yeah i agree. i did the whole calorie counting thing RELIGIOUSLY and i would lose ten then gain 15 thn lose then gain. i gained over the long term and had really just accepted that. i thought because i have thyroid disease i was destined to have a slow metabolism and gain weight. so i have an autoimmune hormonal issue. therefore, WHAT i eat really does matter. because when i eat things that trigger a hormonal response, like grains or refined sugar, i gain weight. i tried EVERYTHING to lose weight with a slow thyroid. and nothing worked. until i found the "paeo/prmal" way. i decided to really just eliminate grains and voila i have lost 35 lbs. so although this may not work for everyone or be feasable, for me a calorie is not a calorie and it does matter what i eat. and btw i was eating at a caloric deficit and STILL gaining weight. because of my hormonal imballance. now, i dont keep too much track of my calories but i am assuming i am eating at a deficit still. but since i have changed WHAT i am eating i am losing weight. where as before, while eating a deficit i wasnt losing at all.

AeolianHarp

So is the Okinawans' ability to thrive on high carb diets representative of the entire human population?

No but there's a key, essential point to take from examining many cultures all over the world: they all thrive differently. The obesity level of the inuits is quite high yet somehow they have better cardiovascular health than your average North American. Interesting despite they eat largely high fat, moderate protein, low carbohydrate. Yet we see something completely and drastically different in the French culture, what some refer to as the French paradox.

The point is that condemning a specific category of food is nonsensical. There are such things as high-fat and low-fat phenotypes but most people scapegoat by blaming their awful weight loss on a macronutrient. \

Paleo functions to condemn foods and restrict dietary habits. A person's diet (diet as in what someone simply eats) should be tailored to them but it should be flexible. A way of eating that functions to restrict as opposed to free is an awful one.

Someone shouldn't eat paleo or inuit or Okinawan or whatever. They should eat [Enter Name]. The problem with people reading things about diets is that they have an idea in their head and, as a result, they begin to imagine things that would otherwise not be there. The placebo effect is strong and it happens all the time.

LilRedRooster

As humans have evolved, their digestive tract has evolved to be adaptive. Things like grains were not necessarily the "best" thing in terms of what their bodies could handle when they were initially cultivated, but the ease with which people could obtain food meant less stress on their bodies, leading to longer lifespans and more time to allow complex brain development and thinking.

We aren't static creatures; there is no need to completely cut out things unless they bother the individual, because we will evolve over time and adapt. We would not be the big-brained individuals we are now if those cavemen hadn't settled down to focus on other things than hunting food for miles every day, guaranteed. Most animals never evolve to higher levels of thinking unless they have secure food sources and can spend more energy on other worries besides the immediate need for food.

That being said, I think the idea of clean-eating is great, and I don't knock the diet itself. I just think it's silly to discount the impact of grains and say that they're terrible, because farming and agriculture is what has allowed humans the ability to take time to create things like art, literature, and discover scientific breakthroughs.

violetness

what i want to know is just how hungery man was to discover that shellfish was tasty:drinker:

LOL me too - I would look at that and think NO WAY!

eriemer

Doesn't it also matter where the ancient humans where from??? Even now each culture eat all sorts of varation of food. Some ate bugs, rice, wild grasses, roots, berries, animals, whale blubber, rotting fish, cured and dried meats. Some followed heards of mammoths. Where is my Mammoth burger cooked in mammoth fat? Many early humans lacked proper diets and that can be evidenced in small tribes found thoughout the world in the last 1-200 yrs. Rickets, Survey, goiters, and other dietary deficiencies where much more common place. Why? Because living off the land, does NOT provide everything your body may require to sustain life. Hate to burst your bubble but the earth wasn't a neverending garden of eve. People struggled just to survive and it's still a wonder to me how? How did an insignifacant mammal with no body hair or defensive ability turn into 6.5 billion people? Surely it wasn't from eating salads with no dressing and raw meat.

marieautumn

i love paleo. think what you want but it works for me. and yes i still cheat sometimes.