Paleo -- ur doin it wrong.

cessnaholly

bump

metco89

Reading this thread and sentences such as "people ate what they could get their hands on" reminds me of a funny meme I saw last week :

What if the first guy who ate poison berries just happened to be really allergic and we've been missing out on delicious berries ever since?

LOL OMG!!!! that was great, thanks for the laugh!! i love it

secretlobster

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.

The problem I have with your argument, and I don't necessarily disagree, is that things that Ancient Homo Sapiens did to evolve mentally were not usually in alignment for what was best for us physically. As we became Big Brained Creatures, we also became pretty lazy physically. There has to be a balance. It's not possible to live in 2012 as a caveman (and still post on MFP forums). But it's necessary to acknowledge that the way modern humans live today is not optimal for health.

momof8munchkins

This again....:ohwell: :huh: :yawn:
Why do you care??? If you don't want to eat Paleo/Primal then don't . Issue solved!

twinmom01

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.

Not everyone who eats a Paleo way think grains are bad....some people want a reasoning behind why not to eat grains hence the studies....which for a segment of the population are very valid in thier being...they may not be valid for you...and contray to popular belief not everyone who eats within a Paleo realm worships at the feet of Sisson and other Paleo "bigwigs"

Paleo is not restrictive...is it only restrictive if you find it restrictive...a lot of people who eat a Paleo lifestyle do so not because they are looking to restrict things they think they can't have...but rather have decided to clean up their diet and it has led them to a Paleo way of eating...

I personally dont' think ANYONE should eat any specific way if they feel it is restrictive to them...it simply won't work over the long haul -that is why you have people asking if people "cheat" or have "cheat days"...because something in the way they are eating is restrictive to them...so god forbid they have a piece of candy they are somehow "cheating"...if I choose to eat something that is not within the Paleo realm I don't consider that cheating - that is making a choice....

If you like food with grains great - then don't eat Paleo - BUT don't blast us by saying those of us who do are somehow wrong because we make a choice (for whatever reasons they may be) to cut out grains and a few other foods from our daily eating habits - in the long run for me the question is is there a purpose for Grains??? I don't have a hankering for breads and Pastas, I don't like cereals...oatmeal is OK...if you are trying to say oh people need to eat Grains because they need Carbs - I get plenty of those from veggies and fruits I consume...vitamins and minerals...veggies, fruits, nuts, fish, chicken, turkey, venison - Can grain happy people tell me a specific reason WHY someone would need to EAT grains??? I mean the best thing is to just agree to disagree - because for every study that talks about how grains are good there is going to be one that says you dont' need it as part of your diet....simple as that....

cdngrl81

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

The point is that condemning a specific category of food is nonsensical.

So vegetarians and vegans are wrong as well?

sapalee

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.

I'm not dissing most of what you are saying but I whill hedge to bet the many people with Celiac, IBS, and heartburn (diagnosed and undiagnosed, many have symptoms and don't know the underlying causes) who benefit from removing grains from their diet would argue pretty vehemently that not all of us have evolved to tolerate grains. And from an evolutionary standpoint imagine a football field as humans and the last yard as the onset of neolithic agriculture. Not much time to evolve in the big picture.

As others have stated, it isn't for everyone. But many can and do thrive without dairy and grains, they don't need people telling them their way is wrong when it clearly helps many and there is significant research to back up what they are doing.

AeolianHarp

Not everyone who eats a Paleo way think grains are bad....some people want a reasoning behind why not to eat grains hence the studies....which for a segment of the population are very valid in thier being...they may not be valid for you...and contray to popular belief not everyone who eats within a Paleo realm worships at the feet of Sisson and other Paleo "bigwigs"

The amount of people that actually can't eat grains is quite small. Everyone hears that grains make them bloated so then suddenly, wow, look it here, bloating occurs when someone eats grains. It becomes difficult to know if it's actually the grains that cause the bloating or the person's state of mind, which has been influenced by an external source.

Even then, why label how you're eating? Why call it Paleo? Why not eat what you can handle as an individual? Labelling the diet is nonsense since there are connotations that come along with it. Eating paleo means eating like your ancestors, but why would someone do that? What if there are foods you can eat that are non-paleo that do not hurt your progress?

Paleo is not restrictive...is it only restrictive if you find it restrictive...a lot of people who eat a Paleo lifestyle do so not because they are looking to restrict things they think they can't have...but rather have decided to clean up their diet and it has led them to a Paleo way of eating...

You're prohibited from eating foods. That's restriction. But I understand what you mean. A question I asked above was, "What if there are foods you can eat that are non-paleo that do not hurt your progress?" Add on to that "health." If it has no negative consequences, why not eat it? Because paleo says so? Now if you start eating it, you're no longer paleo. It's better not to subscribe to a style of diet and just eat "twinmom01 diet."

I personally dont' think ANYONE should eat any specific way if they feel it is restrictive to them...it simply won't work over the long haul -that is why you have people asking if people "cheat" or have "cheat days"...because something in the way they are eating is restrictive to them...so god forbid they have a piece of candy they are somehow "cheating"...if I choose to eat something that is not within the Paleo realm I don't consider that cheating - that is making a choice....

I agree with you here. Nothing for me to say.

If you like food with grains great - then don't eat Paleo - BUT don't blast us by saying those of us who do are somehow wrong because we make a choice (for whatever reasons they may be) to cut out grains and a few other foods from our daily eating habits - in the long run for me the question is is there a purpose for Grains??? I don't have a hankering for breads and Pastas, I don't like cereals...oatmeal is OK...if you are trying to say oh people need to eat Grains because they need Carbs - I get plenty of those from veggies and fruits I consume...vitamins and minerals...veggies, fruits, nuts, fish, chicken, turkey, venison - Can grain happy people tell me a specific reason WHY someone would need to EAT grains??? I mean the best thing is to just agree to disagree - because for every study that talks about how grains are good there is going to be one that says you dont' need it as part of your diet....simple as that....

I don't think people need grains and I agree with what you say. It ultimately is your choice but if someone is craving grains and isn't eating it because they think there is negativity to their then they're doing it all wrong.

There is one issue, though: Paleo is ambiguous and arbitrary. There are 101 versions of the diet, so paleo-style dieting becomes even more absurd since no one can really agree on what it is. There are some that suggest lean meats. It's silly. Lean meats makes no sense in a Paleolithic sense. Cordain mocks saturated fats while Woolf does something else and then Sisson says something else. Then you have another dude who is strict paleo and eats differently than all three. So if the paleo community can't agree, how can you be eating "paleo"?

My issue more is with subscribing to a diet that places restrictions. Paleo does place restrictions. You can't eat certain foods. How can you argue anything else? I think everyone should eat for them. If you think grains may be a problem then omit them and see how you do. Now you don't have to eat grains anymore if you find out they suck for you but you still enjoy chocolate bars and you find out you can handle sugars just fine. There's no name for such a logical process because it's individualistic. I hate all dieting fads. I hate Zone diet, Jillian diet, Atkins, etc. Eat for you and only you.

So vegetarians and vegans are wrong as well?

Depends. If you're doing it for health reasons then you're doing it wrong. Plain and simple. There's too much myth surrounding red meat, more than I'm willing to delve into. I recommend reading Anthony Colpo's work to further understand why.

If you're doing it because you feel that animals are cruelly treated by the meat industry then I believe that is a noble goal. There are some issues behind it (you can read about the extensive philosophical side by reading works by Peter Singer, Andy Lamey, Steven Davis, and Tom Regan) since grains kill a lot of field animals, so there is hypocrisy involved, but, if I recall correctly, veganism provides the least amount of harm to animals versus the omnivore.

Now, if the person is a vegetarian or vegan because he or she doesn't like meat or whatever then there's not much to argue. Their palette doesn't enjoy non-vegan/vegetarian food.

LilRedRooster

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.

The problem I have with your argument, and I don't necessarily disagree, is that things that Ancient Homo Sapiens did to evolve mentally were not usually in alignment for what was best for us physically. As we became Big Brained Creatures, we also became pretty lazy physically. There has to be a balance. It's not possible to live in 2012 as a caveman (and still post on MFP forums). But it's necessary to acknowledge that the way modern humans live today is not optimal for health.

It's hard to eat whole foods, like meat, fruit, and veggies, and completely give up agricultural aspects like grain, because it's not "optimal" any longer; we don't have enough resources to feed the booming population on that lifestyle any longer. That diet worked in the past, because resources weren't strained, and people could eat "optimally" by living off the land themselves. I could eat more of a Paleo diet easily and cheaply, because I live in a rural area, grow my own cows, and can buy veggies at the market. For people living in bigger cities, as happened with the agricultural boom and people migrating into communities, it's much harder, much more expensive, and not as economical to strive for that lifestyle.

Not that that should hinder people, but within the next ten years, as the population booms, and people continue to live in cities and run out of land and resources, that lifestyle will become harder and harder to maintain economically. It just isn't tailored for the way society has changed.

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.

I'm not dissing most of what you are saying but I whill hedge to bet the many people with Celiac, IBS, and heartburn (diagnosed and undiagnosed, many have symptoms and don't know the underlying causes) who benefit from removing grains from their diet would argue pretty vehemently that not all of us have evolved to tolerate grains. And from an evolutionary standpoint imagine a football field as humans and the last yard as the onset of neolithic agriculture. Not much time to evolve in the big picture.

As others have stated, it isn't for everyone. But many can and do thrive without dairy and grains, they don't need people telling them their way is wrong when it clearly helps many and there is significant research to back up what they are doing.

No, I realize that there are people for whom grains have a negative impact. I actually bolded that statement, just to show you I referenced it. But that is not the majority of the population, meaning that the majority has adapted to digest and use grains pretty effectively, and others have not, for whatever reason. It's all about genetic selection, which is somewhat random. That does not represent the population as a changing whole, and those numbers will change with time.

And for the record, I never said the diet was "wrong" in any part of my statement. Nowhere at all did I say that. My point was mostly that there isn't any need to fuss over an entire population going back to cavemen style eating as the "best" option, with so much dislike for food options, just because agricultural is the "newer" one.

TheGlen

Bump...

AeolianHarp

Can we stop using the word "clean"? The word is ambiguous, vague, misleading, confusing, arbitrary, and damaging. Nothing has caused more failed dieting attempts and flustered individuals than anything in the nutritional world. By going paleo, you aren't cleaning anything up. If I were to ask everyone for their definition, you'd see some similarities but also a wide variance that simply shows you how silly of a word it is. It's more silly than "paleo dieting," which has just as much individual variance as "clean eating."