The Paleo Diet Moves From The Gym To The Doctor's Office

strongnotskinny121

Paleo dieters are strange to me. Amazing to make an entire lifestyle revolving around conjecture and assumptions. We know next to nothing about cavemen or if they even existed (yes, that is still up for debate!).

How is the existed of cavemen still up for debate when there are skeletons, fossils, and other archaeological evidence?

Acg67

Oh didn't realize it was a magical diet that you can eat however much you like (except for the evil evil grains, legumes and dairy) and lose weight.

According to the author of the Paleo Diet, it kind of is. You can only eat so much food and if what your eating is fresh fruits, veggies, and lean meat, you will lose weight. The claim is that you don't even have to really exercise, although it is encouraged. Your body will naturally hit its equilibrium.

So which is it, you can eat as much as you want or you can only eat so much?

wild_wild_life

I think evolutionary arguments regarding food are stupid because you can bet that if the cave man had high nutrient density food he didn't have to work for, he sure as hell would eat it. It's not like there were all of today's options and they chose only XY and Z. I also hate when people say what we were "meant" to eat. We were. Meant to be able to eat whatever was available. We've since invented or found new things, but just because they are evolutionarily new doesn't mean they are necessarily bad. Multivitamins are new, does that mean they are bad? Fish oil supplements?

I think that the reason restrictive diets work for weight loss and health is that they keep you from eating the donut your coworker brought in offering 300 cals and no satiety. I'm more of a moderation girl. I don't think there is anything wrong with paleo or primal, I just don't think it's especially right either.

I don't eat paleo but I don't see how you can say the evolutionary arguments are stupid. The question is, what is the optimal human diet? The answer is what we were eating when our digestive system evolved. That is what our systems were designed for. Our entire bodies were designed for that lifestyle. Our modern diet is so drastically different from that and yet evolutionarily we have not changed. It only makes sense to me to get things more in line with how it was then. I admit the details are a little fuzzy and it differed culture by culture, but some things are known (ie this is pre-agriculture so no one ate poptarts).

I'm certainly not arguing for pop tarts, but digestive enzymes play a huge role in digestion- and they have changed with changing diets even if our anatomy hasn't.

Interesting point -- don't know about enzymes but I'm sure our microbial flora has changed and that plays a huge role too. We are pretty darned adaptable.

strongnotskinny121

I think evolutionary arguments regarding food are stupid because you can bet that if the cave man had high nutrient density food he didn't have to work for, he sure as hell would eat it. It's not like there were all of today's options and they chose only XY and Z. I also hate when people say what we were "meant" to eat. We were. Meant to be able to eat whatever was available. We've since invented or found new things, but just because they are evolutionarily new doesn't mean they are necessarily bad. Multivitamins are new, does that mean they are bad? Fish oil supplements?

I think that the reason restrictive diets work for weight loss and health is that they keep you from eating the donut your coworker brought in offering 300 cals and no satiety. I'm more of a moderation girl. I don't think there is anything wrong with paleo or primal, I just don't think it's especially right either.

I don't eat paleo but I don't see how you can say the evolutionary arguments are stupid. The question is, what is the optimal human diet? The answer is what we were eating when our digestive system evolved. That is what our systems were designed for. Our entire bodies were designed for that lifestyle. Our modern diet is so drastically different from that and yet evolutionarily we have not changed. It only makes sense to me to get things more in line with how it was then. I admit the details are a little fuzzy and it differed culture by culture, but some things are known (ie this is pre-agriculture so no one ate poptarts).

I'm certainly not arguing for pop tarts, but digestive enzymes play a huge role in digestion- and they have changed with changing diets even if our anatomy hasn't.

I don't think it is a question of whether or not we can DIGEST the food, but what nutrients we are getting from what is being digested. If your body isn't getting what it needs, why eat that food? If I can eat lean meats, veggies, and fruits, and as much as I want to eat of it, according to Cordain, while getting what my body needs, why not eat this way? So many processed foods are made from one ingredient: corn. How many mineral, vitamins, antioxidants, etc, do you think you get from corn in all it's different (and unnatural) forms? If you want another argument for just eating cleaner, even if your don't go full Paleo, read Michael Pollan "The Omnivore's Dilemma" or "In Defense of Food"

strongnotskinny121

Oh didn't realize it was a magical diet that you can eat however much you like (except for the evil evil grains, legumes and dairy) and lose weight.

According to the author of the Paleo Diet, it kind of is. You can only eat so much food and if what your eating is fresh fruits, veggies, and lean meat, you will lose weight. The claim is that you don't even have to really exercise, although it is encouraged. Your body will naturally hit its equilibrium.

So which is it, you can eat as much as you want or you can only eat so much?

You physically can only eat so much food. At some point you will feel full, and if you have any intelligence, you will quit eating.

AbbsyBabbsy

I was initially intrigued by the Primal diet, but there were too many things I couldn't reconcile in my mind:

How come I can eat butter but only limited cheese if any cheese at all?
Why is consuming agriculturally produced lettuce acceptable, but beans are not acceptable?
What's up with recommending raw dairy? Isn't that unsafe?
How do we know Paleo men ate an optimal diet when they didn't live long enough to reap the consequences?
How do we decide "what we're meant to eat" when Paleo men ate different diets depending on location?
Grains have been consumed for tens of thousands of years, but the diseases it's supposed to cause only became prevent in the past 50 years.

I've read Mark's Daily Apple and some of the advice is dangerous, imo. There's a post about not using evil, chemical sunscreen and eating lots of saturated fats instead, with over a hundred of comments from primal eaters who confirm that coconut oil has cured their need for sunscreen. Sorry, but bull. Also, I don't understand why exercise is to be limited to just a few hours of relaxed walking a week, a little strength training, and occasional sprinting. That's not how Paleo man lived at all.

Sabine_Stroehm

I'll still with mostly clean eating. But I have no issue with paleo (except I like some grains).

Acg67

Oh didn't realize it was a magical diet that you can eat however much you like (except for the evil evil grains, legumes and dairy) and lose weight.

According to the author of the Paleo Diet, it kind of is. You can only eat so much food and if what your eating is fresh fruits, veggies, and lean meat, you will lose weight. The claim is that you don't even have to really exercise, although it is encouraged. Your body will naturally hit its equilibrium.

So which is it, you can eat as much as you want or you can only eat so much?

You physically can only eat so much food. At some point you will feel full, and if you have any intelligence, you will quit eating.

Can people overeat on fresh fruits, veggies, and lean meats? And where would one get their fats in their diet eating only that?

victoria4321

Oh didn't realize it was a magical diet that you can eat however much you like (except for the evil evil grains, legumes and dairy) and lose weight.

According to the author of the Paleo Diet, it kind of is. You can only eat so much food and if what your eating is fresh fruits, veggies, and lean meat, you will lose weight. The claim is that you don't even have to really exercise, although it is encouraged. Your body will naturally hit its equilibrium.

So which is it, you can eat as much as you want or you can only eat so much?

You physically can only eat so much food. At some point you will feel full, and if you have any intelligence, you will quit eating.

Can people overeat on fresh fruits, veggies, and lean meats? And where would one get their fats in their diet eating only that?

You can still eat nuts and seeds, plenty of fats there. You can also add oils to your foods.

I can't speak for everyone else but I know for myself I don't over eat fresh fruit and veg, I'll get full really fast. Same with lean meats. I could over eat on chips, crackers, juice, etc, and probably never be full. I'd just get bored eating those eventually.

MoreBean13

I think evolutionary arguments regarding food are stupid because you can bet that if the cave man had high nutrient density food he didn't have to work for, he sure as hell would eat it. It's not like there were all of today's options and they chose only XY and Z. I also hate when people say what we were "meant" to eat. We were. Meant to be able to eat whatever was available. We've since invented or found new things, but just because they are evolutionarily new doesn't mean they are necessarily bad. Multivitamins are new, does that mean they are bad? Fish oil supplements?

I think that the reason restrictive diets work for weight loss and health is that they keep you from eating the donut your coworker brought in offering 300 cals and no satiety. I'm more of a moderation girl. I don't think there is anything wrong with paleo or primal, I just don't think it's especially right either.

I don't eat paleo but I don't see how you can say the evolutionary arguments are stupid. The question is, what is the optimal human diet? The answer is what we were eating when our digestive system evolved. That is what our systems were designed for. Our entire bodies were designed for that lifestyle. Our modern diet is so drastically different from that and yet evolutionarily we have not changed. It only makes sense to me to get things more in line with how it was then. I admit the details are a little fuzzy and it differed culture by culture, but some things are known (ie this is pre-agriculture so no one ate poptarts).

I'm certainly not arguing for pop tarts, but digestive enzymes play a huge role in digestion- and they have changed with changing diets even if our anatomy hasn't.

I don't think it is a question of whether or not we can DIGEST the food, but what nutrients we are getting from what is being digested. If your body isn't getting what it needs, why eat that food? If I can eat lean meats, veggies, and fruits, and as much as I want to eat of it, according to Cordain, while getting what my body needs, why not eat this way? So many processed foods are made from one ingredient: corn. How many mineral, vitamins, antioxidants, etc, do you think you get from corn in all it's different (and unnatural) forms? If you want another argument for just eating cleaner, even if your don't go full Paleo, read Michael Pollan "The Omnivore's Dilemma" or "In Defense of Food"

I've actually read those books- I'm generally interested in nutrition and wellbeing so I read almost all of the various food/diet/fitness themed books that come out. I'm with you on eating nutritious food, but I'm not on the paleo evolutionary bandwagon. It's too restrictive, and we can digest beans and dairy (most of us) and (gasp!) grains. I think there's some merit to the argument that wheat and corn have been so genetically molested that they're not the same as they once were- but I think they can both be included in a well rounded diet. I don't use the term "clean" to describe my diet because I think its a vague and meaningless term. I mean, it probably has a real definition somewhere, but the connotation of the way people use it is meaningless- here on the boards people use it to describe anything they interpret as healthy. I'm all for education- I think reading the suggested books is a great idea, but I would hesitate to get too locked in to the ideas of any one nutrition writer or book- ultimately their goal is to sell books.

Awkward30

I think evolutionary arguments regarding food are stupid because you can bet that if the cave man had high nutrient density food he didn't have to work for, he sure as hell would eat it. It's not like there were all of today's options and they chose only XY and Z. I also hate when people say what we were "meant" to eat. We were. Meant to be able to eat whatever was available. We've since invented or found new things, but just because they are evolutionarily new doesn't mean they are necessarily bad. Multivitamins are new, does that mean they are bad? Fish oil supplements?

I think that the reason restrictive diets work for weight loss and health is that they keep you from eating the donut your coworker brought in offering 300 cals and no satiety. I'm more of a moderation girl. I don't think there is anything wrong with paleo or primal, I just don't think it's especially right either.

I don't eat paleo but I don't see how you can say the evolutionary arguments are stupid. The question is, what is the optimal human diet? The answer is what we were eating when our digestive system evolved. That is what our systems were designed for. Our entire bodies were designed for that lifestyle. Our modern diet is so drastically different from that and yet evolutionarily we have not changed. It only makes sense to me to get things more in line with how it was then. I admit the details are a little fuzzy and it differed culture by culture, but some things are known (ie this is pre-agriculture so no one ate poptarts).

Just because it was eaten during the evolution of the digestive system, it's optimal? Sorry, evolution is a random process. Mutations occur and beneficial ones have a greater probability of being passed on than detrimental ones.

bm99

I think evolutionary arguments regarding food are stupid because you can bet that if the cave man had high nutrient density food he didn't have to work for, he sure as hell would eat it. It's not like there were all of today's options and they chose only XY and Z. I also hate when people say what we were "meant" to eat. We were. Meant to be able to eat whatever was available. We've since invented or found new things, but just because they are evolutionarily new doesn't mean they are necessarily bad. Multivitamins are new, does that mean they are bad? Fish oil supplements?

I think that the reason restrictive diets work for weight loss and health is that they keep you from eating the donut your coworker brought in offering 300 cals and no satiety. I'm more of a moderation girl. I don't think there is anything wrong with paleo or primal, I just don't think it's especially right either.

I don't eat paleo but I don't see how you can say the evolutionary arguments are stupid. The question is, what is the optimal human diet? The answer is what we were eating when our digestive system evolved. That is what our systems were designed for. Our entire bodies were designed for that lifestyle. Our modern diet is so drastically different from that and yet evolutionarily we have not changed. It only makes sense to me to get things more in line with how it was then. I admit the details are a little fuzzy and it differed culture by culture, but some things are known (ie this is pre-agriculture so no one ate poptarts).

Just because it was eaten during the evolution of the digestive system, it's optimal? Sorry, evolution is a random process. Mutations occur and beneficial ones have a greater probability of being passed on than detrimental ones.

IF cavemen existed as we believe they did, it would have been millions of years ago. We have evolved past caveman man, so it would seem that our eating habits would evolve as well.

The whole premise of evolution is that with each new generation we are slightly better/stronger, so why wouldn't that extend to our ability to get what we need from food?

wild_wild_life

I think evolutionary arguments regarding food are stupid because you can bet that if the cave man had high nutrient density food he didn't have to work for, he sure as hell would eat it. It's not like there were all of today's options and they chose only XY and Z. I also hate when people say what we were "meant" to eat. We were. Meant to be able to eat whatever was available. We've since invented or found new things, but just because they are evolutionarily new doesn't mean they are necessarily bad. Multivitamins are new, does that mean they are bad? Fish oil supplements?

I think that the reason restrictive diets work for weight loss and health is that they keep you from eating the donut your coworker brought in offering 300 cals and no satiety. I'm more of a moderation girl. I don't think there is anything wrong with paleo or primal, I just don't think it's especially right either.

I don't eat paleo but I don't see how you can say the evolutionary arguments are stupid. The question is, what is the optimal human diet? The answer is what we were eating when our digestive system evolved. That is what our systems were designed for. Our entire bodies were designed for that lifestyle. Our modern diet is so drastically different from that and yet evolutionarily we have not changed. It only makes sense to me to get things more in line with how it was then. I admit the details are a little fuzzy and it differed culture by culture, but some things are known (ie this is pre-agriculture so no one ate poptarts).

Just because it was eaten during the evolution of the digestive system, it's optimal? Sorry, evolution is a random process. Mutations occur and beneficial ones have a greater probability of being passed on than detrimental ones.

Sure. Take koala bears. They evolved to eat eucalyptus. Eucalyptus is the optimal diet for them. They arent going to do as well on maple leaves, even if science developed a high tech maple leaf and the koalas love the taste. It's an extreme example but I don't see any fundamental difference between us and them. Granted, who knows how much practical difference eating paleo has on any given individual's health, but I think the theory has a sound basis.

bm99

I think evolutionary arguments regarding food are stupid because you can bet that if the cave man had high nutrient density food he didn't have to work for, he sure as hell would eat it. It's not like there were all of today's options and they chose only XY and Z. I also hate when people say what we were "meant" to eat. We were. Meant to be able to eat whatever was available. We've since invented or found new things, but just because they are evolutionarily new doesn't mean they are necessarily bad. Multivitamins are new, does that mean they are bad? Fish oil supplements?

I think that the reason restrictive diets work for weight loss and health is that they keep you from eating the donut your coworker brought in offering 300 cals and no satiety. I'm more of a moderation girl. I don't think there is anything wrong with paleo or primal, I just don't think it's especially right either.

I don't eat paleo but I don't see how you can say the evolutionary arguments are stupid. The question is, what is the optimal human diet? The answer is what we were eating when our digestive system evolved. That is what our systems were designed for. Our entire bodies were designed for that lifestyle. Our modern diet is so drastically different from that and yet evolutionarily we have not changed. It only makes sense to me to get things more in line with how it was then. I admit the details are a little fuzzy and it differed culture by culture, but some things are known (ie this is pre-agriculture so no one ate poptarts).

Just because it was eaten during the evolution of the digestive system, it's optimal? Sorry, evolution is a random process. Mutations occur and beneficial ones have a greater probability of being passed on than detrimental ones.

Sure. Take koala bears. They evolved to eat eucalyptus. Eucalyptus is the optimal diet for them. They arent going to do as well on maple leaves, even if science developed a high tech maple leaf and the koalas love the taste. It's an extreme example but I don't see any fundamental difference between us and them. Granted, who knows how much practical difference eating paleo has on any given individual's health, but I think the theory has a sound basis.

Do they ONLY eat eucalyptus?

Acg67

I think evolutionary arguments regarding food are stupid because you can bet that if the cave man had high nutrient density food he didn't have to work for, he sure as hell would eat it. It's not like there were all of today's options and they chose only XY and Z. I also hate when people say what we were "meant" to eat. We were. Meant to be able to eat whatever was available. We've since invented or found new things, but just because they are evolutionarily new doesn't mean they are necessarily bad. Multivitamins are new, does that mean they are bad? Fish oil supplements?

I think that the reason restrictive diets work for weight loss and health is that they keep you from eating the donut your coworker brought in offering 300 cals and no satiety. I'm more of a moderation girl. I don't think there is anything wrong with paleo or primal, I just don't think it's especially right either.

I don't eat paleo but I don't see how you can say the evolutionary arguments are stupid. The question is, what is the optimal human diet? The answer is what we were eating when our digestive system evolved. That is what our systems were designed for. Our entire bodies were designed for that lifestyle. Our modern diet is so drastically different from that and yet evolutionarily we have not changed. It only makes sense to me to get things more in line with how it was then. I admit the details are a little fuzzy and it differed culture by culture, but some things are known (ie this is pre-agriculture so no one ate poptarts).

Just because it was eaten during the evolution of the digestive system, it's optimal? Sorry, evolution is a random process. Mutations occur and beneficial ones have a greater probability of being passed on than detrimental ones.

Sure. Take koala bears. They evolved to eat eucalyptus. Eucalyptus is the optimal diet for them. They arent going to do as well on maple leaves, even if science developed a high tech maple leaf and the koalas love the taste. It's an extreme example but I don't see any fundamental difference between us and them. Granted, who knows how much practical difference eating paleo has on any given individual's health, but I think the theory has a sound basis.

Koalas are marsupials, humans are not. Seems like a pretty big fundamental difference.

wild_wild_life

I think evolutionary arguments regarding food are stupid because you can bet that if the cave man had high nutrient density food he didn't have to work for, he sure as hell would eat it. It's not like there were all of today's options and they chose only XY and Z. I also hate when people say what we were "meant" to eat. We were. Meant to be able to eat whatever was available. We've since invented or found new things, but just because they are evolutionarily new doesn't mean they are necessarily bad. Multivitamins are new, does that mean they are bad? Fish oil supplements?

I think that the reason restrictive diets work for weight loss and health is that they keep you from eating the donut your coworker brought in offering 300 cals and no satiety. I'm more of a moderation girl. I don't think there is anything wrong with paleo or primal, I just don't think it's especially right either.

I don't eat paleo but I don't see how you can say the evolutionary arguments are stupid. The question is, what is the optimal human diet? The answer is what we were eating when our digestive system evolved. That is what our systems were designed for. Our entire bodies were designed for that lifestyle. Our modern diet is so drastically different from that and yet evolutionarily we have not changed. It only makes sense to me to get things more in line with how it was then. I admit the details are a little fuzzy and it differed culture by culture, but some things are known (ie this is pre-agriculture so no one ate poptarts).

Just because it was eaten during the evolution of the digestive system, it's optimal? Sorry, evolution is a random process. Mutations occur and beneficial ones have a greater probability of being passed on than detrimental ones.

Sure. Take koala bears. They evolved to eat eucalyptus. Eucalyptus is the optimal diet for them. They arent going to do as well on maple leaves, even if science developed a high tech maple leaf and the koalas love the taste. It's an extreme example but I don't see any fundamental difference between us and them. Granted, who knows how much practical difference eating paleo has on any given individual's health, but I think the theory has a sound basis.

Do they ONLY eat eucalyptus?

Yeah. Like I said, it's an extreme example. Just trying to illustrate the point.

wild_wild_life

I think evolutionary arguments regarding food are stupid because you can bet that if the cave man had high nutrient density food he didn't have to work for, he sure as hell would eat it. It's not like there were all of today's options and they chose only XY and Z. I also hate when people say what we were "meant" to eat. We were. Meant to be able to eat whatever was available. We've since invented or found new things, but just because they are evolutionarily new doesn't mean they are necessarily bad. Multivitamins are new, does that mean they are bad? Fish oil supplements?

I think that the reason restrictive diets work for weight loss and health is that they keep you from eating the donut your coworker brought in offering 300 cals and no satiety. I'm more of a moderation girl. I don't think there is anything wrong with paleo or primal, I just don't think it's especially right either.

I don't eat paleo but I don't see how you can say the evolutionary arguments are stupid. The question is, what is the optimal human diet? The answer is what we were eating when our digestive system evolved. That is what our systems were designed for. Our entire bodies were designed for that lifestyle. Our modern diet is so drastically different from that and yet evolutionarily we have not changed. It only makes sense to me to get things more in line with how it was then. I admit the details are a little fuzzy and it differed culture by culture, but some things are known (ie this is pre-agriculture so no one ate poptarts).

Just because it was eaten during the evolution of the digestive system, it's optimal? Sorry, evolution is a random process. Mutations occur and beneficial ones have a greater probability of being passed on than detrimental ones.

Sure. Take koala bears. They evolved to eat eucalyptus. Eucalyptus is the optimal diet for them. They arent going to do as well on maple leaves, even if science developed a high tech maple leaf and the koalas love the taste. It's an extreme example but I don't see any fundamental difference between us and them. Granted, who knows how much practical difference eating paleo has on any given individual's health, but I think the theory has a sound basis.

Koalas are marsupials, humans are not. Seems like a pretty big fundamental difference.

Why? Evolutionary principles would be the same.

bm99

I think evolutionary arguments regarding food are stupid because you can bet that if the cave man had high nutrient density food he didn't have to work for, he sure as hell would eat it. It's not like there were all of today's options and they chose only XY and Z. I also hate when people say what we were "meant" to eat. We were. Meant to be able to eat whatever was available. We've since invented or found new things, but just because they are evolutionarily new doesn't mean they are necessarily bad. Multivitamins are new, does that mean they are bad? Fish oil supplements?

I think that the reason restrictive diets work for weight loss and health is that they keep you from eating the donut your coworker brought in offering 300 cals and no satiety. I'm more of a moderation girl. I don't think there is anything wrong with paleo or primal, I just don't think it's especially right either.

I don't eat paleo but I don't see how you can say the evolutionary arguments are stupid. The question is, what is the optimal human diet? The answer is what we were eating when our digestive system evolved. That is what our systems were designed for. Our entire bodies were designed for that lifestyle. Our modern diet is so drastically different from that and yet evolutionarily we have not changed. It only makes sense to me to get things more in line with how it was then. I admit the details are a little fuzzy and it differed culture by culture, but some things are known (ie this is pre-agriculture so no one ate poptarts).

Just because it was eaten during the evolution of the digestive system, it's optimal? Sorry, evolution is a random process. Mutations occur and beneficial ones have a greater probability of being passed on than detrimental ones.

Sure. Take koala bears. They evolved to eat eucalyptus. Eucalyptus is the optimal diet for them. They arent going to do as well on maple leaves, even if science developed a high tech maple leaf and the koalas love the taste. It's an extreme example but I don't see any fundamental difference between us and them. Granted, who knows how much practical difference eating paleo has on any given individual's health, but I think the theory has a sound basis.

Do they ONLY eat eucalyptus?

Yeah. Like I said, it's an extreme example. Just trying to illustrate the point.

You should pick an example that eats a more varied diet like humans do. Take monkeys, they have been known to eat fermented or overripe fruit to get drunk. Does paleo allow alcohol?

ETA: Is this diet supposed to be pre or post fire? Because if it's pre fire then meat should be eaten raw, but if it's post fire then there is no reason to cut out grains.

ETA again: What kind of prehistoric geography are we talking about anyway? African cavemen would have a vastly different diet from N American cavemen or N European cavemen, even if there was just the one supercontinent.

stepharega

BuMp for later!

athensguy

I'm all for healthy, natural eating...but it seems the doctors forgot to mention that the cavemen had a life expectancy of about 18-20 years...so it was sort of irrelavant what they ate as far as long term health effects....

^^^This is very true!!! Can't dispute this fact!!!

Actually it was closer to 40 and that's taking child mortality into account, not even going to go into health care. If a person lived past 5 yrs of age then generally they lived fairly old, well past 50 into their 60's and 70's.....today some countries have life expectancies in the 40.'s and 50's......basically your argument is a moot point for adopting a similar diet, which more than likely has nothing to do with the actually food.

Are you sure you're not referring to Roman life expectancy?

That's thousands to millions of years after the paleolithic era.

A lot of the hominids during the paleo era weren't modern humans, and it's likely that a primary source of calories was carbs from tubers.