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

135

Replies

  • shorty35565
    shorty35565 Posts: 1,425 Member
    bump for later.
  • RonSwanson66
    RonSwanson66 Posts: 1,150 Member

    Koalas are marsupials,

    i-have-all-the-koalafications.jpg
  • wild_wild_life
    wild_wild_life Posts: 1,334 Member
    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.

    Good points. Btw, I'm not even on this diet so not sure why I'm defending it.

    From Wikipedia

    The paleolithic diet (abbreviated paleo diet or paleodiet), also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet, is a modern nutritional plan based on the presumed ancient diet of wild plants and animals that various hominid species habitually consumed during the Paleolithic era—a period of about 2.5 million years duration that ended around 10,000 years ago with the development of agriculture. In common usage, such terms as the "Paleolithic diet" also refer to the actual ancestral human diet.[1][2]

    I think fire was discovered during this time, but I don't know when it became widely used. But in general this is before agriculture. Have we evolved since then? Homo sapiens evolved during this era. So we are the same species we were then.

    But, I see your point and agree the details are sketchy. I just think if we knew the details, it would be a cool idea.
  • bm99
    bm99 Posts: 597 Member
    Don't forget that they lived with the reality of feast or famine as well. It's very likely they got to binge eat on buffalo meat for a week or so, then a couple bad hunts and they starve for a while, to be replaced again with plenty (or not, as the case may be). THAT was the reality while we were evolving, and our digestive systems are extremely efficient at storing energy for future use. Maybe someone should make a diet about that part of it.
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    Good points. Btw, I'm not even on this diet so not sure why I'm defending it.

    LOL.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Its funny how this is catching on for medicine like 2 years after it exploded in the diet world, and many of the original paleo supporters have moved on, or still practice some modified version that makes it less restrictive.

    The original Paleo supporters are still there and there is a complete movement going on to push for changes in legislation for organic and farm raised meats. Of course we are up against the likes of Cargill and Monsanto so it is fighting an uphill battle.

    Most people I know are just as strict if not more strict 1 or more years in.

    There are conventions and different meetings going on all around.
  • asugar
    asugar Posts: 178 Member
    I aThink it's great aThat doctors get invOlvEd in diet as medicine. So many doctors have such little nutritIonal experience. I am going to try the Primal/Paleo again.... I tend to cheat on pasta and bread when I've tried b4 tho!
  • shani251
    shani251 Posts: 145 Member
    i love the paleo diet - i feel healthier than i have in my entire 43 years on this planet and have no intention of going back to 'regular' eating, even after goal. By the way, i've lost 39 pounds nearly effortlessly. I'm so pleased!
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    I have nothing to add but my personal opinion of when people state that 'sugar is evil' - it pretty much puts me off the whole ideology they are adhering to as it smacks of fanaticism which, in my opinion, is usually not fraught with logic.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    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?

    There are still Paleolithic people living today.........
    There are still Paleolithic people today. But, you ask yourself, “How can there be Paleolithic people today, when the Neolithic (New Stone Age) began around 12,000 BCE?” Remember, Paleolithic is a lifestyle. Anyone practicing a nomadic lifestyle of hunting and gathering, living in small bands, and using only Paleolithic technology is considered to be Paleolithic, so yes there are still Paleolithic peoples today, but they are fast disappearing. This is why I sometimes mix the past and present tenses in my writing. Paleolithic peoples existed in the past and also in modern times.

    The San of the Kalahari Desert are still following a Paleolithic lifestyle, but most scholars would assert that that lifestyle has been contaminated. By that they mean that modern tools, lifestyles, and more importantly modern ideas are changing the traditional lifestyle of the San. Whether or not this is a good thing remains to be seen, but it is a process that cannot be reversed
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    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?

    There are still Paleolithic people living today.........
    There are still Paleolithic people today. But, you ask yourself, “How can there be Paleolithic people today, when the Neolithic (New Stone Age) began around 12,000 BCE?” Remember, Paleolithic is a lifestyle. Anyone practicing a nomadic lifestyle of hunting and gathering, living in small bands, and using only Paleolithic technology is considered to be Paleolithic, so yes there are still Paleolithic peoples today, but they are fast disappearing. This is why I sometimes mix the past and present tenses in my writing. Paleolithic peoples existed in the past and also in modern times.

    The San of the Kalahari Desert are still following a Paleolithic lifestyle, but most scholars would assert that that lifestyle has been contaminated. By that they mean that modern tools, lifestyles, and more importantly modern ideas are changing the traditional lifestyle of the San. Whether or not this is a good thing remains to be seen, but it is a process that cannot be reversed

    What utter nonsense
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    I have nothing to add but my personal opinion of when people state that 'sugar is evil' - it pretty much puts me off the whole ideology they are adhering to as it smacks of fanaticism which, in my opinion, is usually not fraught with logic.

    jumping to the conclusion that those who have chosen to improve their health by limiting sugar are fanatics is fraught with logic?
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    I have nothing to add but my personal opinion of when people state that 'sugar is evil' - it pretty much puts me off the whole ideology they are adhering to as it smacks of fanaticism which, in my opinion, is usually not fraught with logic.

    jumping to the conclusion that those who have chosen to improve their health by limiting sugar are fanatics is fraught with logic?

    Nope - I was giving my commentry on what puts me off in, what I clearly stated, was my opinion - please do not jump to conclusions about what I was saying.

    ETA: I have no issue with someone limiting sugar - and agree it is healthy - calling an inanimate thing evil is what smacks of fanatic TO ME.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    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?

    There are still Paleolithic people living today.........
    There are still Paleolithic people today. But, you ask yourself, “How can there be Paleolithic people today, when the Neolithic (New Stone Age) began around 12,000 BCE?” Remember, Paleolithic is a lifestyle. Anyone practicing a nomadic lifestyle of hunting and gathering, living in small bands, and using only Paleolithic technology is considered to be Paleolithic, so yes there are still Paleolithic peoples today, but they are fast disappearing. This is why I sometimes mix the past and present tenses in my writing. Paleolithic peoples existed in the past and also in modern times.

    The San of the Kalahari Desert are still following a Paleolithic lifestyle, but most scholars would assert that that lifestyle has been contaminated. By that they mean that modern tools, lifestyles, and more importantly modern ideas are changing the traditional lifestyle of the San. Whether or not this is a good thing remains to be seen, but it is a process that cannot be reversed

    What utter nonsense

    How is it utter nonsense?

    Read the lecture for yourself and there is plenty more........

    http://gossamerstrands.com/Hist100/lecture1.htm

    http://gossamerstrands.com/Hist100/
  • RonSwanson66
    RonSwanson66 Posts: 1,150 Member
    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?

    There are still Paleolithic people living today.........
    There are still Paleolithic people today. But, you ask yourself, “How can there be Paleolithic people today, when the Neolithic (New Stone Age) began around 12,000 BCE?” Remember, Paleolithic is a lifestyle. Anyone practicing a nomadic lifestyle of hunting and gathering, living in small bands, and using only Paleolithic technology is considered to be Paleolithic, so yes there are still Paleolithic peoples today, but they are fast disappearing. This is why I sometimes mix the past and present tenses in my writing. Paleolithic peoples existed in the past and also in modern times.

    The San of the Kalahari Desert are still following a Paleolithic lifestyle, but most scholars would assert that that lifestyle has been contaminated. By that they mean that modern tools, lifestyles, and more importantly modern ideas are changing the traditional lifestyle of the San. Whether or not this is a good thing remains to be seen, but it is a process that cannot be reversed

    What utter nonsense

    How is it utter nonsense?

    Read the lecture for yourself and there is plenty more........

    http://gossamerstrands.com/Hist100/lecture1.htm

    http://gossamerstrands.com/Hist100/

    LOL @ citing a hippie's blog as "evidence".
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    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?

    There are still Paleolithic people living today.........
    There are still Paleolithic people today. But, you ask yourself, “How can there be Paleolithic people today, when the Neolithic (New Stone Age) began around 12,000 BCE?” Remember, Paleolithic is a lifestyle. Anyone practicing a nomadic lifestyle of hunting and gathering, living in small bands, and using only Paleolithic technology is considered to be Paleolithic, so yes there are still Paleolithic peoples today, but they are fast disappearing. This is why I sometimes mix the past and present tenses in my writing. Paleolithic peoples existed in the past and also in modern times.

    The San of the Kalahari Desert are still following a Paleolithic lifestyle, but most scholars would assert that that lifestyle has been contaminated. By that they mean that modern tools, lifestyles, and more importantly modern ideas are changing the traditional lifestyle of the San. Whether or not this is a good thing remains to be seen, but it is a process that cannot be reversed

    What utter nonsense

    How is it utter nonsense?

    Read the lecture for yourself and there is plenty more........

    http://gossamerstrands.com/Hist100/lecture1.htm

    http://gossamerstrands.com/Hist100/

    Oh sorry, if one professor says something, it must be true. My bad
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    well, there goes this thread. the all knowing and superior boys are here to tell everyone how they are wrong and stupid.
  • sarahsmom1
    sarahsmom1 Posts: 1,501 Member
    Hello I'm an Anthropology Major and they recently found I'll say it in layman's terms fossilized poop and did DNA etc and found it had berries, plants, bison fur and squirrel bones. No thanks
  • RonSwanson66
    RonSwanson66 Posts: 1,150 Member
    well, there goes this thread. the all knowing and superior boys are here to tell everyone how they are wrong and stupid.

    Have you ever contributed anything of worth to the discussion? Or just *****ed about those of us who debunk nonsense?


    BTW. We're still waiting for you to back up your assertion that "corn is da debil". I noticed you ran away from that thread when asked to support your claims.
  • FryingPanda
    FryingPanda Posts: 99 Member
    Homo sapiens evolved during this era. So we are the same species we were then.

    Aren't we Homo sapien sapiens? So not quite the same as our Homo sapien brethern? :smile:

    The two things that confuse me about the Paleo diet, is 1) during that time multiple forms of 'cavemen' existed so there is some vagueness I don't like. 2) Two of the three Primary drives are for sugars and fat. The idea being we craved these things because of the feast and famine cycle of life 'bacj in the day'.

    I am not saying that there aren't merits to the diet, but the way I have seen it presented just bugs me.
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    well, there goes this thread. the all knowing and superior boys are here to tell everyone how they are wrong and stupid.

    Have you ever contributed anything of worth to the discussion? Or just *****ed about those of us who debunk nonsense?


    BTW. We're still waiting for you to back up your assertion that "corn is da debil". I noticed you ran away from that thread when asked to support your claims.

    I never said "corn is da debil". And "discussing" anything with your kind is a waste of time.
  • Colbyandsage
    Colbyandsage Posts: 751 Member
    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!
  • babycakes1970
    babycakes1970 Posts: 111 Member
    I was going to try to go with the paleo diet but I found that I simply could not afford it. Meat is expensive and I have a family to feed. So I eat as healthy as I can afford to and limit my portion sizes.
  • bathsheba_c
    bathsheba_c Posts: 1,873 Member
    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).

    But what stage of the evolution of our digestive systems? The entire point of evolution is that we are constantly evolving with every generation! I mean, heck, our digestive system isn't that different from the digestive system of a worm, but you wouldn't say we should eat dirt.

    Let's say our arbitrary starting point is the development of agriculture 10,000 years ago (which is especially arbitrary in light of the fact that not every place became agricultural at the same time, if they became agricultural at all, but let's assume). Well, humanity was pretty spread over the globe at that point. So whose pre-agricultural diet should we follow? Any pre-agricultural diet? The ones followed by any individual's ancestors? And if everyone follows their ancestors' diets, what should multi-race people do? Or people whose gene pool for historical reasons has lots of additions (blacks in the Caribbean, Jews, etc.)?
  • Jbarbo01
    Jbarbo01 Posts: 240 Member
    I like the primal blueprint better. It includes a little dairy (unsweetened almond milk/plain greek yogurt/cheese) and a little fruit. carbs are ok if you take out the regular high fiber breads and replace w/ ezekial bread, quinoa, steel cut oats etc. And it's more 80/20- trying to eat primal most of the time but giving yourself room to eat in the real world too.
    I lost 10lbs just adding the extra protein and keeping my carbs around 100! now I'm down to my goal weight :)

    I agree with this, I think its great he comes with a little more flexible approach than the other Paleo type diet authors. Though he thinks grains should be limited, he doesn't demonize them either.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    well, there goes this thread. the all knowing and superior boys are here to tell everyone how they are wrong and stupid.

    Have you ever contributed anything of worth to the discussion? Or just *****ed about those of us who debunk nonsense?


    BTW. We're still waiting for you to back up your assertion that "corn is da debil". I noticed you ran away from that thread when asked to support your claims.

    I never said "corn is da debil". And "discussing" anything with your kind is a waste of time.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/617260-why-is-corn-so-high-in-calories?page=2
  • callmeBAM
    callmeBAM Posts: 445 Member
    I do not buy for a second that this is the way we are "supposed" to eat or that evolution has anything to do with it. It's basically just cutting out processed food.

    So, what you're saying is... (everyone can see what just happened here right?)
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    well, there goes this thread. the all knowing and superior boys are here to tell everyone how they are wrong and stupid.

    Have you ever contributed anything of worth to the discussion? Or just *****ed about those of us who debunk nonsense?


    BTW. We're still waiting for you to back up your assertion that "corn is da debil". I noticed you ran away from that thread when asked to support your claims.

    I never said "corn is da debil". And "discussing" anything with your kind is a waste of time.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/617260-why-is-corn-so-high-in-calories?page=2

    didnt see "corn is da debil"
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    I was going to try to go with the paleo diet but I found that I simply could not afford it. Meat is expensive and I have a family to feed. So I eat as healthy as I can afford to and limit my portion sizes.

    That is funny. We cut our grocery bill by at least 60% when we converted to Paleo.
  • RonSwanson66
    RonSwanson66 Posts: 1,150 Member
    well, there goes this thread. the all knowing and superior boys are here to tell everyone how they are wrong and stupid.

    Have you ever contributed anything of worth to the discussion? Or just *****ed about those of us who debunk nonsense?


    BTW. We're still waiting for you to back up your assertion that "corn is da debil". I noticed you ran away from that thread when asked to support your claims.

    I never said "corn is da debil". And "discussing" anything with your kind is a waste of time.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/617260-why-is-corn-so-high-in-calories?page=2

    didnt see "corn is da debil"

    I was paraphrasing.

    Exact quotes:
    "In fact, we hate corn"

    "In sum: corn is not a vegetable, and it’s a worthless grain"


    "And if you don't really know corn isn't that good for the human body, then you are doing a lot of posing."