Have any of you tried the Paleo Diet? Success???

spngebobmyhero · August 2012

bump for later amusement

Glasgow_Vegan · August 2012

You have to do any diet long term or else you put the weight back on when you return to your normal eating.

Glasgow_Vegan · August 2012

Why cut out all grains though? Unless you have celiac disease or a gluten allergy. Whole grains have been proven to increase heart health and they're a great source of fiber, b vitamins and protein.

RainHoward · August 2012

If it has a title, if it consists of anything starting with the word "the" and ending in "diet" I stay away. I suppose there is some merit to all of them in some way but to follow one strictly, no.

Marll · August 2012

"Proven"? This is not conclusive and there is plenty of evidence for the opposite that any nutrients gained through grains is negated by the detrimental effects on gut flora.

That being said there are also plenty of people that are healthy for the most part but show improved cholesterol, blood sugar levels, blood pressure and are able to loose weight just by cutting grains. I've observed it first hand in myself, friends, family, etc, but as we all know from this thread, apparently observations contrary to the standard ways of thinking are worthless :huh:

Halleeon · August 2012

I guess if you had to title the way I eat it's Primal...with moderate exceptions. I also eat between my BMR and TDEE and adjust this number for every 5 pounds I lose. I'm losing weight, inches, and tons of NSV's.

ipag · August 2012

On a calorie by-calorie-basis, green vegetables contain substantially more fiber than whole grains, plus they offer even more nutrients in abundance than any whole grain could.

Marll · August 2012

This^^

Why bother eating something that is supposedly good for you when you could eat something else that's superior and avoid any of the potential issues that may come with consumption of grains?

VegesaurusRex · August 2012

I never specifically pointed you out as a scientist. What I'm saying is that these days you can't really trust scientists to be delivering the actual data that they've gathered, but rather a stilted, skewed view that is made to fit into specific outcome that has already been pre-defined. Most of the bad science against meat in the diet can be traced back to the Lipid Hypothesis and Ancel Keys, who was a grade A *kitten* and a fraud.

*********************************************************
A scientist's reputation depends upon what they do. Grant money and tenure depend upon reputation. Any scientist who skews a study to fit into his own preconceived notions of what the results should look like sure won't last long. Few scientists intentionally screw up data to show what they "want" the data to show. The vast majority of studies show what actually happened not what someone thinks ought to have happened. As I pointed out, the first major study that I know of on diet was the Framingham study done in the 1940's. The results, at the time were shocking, because no one knew or believed that eating meat was dangerous and correlated with deadly diseases like cancer and heart disease. There have probably been thousands of studies since then and well over 90% of them confirm the results of the Framingham Study. This is not an accident. This is not coincidence. This is a meaningful correlation, and anyone who disregards massive data like this is frankly a fool.
*********************************************************

I don't need some study to show me that meat is or is not good, I know that I feel better and perform better when I eat meat.

*******************************************************
Do you need a study to show you that smoking, alcohol and drugs are not good? All of them make you feel good. If feeling good were the only criterion for what you do, you would probably be dead now.
*******************************************************

I know also that I fell much better when I eat a wide array of vegtables that are free from processing and are fresh. I don't care for any views from large organizations like PETA or the like, as they are also corrupt and have become politically motivated now.

*******************************************************
Be that as it may, PETA doesn't do any studies. As I pointed out, they don't have to. They have 70 years of independent studies to prove they are essentially right.
******************************************************

In the end isn't all science rooted in observation and experimentation? To just blindly say that observation to the contrary of popular belief is not valid is a fundamental and fatal flaw in your argument in my opinion

*****************************************************
The problem is that what you call "popular belief" is actually the results of observation and experimentation. What you call "observation and experimentation," is actually popular belief. Observation and experimentation are exactly what are done in the studies that I quote. Anecdotal stories about your friends and family are NOT observation and experimentation.
*****************************************************

VegesaurusRex · August 2012

VegesaurusRex · August 2012

Superior? Based on your say so? Here is an article that talks about the benefits of eating grains, and their article is based upon studies published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:

http://www.qualityhealth.com/eating-nutrition-articles/4-benefits-eating-whole-grains

Marll · August 2012

Are you serious? The article just points to "Numerous studies" (which ones pray tell?) and then talks about the recommendations of the Whole Grains Council (Yeah, they SURELY don't have an agenda) and then again sites "some studies" (again, which ones??).

Further their points are total BS. They state that grains help prevent diabetes...yet your average diabetic or even Type 2 diabetic will have pretty big blood sugar spikes when eating grains...not good for a diabetic, and why raise anyone's blood sugar when there is no need?

The reduced risk of heart disease from grains only points to FIBER intake...which you can get plenty from vegtable sources.

Reduced rectal cancer lumps in vegtables, fruits and grains into one category which is misleading, and then points back to fiber being the real catalyst for a healthy colon...again which you can get plenty of from vegtables.

And finally as a prevention for obesity, they just use the idea that people that consume whole grains gain less weight. In my experience, those that are mislead into thinking that whole grains are healthy generally are the type that are concerened about other things like exercise and eating less processed garbage, so by that fact alone they tend to be a healthier weight. Take out the grains and I would suspect you'll have the same result.

The whole article is bull****, and clearly gets its data from a source with an agenda, thus further proving my point that there is no pure science any more.

Now I'm no scientist, but if I compare the nutritional break down of a pretty neutral grain (brown rice) at roughly 200g and 200g of cauliflower (which is easily turned into "rice") you can see the cauliflower is MUCH lower in calories, lower in fat, lower in carbohydrates (thus less insulin response, less inflammation) and has nearly double the amount of vitamins and minerals, hence my idea of a superior choice. Why bother with grains when they cause distress (in me and many others) and sell myself short nutiritionally?

http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/cereal-grains-and-pasta/5707/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2390/2

VegesaurusRex · August 2012

First of all, I really do not want to get into an argument about whether to eat grains or vegetables. I have no problem with either, Both are a substantial part of my diet. The only thing I have a problem with is eating meat. I have ethical reasons not to do that, and there are clear, obvious health benefits as well. I notice how selective parts of my posts never get responded to. For example, my comment that just about every major national health organization in the world (as well as the United Nations) recommends against eating meat. All you people who know better than the scientific studies should at least try to explain why these world health organizations are so stupid. Assuming you are right, they must be wrong.

onematchfire · August 2012

I like this quote from Andrew Lang: "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts...for support rather than illumination." Everyone is guilty of this, from time to time.

Intelligent, educated minds can disagree on which styles of eating are healthier, whether that varies by individual, and just about anything related to consumption. Freedom of individual choice is a beautiful thing.

In response to the OP, I began eating basically primally last November. Specifically, I eat tons of veggies, some mostly pasture-raised animal products (meat, whole dairy, eggs), and a bit of fruit and nuts (once I hit my goal weight and body composition, I'll add more). I try to stay away from industrially processed foods (I can, so I process plenty of foods at home), grains, legumes, and sugar (including honey and maple syrup). When I can, I buy from local farmers whose practices I feel are most sustainable, which is easy for me since I live in a relatively rural area that's pretty heavy on the agriculture. My remaining food vices are Jay Robb's Whey Protein and Quest Bars (Frankenfoods -- arguably less bad than similar products, but not relevant to this thread), and wine or gin on occasion.

Pros: I feel better than I have in years, my blood pressure has dropped from pre-hypertensive (on what most would consider a healthy diet low in processed foods) to "excellent" (my doctor's word), I've dropped thirty odd pounds, I like the food I'm eating and feel that it's very nutritionally dense, and it's an easy lifestyle for me to maintain. Oh, and my mile pace has improved by about three minutes, though that's probably attributable to weight loss in general rather than what I have been eating.

Cons: Restaurants and travel can be tricky unless you plan ahead, and I struggle with calling myself "primal" if people ask about my eating, as I dislike having to constantly clear up popular misconceptions (I'm not an evangelist and never have been, even in my raw vegan for health days). All in, the pros pretty significantly outweigh these.

I'd never go so far as to say this lifestyle is for everyone. If you're big on processed food, don't like to cook, really love starchy/sugary things, and aren't a planner, it's probably not a good fit for you (though others are certainly free to disagree). For me, however, it's been the best life adjustment I've made that I can remember.

yasminhancey1982 · August 2012

They sound like the Atkins diet, i'm doing my own thing, see how that goes, its on my home page. xx

Marll · August 2012

So let's blindly trust all these "health" organizations and their recommendations, that again all can be traced back to bad or selective science? Why is the government even involved with nutrition anyway? Are we all too stupid to decide what to eat? Seems to me that people ate better with less chronic obesity, diabetes and other issues when there was less government involvement. Just because a couple idiots in government think something is a great idea doesn't make it so.

VegesaurusRex · September 2012

I fully agree that the government has no business being in our lives more than is absolutely necessary. However, having said that, I see no indication of great intelligence among the population interested in healthy living. "Magical thinking" still protects the majority of people from realizing that if they eat meat, they will greatly increase their chances of getting chronic diseases. Your magic thinking is that the studies you disagree with are all "bad or selective science." Of course every major study ever done says meat is correlated with chronic diseases, but that doesn't apply to you, does it. Magic thinking is wonderful.

VegesaurusRex · September 2012

Very interested if you would cite a study on detrimental effects of grain on gut flora. Not a UTube presentation by some quack, or an opinion piece (unless it is by a medical expert) but a study.

ericmooney69 · January 2013

As someone who consumes a diet that is 99% vegan, I cringe when I see anyone in the vegan community get hostile, mock or ridicule those who aren't vegan and have a "holier than thou" attitude. Even if they themselves are being rude, obnoxious, whatever..... when you respond in kind, you hurt "the cause" or whatever you want to call it.

VegesaurusREX claims he/she is vegan for "ethical reasons" which is fine and dandy. Many vegans are. To me, that would mean one's ultimate goal would be to do what they can to convince more people to be vegan. But guess what? The mose surefire way to make sure that doesn't happen is to ridicule, mock, talk down to and be an overall jerk.

So here is my response to the OP ---

Congratulations on considering a diet with a focus on "real food", primarily (hopefully) vegetables, fruit and ideally lean meat. I'm guessing like most people, much of your current caloric intake comes from processed foods so this change you are considering is much healthier. Personally, outside of a bit of turkey on Thanksgiving, my diet is vegan. It works for me, I feel great and as far as my doctor is concerned, everything looks great. Once you've been on "Paleo" (I hate that term) for several months and you are used to consuming way more fruits and veggies than you probably do today, taking the next step and becoming "vegan" will probably seem at lot more doable than it may today. So, give it a whirl for 30 days and keep a log/journal everyday on how you feel, how you slept, etc.... Good luck and God Bless.

jofjltncb6 · January 2013

For what it's worth, many people who adhere to it hate the term too. During my year+ of following it strictly, I starting referring to it as JERF instead...Just Eat Real Food.

PaleoPath4Lyfe · January 2013

Please educate yourself about saturated fats.

http://trusted.md/blog/vreni_gurd/2007/04/06/saturated_fat_the_misunderstood_nutrient#axzz0zknkn0yT

http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/nutrition/saturated_fat.htm

http://www.health-report.co.uk/saturated_fats_health_benefits.htm

neanderthin · January 2013

I'm back to adding in more animal protein, from restricting it to fish/crustations/bivalves and eggs and I have to thank that same source for changing my mind, the China Study which deals with diet, life-style and mortality in China. It certainly did influence my decision years ago to reduce meat consumption somewhat even though I did have some skepticism considering the biased format. I love fish and eggs, so I won't be eliminating them ever, just to let people know of my biases as well.

Anyway I read a critique of the China Study by Denise Minger who is a raw foodist first and foremost but is also a nutritional nerd with a 10th degree black belt in statistical data and dissected the actual raw data, which is also available. For me the moral of the story is, in statistical modeling taking one or two variables then isolating them is a cornerstone of confirmation bias.

Just for the paleo croud, which I'm not by the way, but I do eat a natural diet most of the time.....wheat doesn't fare very well at all.

Oh, she also has an article: Are low carb diets killing Sweden....I see that came up in this thread.

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

Have any of you tried the Paleo Diet? Success???

Replies

Categories