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

Katwilkins

Speak with a dietitian first, the ones I know usually tell me there are no bad foods. One of the reasons I like MFP is because of the freedom it gives me to eat anything I want. I thought about having a gastric bypass but decided not too because I don't like my choices limited. As far as weight loss if you are truly counting your calories you will eventually loose the weight no matter what you eat, but you will feel better or worse depending on your choices. I eat a large variety of foods and I feel like I have made a lifestyle change, I eat high protein and high fruits and vegis and I have a treat if I want one, I just count it. When people go on an extreme diet change, it is difficult to maintain, and difficult to have around at family functions one of my children is a Pescatarian now but was a vegan and it was a huge pain in the butt around the holidays, I finally had to tell her she could eat what we have or take care of her own food needs. That being said I think what any human chooses to put in their body is very personal and you should do what you think is right, that will bring you happiness and health.

torrmairi

I haven't tried it myself, but I have a friend who went paleo for Lent while I went raw. He wasn't ever a big guy, but he told me he was dropping a couple of lbs a week, and he was incredibly happy with it, didn't feel restricted or anything. We'd compare stuff like costs and meals, and he tended to eat less but feel fuller for longer. I moved away in June so I don't know if he's still paleo now, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is.

FWIW, I don't have a problem with paleo. If anything I sort of feel a kinship with it, especially on raw, since in the end we're both seeking out healthier, less processed diets. If it works for you, why should I judge?

VegesaurusRex

I thought this felt a little de ja vu: https://api.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/682808-hunter-gatherers-vs-westerners?page=15

And the comments to the originally provided link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/12/red-meat-death-heart-cancer) provide plenty of appropriate criticism for the conclusions drawn in the study. (I could post a string of links to critiques of the conclusions drawn, but will not. I will just say that they are easily available for anyone to find doing any search on this research. (Am I being lazy? Eh, maybe...but honestly, I need to go accomplish some real life matters, and yes, one of which involves cooking some steaks (from that family-raised beef) for dinner.)

As for me personally, I have once again not been swayed to become a veg*n as the result of information posted in the MFP forum. Perhaps another day.

Yes, I have posted this study many times on many boards, but I have yet to hear a decent argument that there is something wrong with the study or that it doesn't show what it says is shows. There are actually hundreds of studies I could post that say the same thing, but this is the most recent large study, so I go with that.

And by saying "someone else has already refuted that," you are being imprecise and avoiding the issue. People come out with all kinds of crazy opinions, but not other studies. I have challenged and continue to challenge anyone who thinks meat is not harmful to come out with a study showing that, not produced by the meat and dairy industry, not dealing with Inuits or Lapplanders, populations where genetic drift is at play, and properly controlled, that shows either that 1. eating meat eliminates chronic diseases, or 2. eating fruits and vegetables is definitively correlated with chronic diseases.

I have argued this subject on this board long enough to know that people do not want to accept what is obvious. They want justification for their preferences. Just like with the economy, American consumerism is at an end people will never again have the spending power or type of jobs that people had in the last 50 years. People just don't want to accept that. Nor do people want to accept that the American diet sucks and is unhealthy. Therefore, like you, they stick their heads in the sand, and pretend the truth doesn't exist.

VegesaurusRex

A recent Swedish study which followed a sample group for 25 years makes interesting reading. High-protein, low-carb diets are very popular in Sweden. Basically, there's been a big spike in cholesterol, and people have got fatter anyway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/11/health-atkins-diet-blamed-cholesterol-heart-disease_n_1585766.html

Interesting.

VegesaurusRex

Wow! I had no idea that Paleolithic Diet was a religion. This thread is a real eye opener.

Oh, yeah!!!

VegesaurusRex

To the vegans... Those who eat paleo can and will be just as healthy as you. Your way is not correct, there way is not wrong.

To the paleos.. Those who are vegan can and will be just as healthy as you. Your way is not correct, there way is not wrong.

Argument resolved.
[/quote

You might want to read the Swedish study that someone posted above.

PhilyPhresh

People come out with all kinds of crazy opinions

case and point.

VorJoshigan

You might want to read the Swedish study that someone posted above.

I'm too lazy to do paleo or VLC, but I did read the Swedish study and I was not impressed. They define "low carb" very loosely, and there are correlation =! causation problems all over the place. It's getting to the point where I have to keep a salt lick around for anything but metabolic ward studies, and sometimes even with those.

madlibscholar

A recent Swedish study which followed a sample group for 25 years makes interesting reading. High-protein, low-carb diets are very popular in Sweden. Basically, there's been a big spike in cholesterol, and people have got fatter anyway.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/11/health-atkins-diet-blamed-cholesterol-heart-disease_n_1585766.html

Interesting.

How many people did they actually study? They said that a quarter of the population loosely adopted the LCHF lifestyle, 5% rigidly adopted it, but there was an overall spike in cholesterol across the whole of the population? I may need a bit more info to make a determination.

My adoption of the Paleo/Primal label was merely because I don't like a large majority of starchy carbs. I am not really a fan of the texture of anything made with flour of any type (I really hate bread), I try not to eat refined sugar or sweetners just because I don't think they have any nutritional benefit, and I have been striving to get my family to eat more whole, unprocessed foods in general. Basically, when I learned a little bit about the Primal way of eating, I was pretty much doing it anyway. I like that there is an encouragement to eat local meat; I buy preservative free, local bacon and I know where the cows I eat are pastured. My eggs come straight from my BIL who is a Free Range egg farmer, and the chickens I eat are free range, as well. I have stopped buying as much fish, mainly because I can't guarantee where it comes from, and I care about that now. So, reading about this lifestyle actually encouraged me to eat a bit more mindfully. My health is better than it was when I was doing 'moderation' and eating things I didn't like, so I have that as an added bonus. I would definitely not class this as a low carb diet...I have gone over my carb macros many times, by a lot sometimes, depending on what fruits and vegetables I choose. I have had weight loss success eating this way, but like any other lifestyle, I've also gained weight by going a bit overboard! I don't eat only meat...we probably strive for at least 2 meat free meals a week, and they are equally as delicious and satisfying.

madlibscholar

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/12/red-meat-death-heart-cancer

And with this study...
Red meat was the only possible link with heart disease and/or cancer? We don't have any other information about the participants just by reading this article. How many of the people studied smoked? Took drugs? Had a hereditary risk? Lived in a polluted city? There is nothing to suggest in this article that the heart attacks or cancer could have ONLY been caused by red meat.

There just isn't enough evidence here to 'prove' that red meat was the culprit.

VegesaurusRex

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/12/red-meat-death-heart-cancer

And with this study...
Red meat was the only possible link with heart disease and/or cancer? We don't have any other information about the participants just by reading this article. How many of the people studied smoked? Took drugs? Had a hereditary risk? Lived in a polluted city? There is nothing to suggest in this article that the heart attacks or cancer could have ONLY been caused by red meat.

There just isn't enough evidence here to 'prove' that red meat was the culprit.

I am sorry I have to bear in mind the people who post here so I posted the link to the Guardian. The Guardian is a Newspaper in the UK (That's England) and the newspaper reviewed the study. In the INTERNET article which I posted the link to has inside it a link to the Annals of Internal Medicine, which has the actual article.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1134845

Now in order to see the whole article, and not just the abstract, you will have to either subscribe or pay for that single article. Another alternative is to go to a medical library near you and look at it for free. My guess is that you are not going to want to do any of that, even though the methodology is fully disclosed, including the selection of the subject population.

Trust me, the scientists who put this together not only had statisticians at their disposal, but most of them know more about statistics than 99% of the people on this board, so you will not be able to find fault with any of the issues you raised.

VegesaurusRex

You might want to read the Swedish study that someone posted above.

I'm too lazy to do paleo or VLC, but I did read the Swedish study and I was not impressed. They define "low carb" very loosely, and there are correlation =! causation problems all over the place. It's getting to the point where I have to keep a salt lick around for anything but metabolic ward studies, and sometimes even with those.

The correlation/causation problem is the cause celebre of the statistically illiterate. My guess is that you had statistics 101 and that correlation/causation was probably the only thing you remembered. If you dispute what I just said, kindly point me to a study on diet, that, in your opinion does not have the correlation/causation problem, and which ALL independent variables are controlled for (That is the only way to prove causation in the empirical world, and of course that is impossible.) Every study that I have ever read concerning diet is subject to the correlation/causation problem. All a posteriori studies are subject to that problem. Therefore this is an excellent example of why too little knowledge is dangerous.

Metabolic ward studies are no less subject to this problem than any other empirical study. In fact they are probably the worst of the lot, since the population normally studied in a ward is very small. And that population is normally also very sick. And normally they are also studied for a very short time, with no longitudinal follow-up. So that would be the last place I would look for dietary information for a normal diverse population.

madlibscholar

I am in England, so am aware of the newspaper. I am also a researcher, so would probably find some fault with the journal article, since most research is fallible to some degree. Additionally, most research journals WON'T publish negative medical theories...drugs can be found to be 'good' if just one person responds positively...doesn't matter that the other 99 folks tested died or had a negative side effect...what reputable medical journal wants to present that??? There is just as much publishing bias in medical science as anywhere else...they publish the stuff that people want to read.

So, of course they have statisticians...but just because it's in a research journal, doesn't mean there is no margin of error contained within...it's just what's managed to be published.

There is no 100% in research. Plus, research theories are disproved all the time; so while it's good to present a solid piece of evidence to support your case, all research must be taken with a grain of salt...there likely is always a counter-theory that is just as valid!

Which is totally not my point in joining this thread...I just wanted to add my two cents about my own lifestyle...Primal by default, I guess!

shooter1357

I am starting by cutting out processed foods. I made my very first Paleo recipe last night, for "candy" that tastes just like an almond joy. I know with those in my fridge, it will help with the transition cravings. This morning I had an omelet with diced ham from Sprouts, tomato and cheese from Trader Joe's. I KNOW the cheese is not Paleo and the ham probably isn't, but it was a better for me breakfast than the Jimmy Dean Delights breakfast sandwich I heat up in the microwave. So, gradually I am working my way towards the complete Paleo lifestyle.

Best of luck with it if you decide to jump in! I have found some great information on www.paleoplan.com.

What is this "candy"???

cartrat

bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.

i like being primal. the end

VegesaurusRex

I am in England, so am aware of the newspaper. I am also a researcher, so would probably find some fault with the journal article, since most research is fallible to some degree. Additionally, most research journals WON'T publish negative medical theories...drugs can be found to be 'good' if just one person responds positively...doesn't matter that the other 99 folks tested died or had a negative side effect. The general public doesn't get access to that information. Publishing bias runs pretty rampant in the science industry.

So, of course they have statisticians...but just because it's in a research journal, doesn't mean it's accurate...it's just what's managed to be published.

Now this is a very intriguing post. Since you are a researcher, why DON'T you look at the actual article? I would love to hear whatever you have to say about it. And I agree, if you want to you can fault any article. (E.g., it wasn't controlled for the number of neutrinos entering the subject's body.) I assume you are in the biological sciences?

What you say about journals not publishing medical theories confuses me. "Be healthy by not eating meat" is a negative theory is it not?

And no, I don't believe that everything I read in Nature, Science, PNAS PLoS ONE etc is true. However, articles in those journals have a greater possibility of being true than most peoples opinion.

WendyTerry420

I have been on a weight loss plateau for a long, long time. I have tried alot of things and been discouraged alot but never given up. My crossfit trainer and one of my friends have been talking with me about the Paleo diet. Both of them are having great success and made me think that maybe it's not how much I eat but what I am eating that is causing my problem. I have read alot about it and think that I am going to give it a try but still use MFP to track my calories. I don't think I could stick with Paleo for a long period of time but am thinking 30 to 60 days may give me the boost I need to lose these last 10 awful pounds. Anyone have success with Paleo? What did you like or dislike about it?

It is a diet that you would have to pay me a bunch of money to stick to it. For one thing, no peanuts are allowed, and peanuts are one of my favorite foods.

jofjltncb6

bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.

i like being primal. the end

Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.

And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).

WendyTerry420

Wow! I had no idea that Paleolithic Diet was a religion. This thread is a real eye opener.

Oh, yeah!!!

Ahh....yes....I remember reading my first Paleo thread on MFP. I consider it a cult instead of a religion, but yeah, same general concept. :laugh: :laugh:

jofjltncb6

Wow! I had no idea that Paleolithic Diet was a religion. This thread is a real eye opener.

Oh, yeah!!!

Ahh....yes....I remember reading my first Paleo thread on MFP. I consider it a cult instead of a religion, but yeah, same general concept. :laugh: :laugh:

To me, it seems no more (or less) "cultish" than the "everything in moderation" camp.