Paleo advice

kerrbear20

Ive being doing Paleo 80/20 for 3 weeks now and really enjoying it and lost 6lb the first 2. My friends and husband have noticed a difference in my shape, but having steped on the scales this morning i have 2lb gain. Can you eat too much on paleo and can you eat too much nuts and fruits, including dried fruits???

Rose

TavistockToad

yes, too much of anything will make you put on weight if you are eating over yout TDEE!

ibach08

Fruits contains sugar and carbs and dried fruits can have a quite high calorie content. Nuts are high in fat! If you want to lose I suggest eating totally clean and more like 100 % paleo puls cutting out fruits. Maybe try it out for about a month. I promise you will feel great.

Paleo is not a guaranteed weightloss especially if you eat 5 peices of fuit a day + 3 handfulls of nuts!

neandermagnon

overnight weight gain won't be fat, it'll be water. but yes, you can get fat eating too much of anything. Nuts and dried fruit are calorie dense, so it's easy to eat too much of them. People get confused, thinking low calorie = healthy, high calorie = unhealth, but that's not true. There are lots of very unhealthy low calorie foods, and very healthy high calorie foods. With high calorie foods, you still need to be careful about portion control if your goal is fat loss.

neandermagnon

Fruits contains sugar and carbs and dried fruits can have a quite high calorie content. Nuts are high in fat! If you want to lose I suggest eating totally clean and more like 100 % paleo puls cutting out fruits. Maybe try it out for about a month. I promise you will feel great.

Paleo is not a guaranteed weightloss especially if you eat 5 peices of fuit a day + 3 handfulls of nuts!

palaeolithic people ate fruits. fruit eating in human ancestors goes back millions of years, way earlier than the palaeolithic era... go right back to the evolution of primates for that, never mind just looking at palaeolithic humans.... fruits are full of micronutrients and fresh whole fruits are a great source of healthy carbs.

I don't think cutting out fruits is the solution to this problem, I think it would be better for the OP to simply eat less dried fruit. Dried fruit is much more calorie dense than fresh, whole fruit, as the water has been removed. More fresh, whole fruits and fewer dried fruits. Healthy, calorie dense foods are good for you, but they still require portion control. Giving up fruit because it's more calorie dense than some foods is just silly, IMO

skinnytayy

I eat primal but have recently switched to a more 80/20 approach. That said, I regular track what I eat regardless. Too much of anything will make you gain weight. You can definitely go way over on calories with dried fruit and nuts. The portion size for them is VERY VERY small.

Fruits contains sugar and carbs and dried fruits can have a quite high calorie content. Nuts are high in fat! If you want to lose I suggest eating totally clean and more like 100 % paleo puls cutting out fruits. Maybe try it out for about a month. I promise you will feel great.

Paleo is not a guaranteed weightloss especially if you eat 5 peices of fuit a day + 3 handfulls of nuts!

Calories in vs. calories out is what matters, not macros. To be healthy, macros matter. For weight loss? A calorie deficit. & For the record, the fat in nuts are extremely good for you. Good fats are ESSENTIAL to your body. And the paleo diet mentions NOTHING of cutting out fruits altogether. Do you think the cavemen passed up fruit when they could find it? Pfft.

Crap like that is what makes those of us non-crazies who eat paleo/primal look comparable to Tom Cruise with his Scientology garbage. :noway:

pcastagner

The whole concept of idealizing some ancestral condition is what makes it look comical. Paleolithic man had a short, miserable, disease ridden, and violent existence. But there is a reason the bible starts with the garden of Eden.


Wen you start with a flawed assumption, and build on it, things get weirder and weirder.

earlyxer

The whole concept of idealizing some ancestral condition is what makes it look comical. Paleolithic man had a short, miserable, disease ridden, and violent existence. But there is a reason the bible starts with the garden of Eden.


Wen you start with a flawed assumption, and build on it, things get weirder and weirder.

The first rational answer I've read!

neandermagnon

The whole concept of idealizing some ancestral condition is what makes it look comical. Paleolithic man had a short, miserable, disease ridden, and violent existence. But there is a reason the bible starts with the garden of Eden.


Wen you start with a flawed assumption, and build on it, things get weirder and weirder.

the assumption that palaeolithic people had short, miserable, disease ridden and violent existences is a flawed assumption. Shorter lifespan is correct, but only because Homo sapiens has evolved a longer childhood and longer lifespan generally to be able to learn and transmit far more cultural/survival knowledge from one generation to the next. Neanderthal children grew up about 3/4 as fast as Homo sapiens children, and were elderly in their 40s/50s. Homo erectus children grew up nearly twice as fast as Homo sapiens children. It's not because entire populations died prematurely.

Palaeolithic people were generally healthy, mostly free from disease and were on the whole no more violent than modern people, and quite a lot less violent than chimpanzees. Humans have been looking after sick, injured and elderly of their tribes for nearly 2 million years, according to the archaeological record. Additionally, later humans like neanderthals and Homo sapiens were at the top of the food chain so didn't live in fear of violence from animals either. They lived at low population densities, had not yet domesticated animals, so they were not exposed to many of the sources of disease that later populations were.

I'm not saying that they lived idyllic lives of bliss, a total lack of access to modern medicine and education/information isn't something I'd ever want for myself or my kids, but there's no reason to believe their lives were any harsher than a chimp or gorilla's life in the wild (a more applicable comparison for early humans like Homo habilis), or the lives of any other pre-industrial humans (a more applicable comparison for later humans like neanderthals and palaeolithic homo sapiens).

I say the above as a palaeoanthropology nerd, I don't actually eat paleo. I love my dairy too much and as I'm from a long line of dairy farming populations, I can digest it just fine. I will also point out that palaeolithic people would have eaten wild grains and legumes that grew within their foraging range. Neolithic people didn't invent grains or legumes, and they didn't start cultivating plants that no-one had ever eaten before. IMO the palaeolithic diet is actually very healthy, I mean 1.5 million+ years of hunting and gathering has resulted in us being extremely healthy on a diet of meat, fruit and vegetables.... the issue I have (in addition to not agreeing with unnecessary dietary restriction) is when internet "gurus" starts saying things like "caveman ate/didn't eat (add food here)" when the journal of human evolution can't tell me that, or any other scientific inaccuracies or total myths about palaeolithic people... unfortunately most of what most people believe about palaeolithic people are myths.

tomcornhole

Let the vilification begin! Paleo people are stupid. Low carb people are stupider. Cheat days are stupidest.

There are a lot of arrogant a#$holes on this site.

Jessie_Michael

I've been telling people to start consuming paleo diet.

It ain't a magic pill but it definitely helps (a lot) in losing weight and this thread alone is a sufficient proof.

Here's some less known secrets about paleo http://www.findjessie.com/best-paleo-diets/.

Jessie.

pcastagner

The whole concept of idealizing some ancestral condition is what makes it look comical. Paleolithic man had a short, miserable, disease ridden, and violent existence. But there is a reason the bible starts with the garden of Eden.


Wen you start with a flawed assumption, and build on it, things get weirder and weirder.

the assumption that palaeolithic people had short, miserable, disease ridden and violent existences is a flawed assumption. Shorter lifespan is correct, but only because Homo sapiens has evolved a longer childhood and longer lifespan generally to be able to learn and transmit far more cultural/survival knowledge from one generation to the next. Neanderthal children grew up about 3/4 as fast as Homo sapiens children, and were elderly in their 40s/50s. Homo erectus children grew up nearly twice as fast as Homo sapiens children. It's not because entire populations died prematurely.

Palaeolithic people were generally healthy, mostly free from disease and were on the whole no more violent than modern people, and quite a lot less violent than chimpanzees. Humans have been looking after sick, injured and elderly of their tribes for nearly 2 million years, according to the archaeological record. Additionally, later humans like neanderthals and Homo sapiens were at the top of the food chain so didn't live in fear of violence from animals either. They lived at low population densities, had not yet domesticated animals, so they were not exposed to many of the sources of disease that later populations were.

I'm not saying that they lived idyllic lives of bliss, a total lack of access to modern medicine and education/information isn't something I'd ever want for myself or my kids, but there's no reason to believe their lives were any harsher than a chimp or gorilla's life in the wild (a more applicable comparison for early humans like Homo habilis), or the lives of any other pre-industrial humans (a more applicable comparison for later humans like neanderthals and palaeolithic homo sapiens).

I say the above as a palaeoanthropology nerd, I don't actually eat paleo. I love my dairy too much and as I'm from a long line of dairy farming populations, I can digest it just fine. I will also point out that palaeolithic people would have eaten wild grains and legumes that grew within their foraging range. Neolithic people didn't invent grains or legumes, and they didn't start cultivating plants that no-one had ever eaten before. IMO the palaeolithic diet is actually very healthy, I mean 1.5 million+ years of hunting and gathering has resulted in us being extremely healthy on a diet of meat, fruit and vegetables.... the issue I have (in addition to not agreeing with unnecessary dietary restriction) is when internet "gurus" starts saying things like "caveman ate/didn't eat (add food here)" when the journal of human evolution can't tell me that, or any other scientific inaccuracies or total myths about palaeolithic people... unfortunately most of what most people believe about palaeolithic people are myths.

That's not what the record shows afaik. Recent studies of mummies living hunter gatherer lifestyles shows significant arterial plaque, and I'm not about to believe that infectious disease is a product of modern medicine. Back in the day, tonsillitis could easily kill you. Just the dental records are enough to make your skin crawl.



Growing up twice as fast doesn't sound all that pleasant either, nor does living in an environment likely to result in the evolution of mechanisms for surviving frequent famine. Or the thought of not eating anything green from the last days of fall until the first days of spring.


I just don't buy the idyllic past hypothesis, and I've seen plenty of comments from anthropologists dispelling the notion, though of course there may be some outliers.

Imagine for a second what life must have been like if one of the big advantages that led to human survival was the ability to break open bones to get marrow.


Paleo diets seem healthy enough, but not due to some ancestral heritage. They simply avoid the most common sources of excess calories along with the legumes and dairy. And the legumes part is just baffling. Beans are good stuff, especially when consumed along with certain fungi (beano!)

skinnytayy

The whole concept of idealizing some ancestral condition is what makes it look comical. Paleolithic man had a short, miserable, disease ridden, and violent existence. But there is a reason the bible starts with the garden of Eden.


Wen you start with a flawed assumption, and build on it, things get weirder and weirder.

the assumption that palaeolithic people had short, miserable, disease ridden and violent existences is a flawed assumption. Shorter lifespan is correct, but only because Homo sapiens has evolved a longer childhood and longer lifespan generally to be able to learn and transmit far more cultural/survival knowledge from one generation to the next. Neanderthal children grew up about 3/4 as fast as Homo sapiens children, and were elderly in their 40s/50s. Homo erectus children grew up nearly twice as fast as Homo sapiens children. It's not because entire populations died prematurely.

Palaeolithic people were generally healthy, mostly free from disease and were on the whole no more violent than modern people, and quite a lot less violent than chimpanzees. Humans have been looking after sick, injured and elderly of their tribes for nearly 2 million years, according to the archaeological record. Additionally, later humans like neanderthals and Homo sapiens were at the top of the food chain so didn't live in fear of violence from animals either. They lived at low population densities, had not yet domesticated animals, so they were not exposed to many of the sources of disease that later populations were.

I'm not saying that they lived idyllic lives of bliss, a total lack of access to modern medicine and education/information isn't something I'd ever want for myself or my kids, but there's no reason to believe their lives were any harsher than a chimp or gorilla's life in the wild (a more applicable comparison for early humans like Homo habilis), or the lives of any other pre-industrial humans (a more applicable comparison for later humans like neanderthals and palaeolithic homo sapiens).

I say the above as a palaeoanthropology nerd, I don't actually eat paleo. I love my dairy too much and as I'm from a long line of dairy farming populations, I can digest it just fine. I will also point out that palaeolithic people would have eaten wild grains and legumes that grew within their foraging range. Neolithic people didn't invent grains or legumes, and they didn't start cultivating plants that no-one had ever eaten before. IMO the palaeolithic diet is actually very healthy, I mean 1.5 million+ years of hunting and gathering has resulted in us being extremely healthy on a diet of meat, fruit and vegetables.... the issue I have (in addition to not agreeing with unnecessary dietary restriction) is when internet "gurus" starts saying things like "caveman ate/didn't eat (add food here)" when the journal of human evolution can't tell me that, or any other scientific inaccuracies or total myths about palaeolithic people... unfortunately most of what most people believe about palaeolithic people are myths.

^ THIS.
I eat primal because I can't give up dairy and see no reason to. I also haven't completely restricted any food groups because life wouldn't be fun if i never ate grains, legumes, sugar, etc. again. I feel amazing eating 80-90% primal and I don't really miss the "bad stuff" anymore but still enjoy whenever I want so long as it fits my calorie/macro goals even though I usually end up sick afterwards.

I think my approach is perfectly fine and I'm definitely not overly obsessed. I don't get why people get so worked up over the paleo/primal diets. There are plenty of success stories with it, for one but a lot of them still have non-paleo foods in moderation. Its a known fact that meats, vegetables, fruits, and healthy fats are healthy and that processed/artificial crap is bad and not anything that we actually NEED. That's the whole concept basically. Some come to eliminate but most will tell you they still indulge periodically. The guy that came up with the Primal diet, Mark Sisson, even indulges in non-primal food occasionally. So I don't see the big issue but anyway. That's totally off subject.

& To pcastagner - The quoted above explains everything better then I ever could but I can say this much, a lot of research suggests that many of today's most common diseases have became more prevalent since our diets have put so much emphasis on grains. Wheat is loaded with anti-nutrients and can prevent full absorption of vitamins, minerals, etc. There are also studies that show saturated fat can be good for us. Paleolithic people ate whatever meat they could find which typically included eating organs, fatty cuts, etc. Anything that COULD be ate was ate. & Sure if their were grains/legumes in their area, I'm positive that they ate them. I'm sure it wasn't year round though because to my knowledge wheat doesn't grow year round, not naturally at least. I could be wrong but still. Even if they did eat it, it was nowhere near the same as wheat today. Wheat today is heavily processed and refined. Anyway, you're entitled to your own opinion but don't try passing it off as facts. You have flawed assumptions, as you say, about the Paleo/Primal approach.

glamroxjax

The whole concept of idealizing some ancestral condition is what makes it look comical. Paleolithic man had a short, miserable, disease ridden, and violent existence. But there is a reason the bible starts with the garden of Eden.


Wen you start with a flawed assumption, and build on it, things get weirder and weirder.

the assumption that palaeolithic people had short, miserable, disease ridden and violent existences is a flawed assumption. Shorter lifespan is correct, but only because Homo sapiens has evolved a longer childhood and longer lifespan generally to be able to learn and transmit far more cultural/survival knowledge from one generation to the next. Neanderthal children grew up about 3/4 as fast as Homo sapiens children, and were elderly in their 40s/50s. Homo erectus children grew up nearly twice as fast as Homo sapiens children. It's not because entire populations died prematurely.

Palaeolithic people were generally healthy, mostly free from disease and were on the whole no more violent than modern people, and quite a lot less violent than chimpanzees. Humans have been looking after sick, injured and elderly of their tribes for nearly 2 million years, according to the archaeological record. Additionally, later humans like neanderthals and Homo sapiens were at the top of the food chain so didn't live in fear of violence from animals either. They lived at low population densities, had not yet domesticated animals, so they were not exposed to many of the sources of disease that later populations were.

I'm not saying that they lived idyllic lives of bliss, a total lack of access to modern medicine and education/information isn't something I'd ever want for myself or my kids, but there's no reason to believe their lives were any harsher than a chimp or gorilla's life in the wild (a more applicable comparison for early humans like Homo habilis), or the lives of any other pre-industrial humans (a more applicable comparison for later humans like neanderthals and palaeolithic homo sapiens).

I say the above as a palaeoanthropology nerd, I don't actually eat paleo. I love my dairy too much and as I'm from a long line of dairy farming populations, I can digest it just fine. I will also point out that palaeolithic people would have eaten wild grains and legumes that grew within their foraging range. Neolithic people didn't invent grains or legumes, and they didn't start cultivating plants that no-one had ever eaten before. IMO the palaeolithic diet is actually very healthy, I mean 1.5 million+ years of hunting and gathering has resulted in us being extremely healthy on a diet of meat, fruit and vegetables.... the issue I have (in addition to not agreeing with unnecessary dietary restriction) is when internet "gurus" starts saying things like "caveman ate/didn't eat (add food here)" when the journal of human evolution can't tell me that, or any other scientific inaccuracies or total myths about palaeolithic people... unfortunately most of what most people believe about palaeolithic people are myths.

^ THIS.
I eat primal because I can't give up dairy and see no reason to. I also haven't completely restricted any food groups because life wouldn't be fun if i never ate grains, legumes, sugar, etc. again. I feel amazing eating 80-90% primal and I don't really miss the "bad stuff" anymore but still enjoy whenever I want so long as it fits my calorie/macro goals even though I usually end up sick afterwards.

I think my approach is perfectly fine and I'm definitely not overly obsessed. I don't get why people get so worked up over the paleo/primal diets. There are plenty of success stories with it, for one but a lot of them still have non-paleo foods in moderation. Its a known fact that meats, vegetables, fruits, and healthy fats are healthy and that processed/artificial crap is bad and not anything that we actually NEED. That's the whole concept basically. Some come to eliminate but most will tell you they still indulge periodically. The guy that came up with the Primal diet, Mark Sisson, even indulges in non-primal food occasionally. So I don't see the big issue but anyway. That's totally off subject.

& To pcastagner - The quoted above explains everything better then I ever could but I can say this much, a lot of research suggests that many of today's most common diseases have became more prevalent since our diets have put so much emphasis on grains. Wheat is loaded with anti-nutrients and can prevent full absorption of vitamins, minerals, etc. There are also studies that show saturated fat can be good for us. Paleolithic people ate whatever meat they could find which typically included eating organs, fatty cuts, etc. Anything that COULD be ate was ate. & Sure if their were grains/legumes in their area, I'm positive that they ate them. I'm sure it wasn't year round though because to my knowledge wheat doesn't grow year round, not naturally at least. I could be wrong but still. Even if they did eat it, it was nowhere near the same as wheat today. Wheat today is heavily processed and refined. Anyway, you're entitled to your own opinion but don't try passing it off as facts. You have flawed assumptions, as you say, about the Paleo/Primal approach.

ALL OF THIS!
I eat primal because my body freaks when I consume grains, period. I don't pretend it's the way for everyone, but lighten up on those who get something out of it. So basically, stop trolling.

pcastagner

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60598-X/abstract



Atherosclerosis across 4000 years of human history: the Horus study of four ancient populations