Paleo Diet Assoc With NegChanges to BloodLipid in HealthySub

2»

Replies

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Holla4mom wrote: »
    jvt63 wrote: »
    And, you know, thinking more about this, a Mediterranean-style way of eating may well be superior--it's been studied rigorously and meat is used as a condiment rather than as the main attraction of meals. There's even a Mediterranean Diet pyramid, which makes it clear that there ain't no eating ad libitum without consequences.

    When I got here, I identified as Paleo, but because I know a bit about nutrition, I took what made sense and didn't do what didn't make sense to me. Beans? Healthy food. Me eat. Dairy? A bit here and there. Meat? Sure, but I'm not Fred Flintstone. I still avoid cheese and white flour, but more because I love them and do better leaving them alone than limiting my consumption.

    One thing I have realized, that Paleo brought home to me in a huge way--I don't feel good when I eat processed food, so I don't eat it, unless it's a special occasion, and even then I limit my portions.

    So maybe I don't "eat Paleo." Not sure, and I guess it doesn't matter. I just eat what makes my body feel good. But it was Paleo that got me thinking seriously about eating mostly whole, natural food. I miss chips and sweets at times, but I value feeling slimmer, healthier, and more energized more than I value those foods.

    Good point. I eat what makes me feel good physically and mentally. Most of the time, to feel good physically, I need whole foods, including whole grains. Sometimes mentally to feel good I need things that aren't considered intrinsically healthy, like chips/sweets, including the full-fat, full-sugar versions, though I am developing more and more alternatives along the way. Moderation yes. Elimination- nah, not for me.

    So much this. The other day, I decided potato chips would make me feel good. I had a nice little snack bag, 150 calories worth. I savored every chip. I used to eat them indiscriminately. I was completely satisfied, no gnawing hunger pangs afterwards; in fact, I felt full.

    Unpacking a lot of my baggage around food and the things I used to tell myself about it has gotten me to this place. I'm happy physically and mentally with what I eat. It's been a long time getting here.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    avvgromano wrote: »

    Can I be paleo?

    I'm a vegetarian, btw. Your diet just sounds like normal, balanced nutrition comprised of yummy food.

    I'm not sure what my point is, other than the vagueness of the "paleo" label.

    Do you think that, for instance, the Mediterraen diet is less vague? :)

    I don't, but they have different origins. The Med Diet is based on a traditional way of eating in a large area. Of course it would be vague. Paleo was created by one guy, and although many others now promote it and there have been some changes, it still contains certain essential ideas without which it doesn't really have a purpose (no grains, legumes, and dairy). I do think it's weird when someone claims to be paleo but eats these foods, especially grains (I am aware of the "primal" allowance for full fat, ideally raw dairy in moderation or whatever).
    Of course if you don't find reasonable the paleo hypothesis (i.e.: there are certain foods we haven't still genetically fully adapted), your aren't paleo.

    Yes, I'd agree this is the essence.

    As for it being healthy, on the whole most diets that lead to weight loss and promote eating a better diet overall (which I think it does for many) do. That doesn't mean that the particular traits of paleo--no grains, legumes, and dairy--are responsible, as opposed to the more incidental side effects (like eating fewer calories and less junk food as a proportion of overall calories).

    For the record, I think this is why the Med Diet is healthy too. Not because grains and legumes are essential to a healthy diet or that meat should be limited.
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    . The Med Diet is based on a traditional way of eating in a large area. Of course it would be vague. Paleo was created by one guy,

    I wouldn't say "one guy", actually paleo has many fathers:
    http://paleodiabetic.com/tag/s-boyd-eaton/
    And also the Med. diet has a "father" (Ancel Keys), but I get what you mean.
    As for it being healthy, on the whole most diets that lead to weight loss and promote eating a better diet overall (which I think it does for many) do.
    I believe that a diet can be healthy beside weight loss.
    Actually in the study I linked (have you read it?) they tried to keep bodyweight stable:
    "Before the intervention all subjects recorded their usual diet using a food record diary. This diary was used by the dietician to adjust diets to individual energy demand by providing (additional) program-related snacks to prevent weight loss within the intervention period."
    Nontheless:
    "Despite efforts to keep bodyweight stable, more weight loss was observed in the Palaeolithic group, which is an important outcome of our study".
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I do think it's weird when someone claims to be paleo but eats these foods, especially grains
    A little annotation here. Paleo is often criticized for being too restrictive. Actually the advice to be very strict is mainly for those who suffer of a metabolic condition and/or an autoimmune issue. The others can cheat from time to time (80/20 rule) or follow a "weak form".
    Today for lunch I had this:
    http://blog.giallozafferano.it/maniamore/polpette-di-neonata-ricetta-di-pesce/
    Alas, there was white flour yes, but I believe it is not going to kill me :)

  • Jolinia
    Jolinia Posts: 846 Member
    If they weren't told to eat strictly grass fed organic they didn't eliminate all possible variables.
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    Jolinia wrote: »
    If they weren't told to eat strictly grass fed organic they didn't eliminate all possible variables.

    Apart from being told, it is also not sure that actually they had access to grass fed meat and/or willing to spend money for...

  • Jolinia
    Jolinia Posts: 846 Member
    avvgromano wrote: »
    Jolinia wrote: »
    If they weren't told to eat strictly grass fed organic they didn't eliminate all possible variables.

    Apart from being told, it is also not sure that actually they had access to grass fed meat and/or willing to spend money for...

    Indeed. I'm merely suggesting a followup study with grassfed beef only and organic foods would be a good idea. Not sure if the Crossfit training is the best thing in the world for people, either, especially if they go from sedentary to extreme workouts in a short period of time.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    avvgromano wrote: »
    I believe that a diet can be healthy beside weight loss.

    Sure, but if dealing with a population where overweight and obesity is common the fact that it helps with weight loss will be relevant.
    Actually in the study I linked (have you read it?) they tried to keep bodyweight stable:
    "Before the intervention all subjects recorded their usual diet using a food record diary. This diary was used by the dietician to adjust diets to individual energy demand by providing (additional) program-related snacks to prevent weight loss within the intervention period."
    Nontheless:
    "Despite efforts to keep bodyweight stable, more weight loss was observed in the Palaeolithic group, which is an important outcome of our study".

    Yes, I looked at it, and I think it's consistent with my point, especially since focused on people with metabolic syndrome. Looks to me more like an issue of macros, not the paleo hypothesis about grains, dairy, and legumes. Also, it's somewhat biased by a focus on lean meats vs. how the actual diet works in practice. I think if you designed a Med Diet or even traditional American diet (not SAD) with similar macros and vegetable consumption you'd get similar results.

    I certainly could be wrong and I'm interested in the studies, but this is like that result not long ago showing the Med Diet (however defined) was better for longevity than the generic healthy diet. I'd want to understand what the precise differences are before drawing even tentative conclusions. To a certain extent simply worrying about your diet puts you in a selected population that's not really comparable. (This applies to the Med Diet study, or the various vegetarian vs. not studies, not the one you cited, since yours was an intervention, not people who self-selected.)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited February 2015
    avvgromano wrote: »
    Actually the advice to be very strict is mainly for those who suffer of a metabolic condition and/or an autoimmune issue. The others can cheat from time to time (80/20 rule) or follow a "weak form".

    Eh, I don't think that's right, but it's not like there's a pope of paleo (as Leena might say). ;-)

    I know Mark Sisson (who doesn't claim to be paleo anymore, since he invented his own thing) has an 80/20 "rule," but he even says that you are not supposed to aspire to be 80% only, it's just that that's life and not to beat yourself up.

    I also know that people who claim to be paleo (IME) "cheat" all the time, but that doesn't make eating grains paleo. It just means people are human--the advice is still that it's bad for you and the definition of the diet is still no grains, legumes, or dairy. If you order a paleo meal from a catering company that does them (they exist around here) they aren't going to include up to 20% grains or some such. To be clear, I wasn't saying I think it's weird that someone might claim to be paleo but eat a pie on Thanksgiving or some rare occasion--that's something that I have trouble with, as I tend to be absolutist if I take on some set of restrictions (which is my own issue, granted), but I do understand it. What I find weird is claiming to be paleo while eating a diet that regularly (even in smaller amounts) includes foods the exclusion of which are basically the essence of the diet. If what you really mean is something else, why not say that? There seems to be something about the association with the term or the lifestyle or the like. But in any case, I'm not trying to be critical of that now, but just pointing out that I think the healthy aspects of many of these "diets" have more to do with what they have in common than what they argue about.

    Also, the added strictness for autoimmune conditions has to do with nightshades and various other foods that aren't normally restricted by paleo (and will probably be swallowed up by FODMAPs anyway).
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    avvgromano wrote: »
    Actually the advice to be very strict is mainly for those who suffer of a metabolic condition and/or an autoimmune issue. The others can cheat from time to time (80/20 rule) or follow a "weak form".

    Eh, I don't think that's right,

    You don't think that's right?
    Sorry I didn't imagine I had to provide references.
    Here they are:
    about the 80/20 rule:
    http://chriskresser.com/food-fascism-and-the-8020-rule
    "For healthy people, I suggest they follow a high-fat, nutrient dense diet that removes the most significant food toxins (wheat, sugar/HFCS & industrial seed oils). If they do well with properly prepared grains and raw, fermented or at least organic dairy products, I don’t have a problem with that.

    I also suggest they follow what I call the 80/20 rule. 80% of the time they should follow the guidelines very closely, and 20% of the time they’re free to loosen up and just eat what they want to eat. There’s a lot more to life than food, and in fact I believe (as did the ancient Chinese) that in some cases it’s better to eat the wrong food with the right attitude than the other way around.

    Unfortunately, the 80/20 rule doesn’t apply to those dealing with serious health challenges or allergies or intolerances to specific foods. It’s never a good idea for someone with Hashimoto’s disease and gluten intolerance, for example, to just throw caution to the wind and have a pancake feast. That could trigger an immune reaction lasting up to several weeks."

    As for the "weak form" of paleo (as opposed to the strong form), you can listen to this lecture of S.Boyd Eaton (one of the "fathers" of the diet):
    https://player.vimeo.com/video/57311606
    In short, according to him, if you are healthy, you can eat whole grains, dairy, and drink wine in moderation (weak form), otherwise you have to be strict (strong form).
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited February 2015
    avvgromano wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    avvgromano wrote: »
    Actually the advice to be very strict is mainly for those who suffer of a metabolic condition and/or an autoimmune issue. The others can cheat from time to time (80/20 rule) or follow a "weak form".

    Eh, I don't think that's right,

    You don't think that's right?
    Sorry I didn't imagine I had to provide references.
    Here they are:
    about the 80/20 rule:
    http://chriskresser.com/food-fascism-and-the-8020-rule

    Kresser doesn't really claim to be paleo anymore. I've heard him interviewed about a debate he had with some paleo person where he acknowledged that the assertion that he wasn't actually advocating a "paleo" diet was correct.

    This one reason I like Kresser (which I do)--I think he's sensible.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    "Body fat percentage
    decreased significantly (24.3±1.2% to
    20.7±1.2%; P<0.05) compared with baseline
    values (Figure 1), as did body weight
    (80.7±2.6 kg to 77.5±2.4 kg; P<0.01). "
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Kresser doesn't really claim to be paleo anymore.

    Well, he published a book entitled "The Paleo Code" on December 2014, just 2 months ago.
    But seriously I can't see anymore your point, if there was any.

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited February 2015
    That's probably because you jumped on something that really had nothing to do with my major point (which was more paleo-positive than not--I just think it's silly to claim that eating grains is paleo).

    But I listened to part of the interview I was talking about, and I'll correct myself--he acknowledges that his view is different from the strict or classic or orthodox paleo view and that he is okaying (for some) foods that are not considered "paleo," but at least as of a year ago he was arguing for a broad tent definition paleo. But he also acknowledged that his position and in particular the defense of legumes for some (not even grains, which the paleo community seems to be much more set against) caused a lot of anger and upset among other supporters and popularizers of the paleo diet--so he would certainly not have said that it was accepted that paleo is cool with legumes (let alone grains) or that it was accepted that it was only an 80% thing. (The interview I'm referring to was on Robb Wolf's podcast dated 2/24/14.)

    Specifically, Kresser distinguishes in Personal Paleo Code (the topic of the interview) between what's strict or "orthodox" paleo (his word, not mine) and how someone might determine a healthy diet for themselves. Kresser's argument was that (a) what paleo people actually ate is less restrictive than the original advocates of the diet assumed (particularly talking about legumes, although I think this applies to grains too, and of course we have to acknowledge that virtually everything "paleo" people eat now is unlike what was actually eaten in the paleo era), and (b) that just because something wasn't eaten in the paleo era doesn't make it bad for you (i.e., dairy).

    However, he acknowledged this was different than the standard "paleo" view and also stated that he would start someone with a more "orthodox" paleo diet as the template and then basically do an elimination diet with the idea of moving away from some kind of dogmatic diet based on what people ate in a particular age and creating one based on what worked for that person.

    Here's a link that demonstrates that this is an argument that's going on, and that there is a more standard or "orthodox" view that Kresser is opposing: http://chriskresser.com/are-legumes-paleo

    My question is--if one isn't already within a community like paleo and certainly if one doesn't wish to defend paleo as the template with which everyone should start and which generally determines what's healthiest, but in reality just wants to focus on nutrient dense foods that work well for you, primarily whole foods and perhaps with a focus on how you source your meat and produce, and if you eat about 20% of whatever you enjoy, so long as there are no negatives for you, and if you aren't actually restricting foods based on a silly idea of what people in another era did or did not eat--why pretend this advice is paleo specific at all, when it clearly is not. Instead, it sounds like many typical health-conscious diets.

    And that (finally) brings us around to my original point, which you ignored. It's going to differ from the Med Diet (and still more from a health-focused vegetarian diet) in the mix of beans and grains vs. meat, clearly, but any of that done properly all are going to be good for you, not because of the dogma underlying the diets (which are quite different), but because of the various things they have in common.
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    Here's a link that demonstrates that this is an argument that's going on, and that there is a more standard or "orthodox" view that Kresser is opposing: http://chriskresser.com/are-legumes-paleo.

    It seems to me that you like the idea that paleo has to be orthodox/dogmatic.
    Certainly there are people that have an orthorexic approach to the diet, I don't deny it, but it is not the case for most of us.
    If you give a look to the paleo forums, you will find a crowd of people curious and wanting to experiment. Many people, for instance, have recently tried the Perfect Health Diet of Paul Jaminet, that emphasizes the role of prebiotic present on resistant starches, and that is quite high in carbs. So huge amounts of cooked and cooled rice (a grain!) and potatoes have become normal in a paleo menu.
    Furthermore, the approach of Kresser, to "tailor" the diet, is not that original. As a matter of fact, one of the best part of this diet is that you become self-conscious about what you can really eat, how much, how often. After a period of cold turkey, your body becomes very sensitive to every reintroduction, and you learn what you tolerate, via trial and error.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    avvgromano wrote: »
    It seems to me that you like the idea that paleo has to be orthodox/dogmatic.

    No, I don't care (as an aside, I don't see why potatoes would be forbidden anyway, it always struck me as weird that people decided they were). Most of the paleo folks I know admit they aren't eating paleo when they eat a sandwich or whatever--or have some beer--they just say they don't always eat paleo, but that's really not what's interesting to me here. I just think that if it doesn't mean "no grains, legumes, and dairy" but "no foods that a happen to disagree with me," and if you aren't claiming to eat how people ate in the paleo age then it's silly to claim you are "doing paleo." You are doing a diet that appeals to you and that you think is healthy, like most of us in this discussion (which is great, I'm all for it). But just as it would be really weird for a vegetarian to respond to a claim that vegetarianism is restrictive by saying "oh, no, I eat chickens sometimes," it's weird to say "oh, paleo isn't that restrictive, because I eat bread too." If bread is so bad for you, why would a positive be that you can eat it? (Kresser's point is that legumes AREN'T bad for lots of people, although he seems pretty skeptical about them personally anyway.)

    It also makes any analysis of how "doing paleo" affects health rather pointless, if some of those people might be eating grains and others legumes and dairy, while still others insist that not eating those foods is the main thing. (BTW, I am aware that the particular study you linked was not people doing paleo, but testing a particular diet which happened to exclude grains, legumes, and dairy--again, so that's the diet that we are talking about, right?)

    But because you haven't actually responded to the main point, but gone off on this tangent (which I'm following on, no question), here it is again: there's no good evidence that it's what's distinctive about being paleo that makes it a decent diet for some trying to lose weight and for others who just want a healthy diet (although I think it can be). It's that it makes eating more traditionally well (cooking from whole foods, eating lots of veggies and other nutrient dense foods) more interesting and reinforces the decision to do so. As does the Med Diet or, for many, going vegetarian or vegan.
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    here it is again: there's no good evidence that it's what's distinctive about being paleo that makes it a decent diet for some trying to lose weight and for others who just want a healthy diet (although I think it can be). It's that it makes eating more traditionally well (cooking from whole foods, eating lots of veggies and other nutrient dense foods) more interesting and reinforces the decision to do so. As does the Med Diet or, for many, going vegetarian or vegan.

    To address this point we would need studies that actually compare paleo to other healthy diets like Med. Diet, vegetarian or vegan.
    This one (which I already posted in another thread):
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17583796
    is limited to glucose tolerance (and yes the "fad" diet wins).
    What can I say? stay tuned for further studies...
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    while this one:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21118562
    says that paleo is more satiating (per calories) than the Med. D. (therefore better for weight loss)
This discussion has been closed.