Paleo Diet Assoc With NegChanges to BloodLipid in HealthySub

lemurcat12

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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)