PALEO

hollys6699

well i have been away for about 2 months, i have been doing paleo, and sure i am loosing inches, although only about 2.5 inches total this month. so i am not very happy with the way the paleo diet is going. i am doning crossfit training 5 days per week and would havce though that i could loose some lbs. so i have decided to go back to a calorie diet to see if i can loose that way. i am going to Hawaii in 2 months and would like to loose 20# or so.

neanderthin

Those damn holidays, eh. A diet has nothing to do with whether you lose or gain weight, it's the deficit that does that, and paleo can be consumed in a deficit, just in case you thought you didn't have to or thought losing inches didn't count.

KatLifter

Those damn holidays, eh. A diet has nothing to do with whether you lose or gain weight, it's the deficit that does that, and paleo can be consumed in a deficit, just in case you thought you didn't have to.

It can, but you really don't have to cut out entire food groups to be healthy and lose weight. Legumes are great for you! Greek yogurt has a ton of protein

neanderthin

Those damn holidays, eh. A diet has nothing to do with whether you lose or gain weight, it's the deficit that does that, and paleo can be consumed in a deficit, just in case you thought you didn't have to.

It can, but you really don't have to cut out entire food groups to be healthy and lose weight. Legumes are great for you! Greek yogurt has a ton of protein

You have that wrong, of course you need to find problems with modern foods like butter, tomatoes, beans, yogurt, bread.......what would be the point otherwise.

KatLifter

You have that wrong, of course you need to find problems with modern foods like butter, tomatoes, beans, yogurt, bread.......what would be the point otherwise.

I'm really not sure what you just said?

Abells

A lot of people think that you can eat as much as you want on Paleo but that is false -- still count your calories and make sure you are high in protein. Are you strict paleo?

open your diary

JNick77

The one misnomer with Paleo, similar to people on Atkins or low-carb, is not watching your total calories or macro nutrient in-take. You definitely need to understand your maintenance versus healthy calorie deficit calorie ranges. It helps to maintain a good macro nutrient balance as well.

goodtimezzzz

Happy you are doing a balanced approach paleo is for cavemen..not very enlightening...I did pale..it was an epic failure...eat all foods be abundant LIVE ABUNDANTLY!! learn from us and kick ****ING *kitten*!!!!!!

JNick77

Happy you are doing a balanced approach paleo is for cavemen..not very enlightening...I did pale..it was an epic failure...eat all foods be abundant LIVE ABUNDANTLY!! learn from us and kick ****ING *kitten*!!!!!!

That's really a good point. There are still good "non-paleo" foods out there. Things like brown rice and whole-grain oats just about any nutritionist would tell you to include in your diet. There are things about the diet that really don't make sense. I doubt cavemen had olive oil, definitely didn't have clean water or bottled water, they drank the same water that animals bathed and **** in.

KatLifter

Happy you are doing a balanced approach paleo is for cavemen..not very enlightening...I did pale..it was an epic failure...eat all foods be abundant LIVE ABUNDANTLY!! learn from us and kick ****ING *kitten*!!!!!!

That's really a good point. There are still good "non-paleo" foods out there. Things like brown rice and whole-grain oats just about any nutritionist would tell you to include in your diet. There are things about the diet that really don't make sense. I doubt cavemen had olive oil, definitely didn't have clean water or bottled water, they drank the same water that animals bathed and **** in.

To go a step further, if you are true Paleo it should also be macrobiotic. People who live inland didn't have sea salt, in colder regions coconut or coffee. I'm also pretty sure they didn't have access to coconut aminos and all of the other special paleo foods.

Dragonwolf

well i have been away for about 2 months, i have been doing paleo, and sure i am loosing inches, although only about 2.5 inches total this month. so i am not very happy with the way the paleo diet is going. i am doning crossfit training 5 days per week and would havce though that i could loose some lbs. so i have decided to go back to a calorie diet to see if i can loose that way. i am going to Hawaii in 2 months and would like to loose 20# or so.

2.5 inches in 2 months!? That's awesome!

Keep in mind that Crossfit is also a lot of strength training. If you've only recently started doing it (especially if you didn't do much exercise before), you might not be seeing much weight change because of things like water weight (the body uses water to protect and heal the muscles after intense workouts) and what's known as "newbie gains" - gains in muscle attributed to being new at strength training. Technically, it's not much, but if you have a modest deficit (with 20lbs to lose, you probably do), it can explain the lack of scale change.

You're also 47 according to your profile, which means you're around menopause time. The hormone changes associated with menopause (even in the years prior to it) can make it harder to lose weight, no matter what kind of diet you follow.

Also, as others have said, it's still good to track your calories, especially if you're new to Paleo or any other low-carb style of diet (and especially low-carb/high-fat ones). If you're new to it and aren't very good at self-regulating your eating, it's very easy to over eat, because the full-fat foods generally have more calories than the same amount of lower-fat foods (consider an ounce of chicken breast vs an ounce of avocado).

Afura

I do paleo including dairy (you may take my cheese from my cold dead hand), and I agree with one of the other responses that people think you can eat whatever you want all the time (steak and bacon in some whackjobs opinion), but it is just healthy eating fresh meats, fish/seafood, fresh fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts, and oils like olive, and coconut,etc. What should be cut out on paleo is dairy products, cereal grains, legumes, refined sugars and processed foods. There's a lot of healthy/clean eating out there that are remarkably similar to paleo eating because it does take out a lof the the foods with additives. Yes, you are cutting out some things that are delicious, and even most people that eat paleo I'd say are probably 80/20 or 70/30, as it is terribly hard not to eat some foods (even protein shakes are not always 'pure'), but it's not that hard. It's also a good way to find out what foods you're sensitive to if you try and reincorporate them later. It's the people that are hard core, or crazy about it that make paleo seem like such a pain.

All in all, if you're not eating enough, or eating too many calories, you'll have the same issues with paleo as any other eating lifestyle. Enjoy your food, however you decide to eat, eat well, and play hard.

Dragonwolf

Happy you are doing a balanced approach paleo is for cavemen..not very enlightening...I did pale..it was an epic failure...eat all foods be abundant LIVE ABUNDANTLY!! learn from us and kick ****ING *kitten*!!!!!!

That's really a good point. There are still good "non-paleo" foods out there. Things like brown rice and whole-grain oats just about any nutritionist would tell you to include in your diet. There are things about the diet that really don't make sense. I doubt cavemen had olive oil, definitely didn't have clean water or bottled water, they drank the same water that animals bathed and **** in.

One of the issues with grains (besides the gluten in the gluten-containing ones) and legumes is the phytic acid, which binds to a number of micronutrients, namely calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc, making them unavailable for humans to absorb, and causing deficiencies in these micronutrients (anemia and osteoporosis, anyone?).

To go a step further, if you are true Paleo it should also be macrobiotic. People who live inland didn't have sea salt, in colder regions coconut or coffee. I'm also pretty sure they didn't have access to coconut aminos and all of the other special paleo foods.

It's called Paleo because it's modeled after what Paleolithic man ate, not to completely reproduce what they ate (that's impossible, given that many of those plants and animals are extinct). You don't need "special Paleo foods" to be Paleo, just like you don't need to live on fakemeat to be vegetarian or gluten-free breads/pastas to be gluten-free. Animals, some fruit, some nuts, and vegetables (mainly the less starchy ones, unless you need the extra carbs). That's about it.

maillemaker

well i have been away for about 2 months, i have been doing paleo, and sure i am loosing inches, although only about 2.5 inches total this month. so i am not very happy with the way the paleo diet is going. i am doning crossfit training 5 days per week and would havce though that i could loose some lbs. so i have decided to go back to a calorie diet to see if i can loose that way. i am going to Hawaii in 2 months and would like to loose 20# or so.

I had the same experience. I switched to eating Paleo as people told me how much weight they were losing by eating natural, healthy foods.

Guess what? You can still eat too much of natural, healthy foods.

So now I count calories again.

JNick77

Happy you are doing a balanced approach paleo is for cavemen..not very enlightening...I did pale..it was an epic failure...eat all foods be abundant LIVE ABUNDANTLY!! learn from us and kick ****ING *kitten*!!!!!!

That's really a good point. There are still good "non-paleo" foods out there. Things like brown rice and whole-grain oats just about any nutritionist would tell you to include in your diet. There are things about the diet that really don't make sense. I doubt cavemen had olive oil, definitely didn't have clean water or bottled water, they drank the same water that animals bathed and **** in.

One of the issues with grains (besides the gluten in the gluten-containing ones) and legumes is the phytic acid, which binds to a number of micronutrients, namely calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc, making them unavailable for humans to absorb, and causing deficiencies in these micronutrients (anemia and osteoporosis, anyone?).

It's interesting that gluten is listed as such an issue. I have an aunt that has Celiac's disease and she posts a lot of information about it and gluten. She's a rather academic person so researches a lot of medical journals and what not. She posted something about how having a gluten free diet for a non-Celiac patient is NOT good. There must be some value to it.

Dragonwolf

Happy you are doing a balanced approach paleo is for cavemen..not very enlightening...I did pale..it was an epic failure...eat all foods be abundant LIVE ABUNDANTLY!! learn from us and kick ****ING *kitten*!!!!!!

That's really a good point. There are still good "non-paleo" foods out there. Things like brown rice and whole-grain oats just about any nutritionist would tell you to include in your diet. There are things about the diet that really don't make sense. I doubt cavemen had olive oil, definitely didn't have clean water or bottled water, they drank the same water that animals bathed and **** in.

One of the issues with grains (besides the gluten in the gluten-containing ones) and legumes is the phytic acid, which binds to a number of micronutrients, namely calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc, making them unavailable for humans to absorb, and causing deficiencies in these micronutrients (anemia and osteoporosis, anyone?).

It's interesting that gluten is listed as such an issue. I have an aunt that has Celiac's disease and she posts a lot of information about it and gluten. She's a rather academic person so researches a lot of medical journals and what not. She posted something about how having a gluten free diet for a non-Celiac patient is NOT good. There must be some value to it.

I'd be interested to see more about her research, since I'm unaware of anything that gluten and gluten-containing food offers that can't be obtained through other means. Nor am I aware of anything uniquely beneficial that gluten brings to the table that would be *harmful* to cut out.

From what I've seen, the tests for Celiac is still woefully flawed and spotty. It's getting better, but generally speaking, it tests only for reactions to certain gluten proteins, which means you could have the worst reaction in the world, and never get diagnosed, because you're not reacting to the "right" proteins. And that's assuming that your doctor is informed enough about Celiac to even consider running the tests for it (I have a friend who had to fight with her doctor for several years until she finally got fed up and went to someone else who finally recognized her issues and history as possibly being gluten-related and ran the tests). Everything I've seen (including WebMD) says that Celiac has an undiagnosis rate of 95% (according to WebMD, potentially 1 in 100 Americans have Celiac, but only 5% of the people with it actually get diagnosed). (Source: http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/celiac-disease/news/20080520/celiac-disease-underdiagnosed )

Then, there's also the matter of subclinical gluten intolerance and gluten sensitivity, where the body doesn't "react enough" to test positive for Celiac, but one's quality of life and overall health improves by cutting it out of the diet. The same goes for "atypical" symptoms (systemic inflammation usually attributed to other ailments such as arthritis, attention issues usually attributed to ADD/ADHD, certain forms of eczema, migraines, etc), especially if one's doctor is about treating the symptoms instead of looking for the root cause, or simply doesn't know enough about Celiac to put the pieces together in that way.

bcattoes

To go a step further, if you are true Paleo it should also be macrobiotic. People who live inland didn't have sea salt, in colder regions coconut or coffee. I'm also pretty sure they didn't have access to coconut aminos and all of the other special paleo foods.

I don't think you can follow both a macrobiotic and Paleo diet. While both recommend whole natural local foods, macrobiotic is plant based and recommends little to no meat. Paleo, not so much.

bcattoes

One of the issues with grains (besides the gluten in the gluten-containing ones) and legumes is the phytic acid, which binds to a number of micronutrients, namely calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc, making them unavailable for humans to absorb, and causing deficiencies in these micronutrients (anemia and osteoporosis, anyone?).

There just isn't the data to back up this statement. In study after study people who follow a more plant based diet rich in whole grains, legumes, fresh vegetables and fruit. and lean meats (usually known as a Mediterranean diet) are shown to be overall the healthiest people.

Legumes are some of the healthiest foods around. They should be eaten in abundance.

weinbagel

JERF.

etoiles_argentees

Legumes? Peanuts? Phytates? Phytates have also been shown to inhibit important enzymes involved in digestion, including pepsin and amylase. huh?

Drussander

This is a tough topic actually. There does seem to be alot of compelling arguments as to why giving up certain foods is a good thing. I have been reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taub and there are some interesting, if not controversial positions in that book.

The whole concept of insulin resistance, etc. is confusing and good arguments can be made on all sides, but the fact is, many people that cut out refined carbs do indeed lose weight. Many argue that in the end it is just calorie reduction in another form, but Taub's book in particular is a rather compelling read.

While I like to think it's just calorie's in, and calories expended, I'm not so sure that's the case for everyone.

In short, there may be merit to the whole paleo and low carb approach for certain people. While I'm not convinced yet, I'm not going to just dismiss it either as it does appear to work for quite a few people.

shannashannabobana

Paleo people think the nutritionists are wrong about Oats/grains etc...that they can be unhealthy for you or you feel better without them. Some of this is individualized though, so you have to see what works for you. If you are losing inches, that is good. So i'm not sure if you need to change or not but two comments:

1. you can still count calories on paleo and
2. you may do best with a pulled back approach if full on paleo is too strict for you. Eat that way at night and eat normally at lunch, for instance.

bcattoes

This is a tough topic actually. There does seem to be alot of compelling arguments as to why giving up certain foods is a good thing. I have been reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taub and there are some interesting, if not controversial positions in that book.

The whole concept of insulin resistance, etc. is confusing and good arguments can be made on all sides, but the fact is, many people that cut out refined carbs do indeed lose weight. Many argue that in the end it is just calorie reduction in another form, but Taub's book in particular is a rather compelling read.

While I like to think it's just calorie's in, and calories expended, I'm not so sure that's the case for everyone.

In short, there may be merit to the whole paleo and low carb approach for certain people. While I'm not convinced yet, I'm not going to just dismiss it either as it does appear to work for quite a few people.

It would be hard to dispute that low carb is beneficial for some. Whether congential or a result of lifestyle/diet, there are medical conditions that make lower carb diets the better option.

savithny

Paleo in and of itself is not a weight-loss diet. It's a way of eating. It's an attempt to eat an idealzed "perfect human diet," (though you need to remember that humans spread across the planet into every ecological niche by being able and willing to eat incredibly varied diets with incredibly varied macro and nutritional compositions).

"Cavemen" were not thinking of weight loss when they ate. The character "Grog" that gets blogged about was not trying to get six-pack abs or fit into a pair of size 8 jeans. Grog was hungry, had hungry family members and friends back at camp, and was getting food from the enviornment. That's all "paleo" really means.

And yeah, Grog's family *could* get fat. It wasn't very common, because famine was more likely than feast, most years. And Grogs family had to move from place to place, so they were very physically active. But not only could Grog and his family get fat if they ate more calories than they burned, but fatness was considered something only very lucky people -- or gods/goddesses -- could aspire to. And Grog and his kinfolk carved statues of round, curvy, bulging women - because the food they ate wasn't about being slim. It was simply about what they had available.

neanderthin

One of the issues with grains (besides the gluten in the gluten-containing ones) and legumes is the phytic acid, which binds to a number of micronutrients, namely calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc, making them unavailable for humans to absorb, and causing deficiencies in these micronutrients (anemia and osteoporosis, anyone?).

There just isn't the data to back up this statement. In study after study people who follow a more plant based diet rich in whole grains, legumes, fresh vegetables and fruit. and lean meats (usually known as a Mediterranean diet) are shown to be overall the healthiest people.

Legumes are some of the healthiest foods around. They should be eaten in abundance.

No one can argue that a natural diet of a variety of foods is healthy. The problem for people that follow the paleo diet is there is very little data and the proponents of the diet extrapolate that if they can replace the calories from foods deemed less healthy (grain, nightshades for example) with more overall plant material, root vegetables, fish, pastured and wild animal protein, natural oils, that health markers yet again improve over that more natural diet. There's quite a few studies on the paleo diet and there's no doubt about it, it is healthy. What we need to also keep in mind is that whole grain vs refined studies are using observational studies over time to people that are in the 1'st percentile who normally eat a highly processed diet, so anything that replaces calories from that food will improve health.......that's a given, but will replacing whole grain calories with the other plant material improver further, that's the question they pose.

Dragonwolf

One of the issues with grains (besides the gluten in the gluten-containing ones) and legumes is the phytic acid, which binds to a number of micronutrients, namely calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc, making them unavailable for humans to absorb, and causing deficiencies in these micronutrients (anemia and osteoporosis, anyone?).

There just isn't the data to back up this statement. In study after study people who follow a more plant based diet rich in whole grains, legumes, fresh vegetables and fruit. and lean meats (usually known as a Mediterranean diet) are shown to be overall the healthiest people.

Legumes are some of the healthiest foods around. They should be eaten in abundance.

Healthiest compared to what? Genuine question. The vast majority of what I've seen for the studies that say "X diet is healthier" mean "X diet is healthier than the SAD diet". I'd be interested in studies that compared non-SAD diet to non-SAD diet. Vegetarian is better, so is Paleo, so is Mediterranean, because it all boils down to "get away from the SAD and start eating real food." The question is, then, where are the studies comparing these diets to each other? (And no, studies that don't distinguish between grass fed, pastured beef from a hot dog when comparing vegetarian to "meat based" diets don't count. Part of Paleo/Primal specifically is getting away from the grain-fed meats.)

With regard to the phytic acid, it's actually been strongly shown to inhibit bioavailability of the aforementioned mineral ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8777015 - "PA has the strong ability to chelate multivalent metal ions, especially zinc, calcium, and iron. The binding can result in very insoluble salts that are poorly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, which results in poor bioavailability (BV) of minerals."). Where studies are lacking in humans is with regard to the other effects. The micronutrient binding capability is especially of concern when eaten in large quantities, or when nutritional deficiency is already a threat (most typically noted is third world countries, which have been studied, but there's also potential for similar application in various "at-risk" populations, such as women (at risk for anemia), veg*ns (who don't consume animal products, which are the most abundant/bioavailable sources of certain minerals), and children (who need all the nutrients they can get to grow) - http://breakingmuscle.com/nutrition/dissecting-anti-nutrients-good-and-bad-phytic-acid ).

Here's a good write-up on the rationale Paleo diet people have for cutting out legumes - http://paleodietlifestyle.com/beans-and-legumes/

Here's also the question of the Mediterranean diet vs Paleo over on Paleohacks, it has some interesting commentary (and notes the difference between the "real" Mediterranean diet - the food eaten in and around Italy - and the Americanized version) - http://paleohacks.com/questions/150982/why-is-the-mediterranean-diet-so-effective-their-diet-is-based-around-whole-grai#axzz2TCD1pUTX

An article on how the Americanized version of the Mediterranean diet came about (in part thanks to the effects of the fat scare of the 80s and 90s), as well as its stark contrast to the actual one - http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional-diets/mediterranean-diet

And, to keep from being too skewed, some information on the structure of an actual Italian meal (to compare against the Americanize Mediterranean Diet) - http://www.italiana.co.uk/TheStructureOfAnItalianMeal.html

bcattoes

One of the issues with grains (besides the gluten in the gluten-containing ones) and legumes is the phytic acid, which binds to a number of micronutrients, namely calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc, making them unavailable for humans to absorb, and causing deficiencies in these micronutrients (anemia and osteoporosis, anyone?).

There just isn't the data to back up this statement. In study after study people who follow a more plant based diet rich in whole grains, legumes, fresh vegetables and fruit. and lean meats (usually known as a Mediterranean diet) are shown to be overall the healthiest people.

Legumes are some of the healthiest foods around. They should be eaten in abundance.

Healthiest compared to what? Genuine question. The vast majority of what I've seen for the studies that say "X diet is healthier" mean "X diet is healthier than the SAD diet". I'd be interested in studies that compared non-SAD diet to non-SAD diet. Vegetarian is better, so is Paleo, so is Mediterranean, because it all boils down to "get away from the SAD and start eating real food." The question is, then, where are the studies comparing these diets to each other? (And no, studies that don't distinguish between grass fed, pastured beef from a hot dog when comparing vegetarian to "meat based" diets don't count. Part of Paleo/Primal specifically is getting away from the grain-fed meats.)

Most of the studies are epidemiological in nature. Most comparison of diets have been related to weight loss rather than health or longevity. I know some people like to poo-poo epidemiological studies because they don’t pinpoint the specific cause, and perhaps when it comes to diet there is not one specific cause, but the sum total of the diet that matters most. Whatever the reason, statistics show that when looking at populations those who follow a Mediterranean diet are nearly always the healthiest bunch, not matter what diet the others follow. And no, all the others don’t follow what you term the “SAD diet”. Would those statistics would be even higher should legumes and grains be removed from the diet? Unknown, but unlikely since they are such a big component of the diet. But, it does prove that a healthy diet can include grains and legumes.

Here is a good article: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/nutrition-mediterranean-diet-willett-trichopoulos/

DatMurse

This is a tough topic actually. There does seem to be alot of compelling arguments as to why giving up certain foods is a good thing. I have been reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taub and there are some interesting, if not controversial positions in that book.

The whole concept of insulin resistance, etc. is confusing and good arguments can be made on all sides, but the fact is, many people that cut out refined carbs do indeed lose weight. Many argue that in the end it is just calorie reduction in another form, but Taub's book in particular is a rather compelling read.

While I like to think it's just calorie's in, and calories expended, I'm not so sure that's the case for everyone.

In short, there may be merit to the whole paleo and low carb approach for certain people. While I'm not convinced yet, I'm not going to just dismiss it either as it does appear to work for quite a few people.

Taub is a tool for saying that caloric intake is not associated with weight loss. There are plenty of factors about weight loss that will range from glycogen retention to satiety of foods.

While processed foods provide less satiety, it is not the macronutrient that is the problem. The problem relies with the filling of many of these foods. People eat to satisfaction, we have no limit anymore on intake. We are never low on food and always have it readily available. It is natural for people to want to store energy if you look at history and the scarcity of food at certain times.

We have abused it by living sedentary lifestyles and consuming energy that is not needed. Insulin is not as big of a factor as he claims for it to be in regards to obesity. It is not the reason we store fat.. Energy must be pulled from somewhere for our activities.
Even if we stored nothing but fat from carbs we eat.(which is not scientifically true at all). We are still utilizing an X amount of energy daily. Where is that energy coming from? it has to come from somewhere

Noemynoemy

I also crossfit; remember, you are gaining muscle and therefore may not see a change in the scale!

Dragonwolf

Healthiest compared to what? Genuine question. The vast majority of what I've seen for the studies that say "X diet is healthier" mean "X diet is healthier than the SAD diet". I'd be interested in studies that compared non-SAD diet to non-SAD diet. Vegetarian is better, so is Paleo, so is Mediterranean, because it all boils down to "get away from the SAD and start eating real food." The question is, then, where are the studies comparing these diets to each other? (And no, studies that don't distinguish between grass fed, pastured beef from a hot dog when comparing vegetarian to "meat based" diets don't count. Part of Paleo/Primal specifically is getting away from the grain-fed meats.)

Most of the studies are epidemiological in nature. Most comparison of diets have been related to weight loss rather than health or longevity. I know some people like to poo-poo epidemiological studies because they don’t pinpoint the specific cause, and perhaps when it comes to diet there is not one specific cause, but the sum total of the diet that matters most. Whatever the reason, statistics show that when looking at populations those who follow a Mediterranean diet are nearly always the healthiest bunch, not matter what diet the others follow. And no, all the others don’t follow what you term the “SAD diet”. Would those statistics would be even higher should legumes and grains be removed from the diet? Unknown, but unlikely since they are such a big component of the diet. But, it does prove that a healthy diet can include grains and legumes.

Here is a good article: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/nutrition-mediterranean-diet-willett-trichopoulos/

From the full-length LAT article that your link cites - "Is the Mediterranean diet just about food?

No. The 2008 Mediterranean diet also recommends physical activity and mealtime sociability."

That's one of the main issues I take with epidemiological studies regarding diet. They look at a group of people and go "this group is healthier than that one because of their diet," never mind the stark differences in low-level physical activity (America is a very car-oriented and sedentary country on the whole).

The other issue is that such studies are often cherry-picked. What about the groups of people who have a high-fat (and even "worse," a high-saturated-fat) diet, but low heart disease, such as the French (the so-called "French paradox"), or the Inuit (the "Inuit/Eskimo paradox")?

Inuit paradox - http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox#.UZJ577UqZsI
Interesting info on saturated fat and heart disease - http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/10/02/the-french-paradox-is-not-a-paradox/

Of course, the big reason the Mediterranean diet is still so recommended is because it's the most studied, especially when compared to the Paleo type diets. It will be interesting to see over the course of the next decade or so, how diet recommendations change as more and more doctors realize, and more studies show, that diets like Paleo and Primal (higher fat, lower carb) are, in fact, beneficial for people, especially those with poor lipids, Diabetes, and metabolic issues. (See http://www.docsopinion.com/2013/03/17/low-carb-diets-and-heart-disease-what-are-we-afraid-of/ for interesting commentary from a cardiologist.)

Also, the Standard American Diet ("SAD"; aka "Western" diet) has been pretty heavily correlated with declining health and increases in weight and weight-related issues (heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc). So, even taking physical activity out of the question and assuming that diet is the sole factor for health changes, for the sake of the argument, it stands to reason (and is evidenced by the above "paradoxes") that anything that's NOT the SAD, and is based around real, whole, and minimally processed foods is going to have marked health improvements, regardless of the specifics (which again comes back to my "better than what?" question regarding the Mediterranean diet, because everything I've seen answers that as pretty much "better than the Western/SAD diet," including the Mediterranean diet, since the main question Ancel Keys was asking was "why is Crete so much healthier than America and Western Europe?").

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/24/132745785/how-western-diets-are-making-the-world-sick

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/2/341.full

bcattoes

Also, the Standard American Diet ("SAD"; aka "Western" diet) has been pretty heavily correlated with declining health and increases in weight and weight-related issues (heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc). So, even taking physical activity out of the question and assuming that diet is the sole factor for health changes, for the sake of the argument, it stands to reason (and is evidenced by the above "paradoxes") that anything that's NOT the SAD, and is based around real, whole, and minimally processed foods is going to have marked health improvements, regardless of the specifics (which again comes back to my "better than what?" question regarding the Mediterranean diet.

I can agree with that. But my real point is that legumes and whole grains are not unhealthy foods. People can and do eat these things as a dietary staple and remain healthy, so the foods are not unhealthy.

It's pretty hard to argue "healthier diet" since it's only possible to be so healthy (you can't have < 0 diseases) and there will always be factors other than diet to consider.