PALEO

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.

neanderthin

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.

If someone was consuming a typical Standard American Diet, then replacing some refined and processed foods with legumes and whole grain would be a healthier choice. But, because of the "nature" of both legumes and grain, would replacing those choices on a calorie for calorie basis with other plant material without those "natural" tendencies be considered a better choice.

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.

If someone was consuming a typical Standard American Diet, then replacing some refined and processed foods with legumes and whole grain would be a healthier choice. But, because of the "nature" of both legumes and grain, would replacing those choices on a calorie for calorie basis with other plant material without those "natural" tendencies be considered a better choice.

Better how? I mean if one has eaten a consistent diet and is healthy - free of disease and ailment with no disease risk factors that can be controlled - how could any diet be "better"? Isn't good health the purpose of a good diet?

pizzaquixote

I'm here on THIS site because it's a simple, convenient, and EASY tool that reinforces what in our hearts we know: your weight is determined by calories IN vs calories OUT.

I've know that for 40 years, but stubbornly 25 lbs above my target weight, I am attracted to shortcut schemes or ways to lose weight and still enjoy big quantities of calorie-rich food. I've been smart enough to avoid the worst quackery and snake oil -- all weight loss supplements and cleansing nonsense -- but I've sure tried Paleo, Atkins, etc. And they work, to an extent. But in the long run, the weight comes back. No doubt there are low-carb success stories, but for most of us, there is no reason to shun any food group. Less carbs? Sure. No carbs? Extreme, for the most part.

Ben Franklin nailed it centuries ago: All Things in Moderation.

neanderthin

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.

If someone was consuming a typical Standard American Diet, then replacing some refined and processed foods with legumes and whole grain would be a healthier choice. But, because of the "nature" of both legumes and grain, would replacing those choices on a calorie for calorie basis with other plant material without those "natural" tendencies be considered a better choice.

Better how? I mean if one has eaten a consistent diet and is healthy - free of disease and ailment with no disease risk factors that can be controlled - how could any diet be "better"? Isn't good health the purpose of a good diet?

Proponents of paleo forgo grain and legumes because of a few reasons and some are phytic acid, lectins, trypsin inhibitors, amylase inhibitors etc. Inflammation markers are also reduced when carbohydrates are reduced in the diet along with quite a few other markers for health. Also the nutrient density of both legumes and grains are far inferior to other plant based vegetables on a calorie for calorie basis, these are the main reasons they choose to forgo these foods.

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.

If someone was consuming a typical Standard American Diet, then replacing some refined and processed foods with legumes and whole grain would be a healthier choice. But, because of the "nature" of both legumes and grain, would replacing those choices on a calorie for calorie basis with other plant material without those "natural" tendencies be considered a better choice.

Better how? I mean if one has eaten a consistent diet and is healthy - free of disease and ailment with no disease risk factors that can be controlled - how could any diet be "better"? Isn't good health the purpose of a good diet?

Proponents of paleo forgo grain and legumes because of a few reasons and some are phytic acid, lectins, trypsin inhibitors, amylase inhibitors etc. Inflammation markers are also reduced when carbohydrates are reduced in the diet along with quite a few other markers for health. Also the nutrient density of both legumes and grains are far inferior to other plant based vegetables on a calorie for calorie basis, these are the main reasons they choose to forgo these foods.

That's cool. I was not suggesting legumes are required for health. I was merely stating that there is a mountain of evidence that they are not unhealthy. (outside allergy or intollerance, of course).

neanderthin

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.

If someone was consuming a typical Standard American Diet, then replacing some refined and processed foods with legumes and whole grain would be a healthier choice. But, because of the "nature" of both legumes and grain, would replacing those choices on a calorie for calorie basis with other plant material without those "natural" tendencies be considered a better choice.

Better how? I mean if one has eaten a consistent diet and is healthy - free of disease and ailment with no disease risk factors that can be controlled - how could any diet be "better"? Isn't good health the purpose of a good diet?

Proponents of paleo forgo grain and legumes because of a few reasons and some are phytic acid, lectins, trypsin inhibitors, amylase inhibitors etc. Inflammation markers are also reduced when carbohydrates are reduced in the diet along with quite a few other markers for health. Also the nutrient density of both legumes and grains are far inferior to other plant based vegetables on a calorie for calorie basis, these are the main reasons they choose to forgo these foods.

That's cool. I was not suggesting legumes are required for health. I was merely stating that there is a mountain of evidence that they are not unhealthy. (outside allergy or intollerance, of course).

I consume both and personally I do find that eliminating whole food groups is more psychological in nature. Unfortunately studies that show discordance are looking at extreme comparisons and then extrapolating that any amount is deleterious to health, is a little phobic in nature and not warranted, imo.

Dragonwolf

I'm here on THIS site because it's a simple, convenient, and EASY tool that reinforces what in our hearts we know: your weight is determined by calories IN vs calories OUT.

I've know that for 40 years, but stubbornly 25 lbs above my target weight, I am attracted to shortcut schemes or ways to lose weight and still enjoy big quantities of calorie-rich food. I've been smart enough to avoid the worst quackery and snake oil -- all weight loss supplements and cleansing nonsense -- but I've sure tried Paleo, Atkins, etc. And they work, to an extent. But in the long run, the weight comes back. No doubt there are low-carb success stories, but for most of us, there is no reason to shun any food group. Less carbs? Sure. No carbs? Extreme, for the most part.

Ben Franklin nailed it centuries ago: All Things in Moderation.

Who ever said anything about no carbs? Even Atkins adds carbs back in after the first phase. If you're doing Atkins phase one for longer than you're supposed to, or your Paleo diet looks like the first week of Atkins, then you're doing it wrong. Even the ultra-low carb, keto Paleo-ers don't do "zero carb".

JNick77

I'm here on THIS site because it's a simple, convenient, and EASY tool that reinforces what in our hearts we know: your weight is determined by calories IN vs calories OUT.

I've know that for 40 years, but stubbornly 25 lbs above my target weight, I am attracted to shortcut schemes or ways to lose weight and still enjoy big quantities of calorie-rich food. I've been smart enough to avoid the worst quackery and snake oil -- all weight loss supplements and cleansing nonsense -- but I've sure tried Paleo, Atkins, etc. And they work, to an extent. But in the long run, the weight comes back. No doubt there are low-carb success stories, but for most of us, there is no reason to shun any food group. Less carbs? Sure. No carbs? Extreme, for the most part.

Ben Franklin nailed it centuries ago: All Things in Moderation.

Who ever said anything about no carbs? Even Atkins adds carbs back in after the first phase. If you're doing Atkins phase one for longer than you're supposed to, or your Paleo diet looks like the first week of Atkins, then you're doing it wrong. Even the ultra-low carb, keto Paleo-ers don't do "zero carb".

I think it's easy to let Paleo get into a low-carb zone if you don't add in things like Sweet Potatoes, Red Potatoes, and some fruits. My GF has a Paleo recipie book and a lot of the recipies seem to stray towards low-carb unfortunately. I've been tracking her macro-nutrients for her and her % of calories from fat skewed a little high around 39%. She's still down 6lbs and feeling good but can probably do better if we can reduce that and increase the protein and/or good carbs.

Dragonwolf

I'm here on THIS site because it's a simple, convenient, and EASY tool that reinforces what in our hearts we know: your weight is determined by calories IN vs calories OUT.

I've know that for 40 years, but stubbornly 25 lbs above my target weight, I am attracted to shortcut schemes or ways to lose weight and still enjoy big quantities of calorie-rich food. I've been smart enough to avoid the worst quackery and snake oil -- all weight loss supplements and cleansing nonsense -- but I've sure tried Paleo, Atkins, etc. And they work, to an extent. But in the long run, the weight comes back. No doubt there are low-carb success stories, but for most of us, there is no reason to shun any food group. Less carbs? Sure. No carbs? Extreme, for the most part.

Ben Franklin nailed it centuries ago: All Things in Moderation.

Who ever said anything about no carbs? Even Atkins adds carbs back in after the first phase. If you're doing Atkins phase one for longer than you're supposed to, or your Paleo diet looks like the first week of Atkins, then you're doing it wrong. Even the ultra-low carb, keto Paleo-ers don't do "zero carb".

I think it's easy to let Paleo get into a low-carb zone if you don't add in things like Sweet Potatoes, Red Potatoes, and some fruits. My GF has a Paleo recipie book and a lot of the recipies seem to stray towards low-carb unfortunately. I've been tracking her macro-nutrients for her and her % of calories from fat skewed a little high around 39%. She's still down 6lbs and feeling good but can probably do better if we can reduce that and increase the protein and/or good carbs.

Only if you're not eating things like squash and potatoes (which you likely won't in the summer if you eat locally and seasonally, those things are winter produce). Yes, it's going to be lower in carbs by nature, because vegetables don't have a lot of any macronutrients (they're all about the micros), so it takes more to get more carbs. But even then, that's still not "no carbs." You can easily get 50g+ in strict Paleo, and 100g if you can handle dairy, before even getting into the squashes and tubers.

Also, fat's not the enemy, especially in Paleo style diets. Many people here have as much at 50-60% fat (in large part depending on how much they need to eat and what they're keeping their carbs at, since when you're looking to lose weight on Paleo, it's often recommended to restrict carbs; 2000+ calories + 50-100g carbs + 1g/lb protein can result in a high fat ratio). Embrace the coconuts and avocados!

On a side note - If your girlfriend has any personal or family history of metabolic or endocrine issues (Diabetes/Insulin resistance, PCOS, candida, etc), then she will likely do better on lower carbs, and increasing them can even be counterproductive. Just FYI.

JNick77

I'm here on THIS site because it's a simple, convenient, and EASY tool that reinforces what in our hearts we know: your weight is determined by calories IN vs calories OUT.

I've know that for 40 years, but stubbornly 25 lbs above my target weight, I am attracted to shortcut schemes or ways to lose weight and still enjoy big quantities of calorie-rich food. I've been smart enough to avoid the worst quackery and snake oil -- all weight loss supplements and cleansing nonsense -- but I've sure tried Paleo, Atkins, etc. And they work, to an extent. But in the long run, the weight comes back. No doubt there are low-carb success stories, but for most of us, there is no reason to shun any food group. Less carbs? Sure. No carbs? Extreme, for the most part.

Ben Franklin nailed it centuries ago: All Things in Moderation.

Who ever said anything about no carbs? Even Atkins adds carbs back in after the first phase. If you're doing Atkins phase one for longer than you're supposed to, or your Paleo diet looks like the first week of Atkins, then you're doing it wrong. Even the ultra-low carb, keto Paleo-ers don't do "zero carb".

I think it's easy to let Paleo get into a low-carb zone if you don't add in things like Sweet Potatoes, Red Potatoes, and some fruits. My GF has a Paleo recipie book and a lot of the recipies seem to stray towards low-carb unfortunately. I've been tracking her macro-nutrients for her and her % of calories from fat skewed a little high around 39%. She's still down 6lbs and feeling good but can probably do better if we can reduce that and increase the protein and/or good carbs.

Only if you're not eating things like squash and potatoes (which you likely won't in the summer if you eat locally and seasonally, those things are winter produce). Yes, it's going to be lower in carbs by nature, because vegetables don't have a lot of any macronutrients (they're all about the micros), so it takes more to get more carbs. But even then, that's still not "no carbs." You can easily get 50g+ in strict Paleo, and 100g if you can handle dairy, before even getting into the squashes and tubers.

Also, fat's not the enemy, especially in Paleo style diets. Many people here have as much at 50-60% fat (in large part depending on how much they need to eat and what they're keeping their carbs at, since when you're looking to lose weight on Paleo, it's often recommended to restrict carbs; 2000+ calories + 50-100g carbs + 1g/lb protein can result in a high fat ratio). Embrace the coconuts and avocados!

On a side note - If your girlfriend has any personal or family history of metabolic or endocrine issues (Diabetes/Insulin resistance, PCOS, candida, etc), then she will likely do better on lower carbs, and increasing them can even be counterproductive. Just FYI.

No, I know fat isn't the issue and that fat doesn't make you fat. I worked with John Meadows for a while and always tried to keep my diet while losing weight on exercise days to around 20% - 25%. She doesn't have any carb sensitivities or anything like that. She does Boot Camp 5-days a week, plus soccer, plus a semi-physical job so the added carbs can have some value in her diet. I've found sweet potatoes and red potatoes to be a life saver. I'm loving grapefruit these days too.