Have any of you tried the Paleo Diet? Success???

Options
1234579

Replies

  • VorJoshigan
    VorJoshigan Posts: 1,106 Member
    Options
    My guess is that you had statistics 101 and that correlation/causation was probably the only thing you remembered. If you dispute what I just said, kindly point me to a study on diet, that, in your opinion does not have the correlation/causation problem, and which ALL independent variables are controlled for (That is the only way to prove causation in the empirical world, and of course that is impossible.)

    Keep guessing. I'll let you know when you're getting warmer. Keep on setting up those strawmen and knocking them down, it seems like you have a real gift for it.
  • PhilyPhresh
    PhilyPhresh Posts: 600 Member
    Options
    I'll take being in this "cult" over being an intolerant, unaware food addict any day...
  • madlibscholar
    madlibscholar Posts: 30 Member
    Options
    No, I won't pay for the article...I'm not that invested to be honest. I just hate when people tout medical journal articles as the absolute truth and think there is no error in research. Sure it is probably a lot more solid than people's opinions, but to think that it's completely un biased is a bit foolish.

    I mean, if it is true, I'm pretty screwed anyway...I eat this way because they are foods I genuinely like and I don't eat processed stuff or things I don't like but should eat because they are 'healthy'. I guess grass fed meat and lots of veg will kill me in the end! Ah well...I'll be happy.
  • cartrat
    cartrat Posts: 120 Member
    Options
    bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.

    i like being primal. the end :)

    Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.

    And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).

    so far i'm a good 7 weeks into being low carb, high fat. i sleep like a log, i'm never starving, my skin is glowing! and not only the skin on my face but where there once was cellulite, it is no more. i remember when i weighed less and ate low fat, high carb and even exercised 5 days a week (cardio and strength) and still had to use cream and gels; i couldn't get rid of it! i will give up sandwiches for less dimples any day.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Options
    No, I won't pay for the article...I'm not that invested to be honest. I just hate when people tout medical journal articles as the absolute truth and think there is no error in research. Sure it is probably a lot more solid than people's opinions, but to think that it's completely un biased is a bit foolish.

    I mean, if it is true, I'm pretty screwed anyway...I eat this way because they are foods I genuinely like and I don't eat processed stuff or things I don't like but should eat because they are 'healthy'. I guess grass fed meat and lots of veg will kill me in the end! Ah well...I'll be happy.

    No journal article is the absolute truth. The nature of empirical science is such that truth exists until proven false. The sun rises in the East until it doesn't. However, if you know of a better way to understand how things work, please let me know. Statistically valid studies top anything else I know of.

    Yes, your attitude towards diet is pretty typical. Most people cannot be convinced that their lifestyle is hurting them, and even if they are convinced, "magical thinking" allows them to believe that they will live forever anyway. Until they don't. You wouldn't believe the number of cancer patients I have seen who, after being diagnosed, suddenly decide it is time to become vegetarian. Well, sorry. It's too late. You need to get religion before the Judgement Day.

    Bytheway, the veggies you eat won't kill you, but I know of no studies that indicate that people who eat grass fed meat live longer than those who eat slaughterhouse meat. Karma's a *****. You kill the cow. The cow kills you.

    I also know of no studies that indicate that if you eat only veggies you more likely to get some chronic disease. If anyone knows of such a study, please let me know. And you may be right about the British Heart Association Study I referred to. It may be flawed. Also, the Framingham Study done in the 1940s may be flawed. The Nurses Study. The China Study. The German Study, the studies sponsored by the American Heart Association. All of them, as well as hundreds, if not thousands of others that correlate heart disease and cancer with eating meat may be flawed. But isn't it strange that they all say the same thing: eating meat is correlated with chronic diseases. All these flawed studies say pretty much the same thing. Is that something an intelligent person should ignore? Perhaps they don't. Being vegetarian seems to be correlated with having above average intelligence. (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/vegetarians-are-more-intelligent-says-study-7082629.html - refers to study in the British Medical Journal - sorry to keep mentioning these pseudo scientific journals and flawed studies like this in the British Medical Journal, a clearly pseudo scientific rag.)

    Again, sorry to keep bringing in science, when everyone knows that only uninformed opinions count. I am sure we will hear plenty more of those, as well as plenty more comments about "correlation does not equal causation" from all those who got a "C" in statistics 101. I have a Ph.D. friend who teaches graduate statistics at a major university, and she no longer posts here because she is sick of the Correlation-Does-Not-equal-Causation crowd. A certain de minimus level of sophistication is required before one can intelligently talk about any science.

    So enjoy your grass fed beef, and I certainly grant your point that all studies are flawed. But you may want to look at them anyway, since I can pretty much guarantee you don't have a better alternative.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Options
    bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.

    i like being primal. the end :)

    Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.

    And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).

    Actually, paleo has the lowest adherence rate of just about any diet.

    http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3

    It was rated tied for 24th out of 25 diets in terms of health benefits, people who felt the diet actually helped them, etc.

    Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)

    Sorry about posting all of these nasty studies. I know people would rather have uninformed opinion, and everyone knows that no study that disagrees with them is valid because correlation does not equal causation.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Options
    bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.

    i like being primal. the end :)

    Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.

    And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).

    Actually, paleo has the lowest adherence rate of just about any diet.

    http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3

    It was rated tied for 24th out of 25 diets in terms of health benefits, people who felt the diet actually helped them, etc.

    Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)

    Sorry about posting all of these nasty studies. I know people would rather have uninformed opinion, and everyone knows that no study that disagrees with them is valid because correlation does not equal causation.

    I should also add that the US News and World Report study I cited above gave people the opportunity to say whether or not the diet in question worked for them or did not.

    For the Vegetarian Diet, 18,234 people said it worked for them, 3,197 said it did not.

    For the Vegan Diet, 16, 054 said it worked for them, 1852 said it did not.

    For the Atkins Diet, 4118 said it worked for them, 18,907 said it did not

    For the Paleo Diet, 7301 said it worked for them, 24,254 said it did not.

    Paleo is just a version of the Atkins diet, and both are ineffective and dangerous.
  • juicygurl1
    juicygurl1 Posts: 195 Member
    Options
    i had a former trainer who always uses the Paleo diet to drop excessive weight gain. I was looking at some information last night on the web and was thinking of trying this diet. It really appears to be a sensible eating plan minus the dairy and grains.
  • Aleara2012
    Aleara2012 Posts: 225 Member
    Options
    Again, sorry to keep bringing in science, when everyone knows that only uninformed opinions count.

    Then could you please read the following and comment, seeing that you are really good with science



    Frassetto LA, Schloetter M, Mietus-Synder M, Morris RC, Jr., Sebastian A: Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet. Eur J Clin Nutr 2009.

    Jönsson T, Granfeldt Y, Ahrén B, Branell UC, Pålsson G, Hansson A, Söderström M, Lindeberg S. Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2009;8:35

    Jonsson T, Ahren B, Pacini G, Sundler F, Wierup N, Steen S, Sjoberg T, Ugander M, Frostegard J, Goransson Lindeberg S: A Paleolithic diet confers higher insulin sensitivity, lower C-reactive protein and lower blood pressure than a cereal-based diet in domestic pigs. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2006, 3:39.

    Jonsson T, Granfeldt Y, Erlanson-Albertsson C, Ahren B, Lindeberg S. A Paleolithic diet is more satiating per calorie than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischemic heart disease. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2010 Nov 30;7(1):85

    Lindeberg S, Jonsson T, Granfeldt Y, Borgstrand E, Soffman J, Sjostrom K, Ahren B: A Palaeolithic diet improves glucose tolerance more than a Mediterranean-like diet in individuals with ischaemic heart disease. Diabetologia 2007, 50(9):1795-1807.

    O’Dea K: Marked improvement in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism in diabetic Australian aborigines after temporary reversion to traditional lifestyle. Diabetes 1984, 33(6):596-603.

    Osterdahl M, Kocturk T, Koochek A, Wandell PE: Effects of a short-term intervention with a paleolithic diet in healthy volunteers. Eur J Clin Nutr 2008, 62(5):682-685
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Options
    Again, sorry to keep bringing in science, when everyone knows that only uninformed opinions count. [/quote]

    Then could you please read the following and comment, seeing that you are really good with science



    Frassetto LA, Schloetter M, Mietus-Synder M, Morris RC, Jr., Sebastian A: Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet. Eur J Clin Nutr 2009.



    Thank you. I really am good at science. Good enough to know that the first study I looked at did not have anything to do with chronic diseases, which is what my studies concerned, and which is what all my posts talked about, and which is one reason the Paleo diet is so dangerous. (There are many more reasons.)

    Also, this was a metabolic study of 9 patients (in this case healthy) for less than 20 days. This study proves nothing beyond the 9 patients and the twenty days.

    "We performed an outpatient, metabolically controlled study, in nine nonobese sedentary healthy volunteers, ensuring no weight loss by daily weight. We compared the findings when the participants consumed their usual diet with those when they consumed a paleolithic type diet. The participants consumed their usual diet for 3 days, three ramp-up diets of increasing potassium and fiber for 7 days, then a paleolithic type diet comprising lean meat, fruits, vegetables and nuts, and excluding nonpaleolithic type foods, such as cereal grains, dairy or legumes, for 10 days. Outcomes included arterial blood pressure (BP); 24-h urine sodium and potassium excretion; plasma glucose and insulin areas under the curve (AUC) during a 2 h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT); insulin sensitivity; plasma lipid concentrations; and brachial artery reactivity in response to ischemia."

    If you want to find out how a general population responds to the Paleo diet, you need to do a longitudinal study of a large cohort for many years.

    If the other studies you cite are similar, they are all non sequitur to anything I was talking about, THINK CHRONIC DISEASES.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.

    i like being primal. the end :)

    Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.

    And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).

    Actually, paleo has the lowest adherence rate of just about any diet.

    http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3

    It was rated tied for 24th out of 25 diets in terms of health benefits, people who felt the diet actually helped them, etc.

    Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)

    Sorry about posting all of these nasty studies. I know people would rather have uninformed opinion, and everyone knows that no study that disagrees with them is valid because correlation does not equal causation.

    There are some interesting stories about that particular survey, but I'll leave that for others to bring up (as I have all of five minutes before my day gets hectic).

    That you (or anyone else) would say that the paleo diet is a fad means one of us misunderstands the diet. That you (or others) equate paleo with "ketosis - hyperketonemia" means one of us misunderstands it too. I eat 100-150g+ of carbs daily. I am nowhere near ketosis. (And even if I was occasionally in ketosis, I guess I am not aware of the significant dangers of that.) I eat real veggies. I eat real fruit. I eat real meat (from animals where I know exactly how they were raised). I do not believe in punishment from karma because I directly killed a cow. Not anymore than it would bite you from the field kills of your choice of food (although I'll admit, I am just speculating as your food diary is locked).

    Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than a vegan diet? Maybe. But I know that I feel like I have never been more physically and mentally optimal (age-adjusted, of course). Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than the SAD? I sincerely doubt it, but again, if it does, then so be it. I feel better. I perform better. I *am* better. And that's enough reason for me to continue it.

    [Time's up.]
  • Melampus
    Melampus Posts: 95 Member
    Options
    Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)

    I am intrigued by this statement. My limited understanding is that ketosis is the breaking down of the bodies fat stores so the fat can be used for energy. Surely that would mean any diet or other regime that results in a reduction in body fat, the weight that goes with it and obesity, must include an element of ketosis.

    If it is true that being overweight or obese is a health risk and that losing that weight therefore has a benefit it would seem strange to declare the mechanism by which it is achieved as a disease process.
  • Whitezombiegirl
    Whitezombiegirl Posts: 1,042 Member
    Options
    Paleo is NOT Atkins and it's not about ketosis. Paleo diet promotes the eating of carbs from fruit & veg sources (just not from grain sources)
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Options
    Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)

    I am intrigued by this statement. My limited understanding is that ketosis is the breaking down of the bodies fat stores so the fat can be used for energy. Surely that would mean any diet or other regime that results in a reduction in body fat, the weight that goes with it and obesity, must include an element of ketosis.

    If it is true that being overweight or obese is a health risk and that losing that weight therefore has a benefit it would seem strange to declare the mechanism by which it is achieved as a disease process.

    Ketosis can have negative side effects:

    Skin rash
    Headaches
    Muscle cramps
    Diarrhea
    Constipation
    Weakness
    Insomnia
    Amenorrhea

    The human body, from Paleolithic times to the present is used to geting 90% of its energy from plant sources, including (and even the Paleos admit this) more than 100 g of fiber per day. Ironically, the Paleos advocate eating what our ancestors ate, and then completely muck it up by throwing in for more meat than man was ever intended to eat, or could eat healthily.

    Paleo is a fraud. Sorry, But they say one thing, then do another.

    For an admittedly biased review of this and other problems with Paleo see :


    http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2012nl/jun/paleo2.htm
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Options
    bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.

    i like being primal. the end :)

    Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.

    And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).

    Actually, paleo has the lowest adherence rate of just about any diet.

    http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3

    It was rated tied for 24th out of 25 diets in terms of health benefits, people who felt the diet actually helped them, etc.

    Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)

    Sorry about posting all of these nasty studies. I know people would rather have uninformed opinion, and everyone knows that no study that disagrees with them is valid because correlation does not equal causation.

    There are some interesting stories about that particular survey, but I'll leave that for others to bring up (as I have all of five minutes before my day gets hectic).

    That you (or anyone else) would say that the paleo diet is a fad means one of us misunderstands the diet. That you (or others) equate paleo with "ketosis - hyperketonemia" means one of us misunderstands it too. I eat 100-150g+ of carbs daily. I am nowhere near ketosis. (And even if I was occasionally in ketosis, I guess I am not aware of the significant dangers of that.) I eat real veggies. I eat real fruit. I eat real meat (from animals where I know exactly how they were raised). I do not believe in punishment from karma because I directly killed a cow. Not anymore than it would bite you from the field kills of your choice of food (although I'll admit, I am just speculating as your food diary is locked).

    Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than a vegan diet? Maybe. But I know that I feel like I have never been more physically and mentally optimal (age-adjusted, of course). Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than the SAD? I sincerely doubt it, but again, if it does, then so be it. I feel better. I perform better. I *am* better. And that's enough reason for me to continue it.

    [Time's up.]

    90% of the caveman diet is leaves, bark, fruit and vegetables. For the past 30,000 years that includes processed (ground up) grains. It also included at least 100 grams of fiber per day as admitted by your leaders.

    So what do you eat on a typical day?
  • ipag
    ipag Posts: 137
    Options

    If you want to find out how a general population responds to the Paleo diet, you need to do a longitudinal study of a large cohort for many years.

    I know you like anthropology, so I invite you to do some research on the Hadza people, who live in Tanzania. One of the last groups of people still doing the hunter gatherer thing. The men hunt for meat, the women gather berries and tubers and their society has no obesity and no heart disease or any disease of any kind. Anthropologist have been studying them for well over 50 years. Their population hovers around 1000 however, not sure if that's a large enough population. In your favor however, when rainy season comes (which lasts about four months if I remember correctly) they switch to an almost completely vegetarian diet.

    Here's a good book I highly recommend.

    Marlowe, F. W. (2010). The Hadza: Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania. Berkeley: Univ. California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25342-1.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.

    i like being primal. the end :)

    Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.

    And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).

    Actually, paleo has the lowest adherence rate of just about any diet.

    http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3

    It was rated tied for 24th out of 25 diets in terms of health benefits, people who felt the diet actually helped them, etc.

    Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)

    Sorry about posting all of these nasty studies. I know people would rather have uninformed opinion, and everyone knows that no study that disagrees with them is valid because correlation does not equal causation.

    There are some interesting stories about that particular survey, but I'll leave that for others to bring up (as I have all of five minutes before my day gets hectic).

    That you (or anyone else) would say that the paleo diet is a fad means one of us misunderstands the diet. That you (or others) equate paleo with "ketosis - hyperketonemia" means one of us misunderstands it too. I eat 100-150g+ of carbs daily. I am nowhere near ketosis. (And even if I was occasionally in ketosis, I guess I am not aware of the significant dangers of that.) I eat real veggies. I eat real fruit. I eat real meat (from animals where I know exactly how they were raised). I do not believe in punishment from karma because I directly killed a cow. Not anymore than it would bite you from the field kills of your choice of food (although I'll admit, I am just speculating as your food diary is locked).

    Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than a vegan diet? Maybe. But I know that I feel like I have never been more physically and mentally optimal (age-adjusted, of course). Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than the SAD? I sincerely doubt it, but again, if it does, then so be it. I feel better. I perform better. I *am* better. And that's enough reason for me to continue it.

    [Time's up.]

    90% of the caveman diet is leaves, bark, fruit and vegetables. For the past 30,000 years that includes processed (ground up) grains. It also included at least 100 grams of fiber per day as admitted by your leaders.

    So what do you eat on a typical day?

    I don't think you can blanket statement a "typical" ancestral diet. My understanding is that there was great variance between geographical regions. Further to my understanding, the grains commonly available to us today are nothing like the grains of long ago. (And I know that there is at least a subset of "paleo" that eat "properly-prepared" (fermented, sprouted, etc.) grains. I do not, simply because I do not believe these grains offer a substantial health benefit to justify the ordeal, and certain evidence leads me to believe they may be potentially harmful.

    I have no leaders for my dietary choices. If anything, I am my own leader. That said, I have never read anyone recommending 100g of daily fiber. (I'm not saying they aren't out there, just that I haven't seen it.) However, I do recall reading several prominent "paleo" writers that said that fiber was not the wonder it had been made out to be and was not necessary in large quantities to "keep things moving" for a normal "paleo" diet. For what it's worth, I am pleased with the evidence I have of my digestive health (and even very recently confirmed by some routine testing). (Looking at my diary, it looks like I average about 30g daily. My macros also tend to be 20/20/60 P/C/F, not by design, but happenstance.)

    Unlike many others on the site (for their own various personal reasons, I'm sure), my food diary is wide open for everyone to see.

    ETA: What do *you* eat on a typical day?
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Options

    If you want to find out how a general population responds to the Paleo diet, you need to do a longitudinal study of a large cohort for many years.

    I know you like anthropology, so I invite you to do some research on the Hadza people, who live in Tanzania. One of the last groups of people still doing the hunter gatherer thing. The men hunt for meat, the women gather berries and tubers and their society has no obesity and no heart disease or any disease of any kind. Anthropologist have been studying them for well over 50 years. Their population hovers around 1000 however, not sure if that's a large enough population. In your favor however, when rainy season comes (which lasts about four months if I remember correctly) they switch to an almost completely vegetarian diet.

    Here's a good book I highly recommend.

    Marlowe, F. W. (2010). The Hadza: Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania. Berkeley: Univ. California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-25342-1.

    Thank you, I usually do well reading books others recommend. At the moment I am reading one (COMPLEXITY M. Mitchell Waldorp.) I just looked through the indices of a couple of anthro books in my library, and found nothing about the Hadza, although I remember hearing that name. How far does their diet go back?

    You might be interested in this Science article:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20019285

    There is evidence this ground seed diet goes back 100,000 years.
  • VegesaurusRex
    VegesaurusRex Posts: 1,018
    Options
    bah i thought i wanted to get in on this but... nah.

    i like being primal. the end :)

    Fortunately, the actual diet/lifestyle is *far* less dramatic than the discussions about it online.

    And for whatever reason, it *seems* to have a fairly high adherence rate, at least compared to other dietary approaches. There don't seem to be as many "I tried it once, but couldn't stick with it after X weeks/months" (but this could be influenced by my own bias as my adherence to it has been almost entirely effortless).

    Actually, paleo has the lowest adherence rate of just about any diet.

    http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?page=3

    It was rated tied for 24th out of 25 diets in terms of health benefits, people who felt the diet actually helped them, etc.

    Paleo is a fad diet that is dangerous for your health. I posted an analysis of that earlier. It is a low rated diet in just about every category, and only works by making you sick (ketosis - hyperketonemia.)

    Sorry about posting all of these nasty studies. I know people would rather have uninformed opinion, and everyone knows that no study that disagrees with them is valid because correlation does not equal causation.

    There are some interesting stories about that particular survey, but I'll leave that for others to bring up (as I have all of five minutes before my day gets hectic).

    That you (or anyone else) would say that the paleo diet is a fad means one of us misunderstands the diet. That you (or others) equate paleo with "ketosis - hyperketonemia" means one of us misunderstands it too. I eat 100-150g+ of carbs daily. I am nowhere near ketosis. (And even if I was occasionally in ketosis, I guess I am not aware of the significant dangers of that.) I eat real veggies. I eat real fruit. I eat real meat (from animals where I know exactly how they were raised). I do not believe in punishment from karma because I directly killed a cow. Not anymore than it would bite you from the field kills of your choice of food (although I'll admit, I am just speculating as your food diary is locked).

    Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than a vegan diet? Maybe. But I know that I feel like I have never been more physically and mentally optimal (age-adjusted, of course). Is my diet statistically more likely to cause problems than the SAD? I sincerely doubt it, but again, if it does, then so be it. I feel better. I perform better. I *am* better. And that's enough reason for me to continue it.

    [Time's up.]


    90% of the caveman diet is leaves, bark, fruit and vegetables. For the past 30,000 years that includes processed (ground up) grains. It also included at least 100 grams of fiber per day as admitted by your leaders.

    So what do you eat on a typical day?

    I don't think you can blanket statement a "typical" ancestral diet.

    Of course you can't. I realize that, but doesn't that belie the whole Paleo movement? It is supposed to be based on THE caveman diet.

    My understanding is that there was great variance between geographical regions. Further to my understanding, the grains commonly available to us today are nothing like the grains of long ago. (And I know that there is at least a subset of "paleo" that eat "properly-prepared" (fermented, sprouted, etc.) grains. I do not, simply because I do not believe these grains offer a substantial health benefit to justify the ordeal, and certain evidence leads me to believe they may be potentially harmful.

    Grains allowed civilization to be founded. I will take civilization with grains rather than no civilization without grains.

    I have no leaders for my dietary choices. If anything, I am my own leader. That said, I have never read anyone recommending 100g of daily fiber.


    ****************************************************************************************************************************************
    "QuestionsTagsUsersBadgesUnansweredAsk Question

    Paleolithic Fiber Consumption
    8

    Dr. Robert Lustig ("Sugar the Bitter Truth" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM ) was on the Livin'La Vida Lo-Carb show a few days ago and he stated there has been analysis on 50,000 year old human fecal matter that shows hunter gathers consumed 100 to 300 grams of fiber per day. He said it twice and I had to rewind it twice to make sure I heard it correctly. Before grains and beans is that even possible? If possible what would you have to consume to hit 200 grams per day? Dr. Lustig is a pretty smart guy but unless I'm missing something, that seems pretty wacky. Does anybody know what study he is referring to?

    For more Paleo Diet hacks: Paleolithic Fiber Consumption - PaleoHacks.com http://paleohacks.com/questions/6941/paleolithic-fiber-consumption#ixzz2398ZtYeb
    **************************************************************************************************************************************


    (I'm not saying they aren't out there, just that I haven't seen it.) However, I do recall reading several prominent "paleo" writers that said that fiber was not the wonder it had been made out to be and was not necessary in large quantities to "keep things moving" for a normal "paleo" diet.

    Fiber is the most important link to a long life span:

    http://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-women-should-eat-to-live-longer/

    This is the so called "Harvard Nurses Study," and it deals with women, so naturally one could logically say the results do not apply to men. However, it is likely they do.



    For what it's worth, I am pleased with the evidence I have of my digestive health (and even very recently confirmed by some routine testing). (Looking at my diary, it looks like I average about 30g daily. My macros also tend to be 20/20/60 P/C/F, not by design, but happenstance.)

    Okay, if you sniffed coke (so I am told) you would likely feel some pleasure. Does that mean it is a good thing to do? Maybe you are right and maybe the Paleo diet is helping you a lot, or maybe you are like other humans, and it will ultimately just kill you.

    Unlike many others on the site (for their own various personal reasons, I'm sure), my food diary is wide open for everyone to see.

    ETA: What do *you* eat on a typical day?


    I don't post my food intake, because I am not dieting. Although I could probably stand to lose a few pounds. I am actually trying to increase my muscle mass, hence my weight.

    Now for something to completely depress you meat eaters and Paleos. Read it and weap:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/27/vegetarian-diet-scientist_n_1834182.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    I don't post my food intake, because I am not dieting. Although I could probably stand to lose a few pounds. I am actually trying to increase my muscle mass, hence my weight.

    Interesting. Me too. So far this year, have added 15 mostly lean pounds. (I say "mostly lean" because while my waistline and the calipers haven't changed in any noticeable way, I sincerely doubt that all 15 pounds are muscle.)

    But I don't understand why you wouldn't share your food log for that reason. I eat (mostly) the same foods now that I did when I was dropping the squishier look last year, just more of them. Even if I were eating drastically different foods, I see no reason to hide my food log from others.

Categories