Convince me (or not) that Paleo makes sense

[
Any diet that says some foods are good and some are bad sets you up for emotional food issues bordering on being emotionally disturbed over time.

if you start out as an emotional waste basket, then MAYBE

but these kind of statements are just pure horseshiit

Actually, I think that stating that grains/dairy/legumes are "bad" is the real "horseshiit."

This would be one of the reasons I've never liked the "paleo" label. Perhaps we'll eventually move to a more accurate description. Until then, I just explain to the truly interested what I choose to eat and not to eat.

People should eat anyway that works for them. I just think the marketing of that diet is absurd, but most marketing is, so....

I do wonder - how close is "Nourishing Traditions" to this way of eating?

http://www.amazon.com/Nourishing-Traditions-Challenges-Politically-Dictocrats/dp/0967089735/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350672055&sr=8-1&keywords=nourishing+traditions

It has to be marketed like it is for people to make money off of it. Without the shock value and mystery of "going against the grain" so to speak, it wouldn't generate enough interest to profit off of people trying to lose weight.

no need for convincing. just try it for yourself for a few weeks. if it works for you then go with it. if it doesnt then there ya go.

This.

I really don't care enough what other people eat to try to convince them to eat a certain way or not.

I'm not sure you understood the HSPH recommendations if you were eating "eating massive amounts of low calorie fruits and veg in order to try and still be under my calories", though there is certainly nothing wrong with a lot of fruits and veggies if you are also getting enough fat and protein.

But your post interests me. What ailments did you have while feeling great that were only discovered after they were gone?

I'm sure I did understand the HSPH recommendations, I'm not an idiot. And you're welcome to search the forums to satisfy your curiosity about my diet and health -- I've talked about it extensively and in almost every single thread I've replied you've replied to as well so my posts should be easy to find.

[
Any diet that says some foods are good and some are bad sets you up for emotional food issues bordering on being emotionally disturbed over time.

if you start out as an emotional waste basket, then MAYBE

but these kind of statements are just pure horseshiit

Actually, I think that stating that grains/dairy/legumes are "bad" is the real "horseshiit."

well thats a bit different, no? some foods are bad for SOME people...but blanket statements of any kind usually fail

Hi All,

I have never really understood the 'paleo' basics. Besides the fact that semantically the diet makes little sense I want the reason why things like legumes, peanut butter, potatoes, dairy are off limits. I can go with the idea that gains aren't the purest form of what we should be eating (even if I don't adhere and eat whole grains) and even dairy to some extent but I struggle intuitively with the other stuff.

I also am not looking for "I eat paleo and feel great" but more concrete reasons why physically we as a species should not consume these items. If you tell me it has a certain effect on the body I would like a medical study I can look at to learn more.

Finally, I often get the impression Paleo is a bit 'all or nothing'. There are certain non-Paelo items I will never give up. Full stop. Is there benefit/room for a modified version?

Someone earlier posted a link to Mark's Daily Apple blog. You can search his site for your questions about why each of the foods eliminated on the Paleo diet. In each of his responses, he give both his own opinion (he's a blogger, after all, with books and supplements to sell) but also does a nice job of linking to the studies that formed his opinion. Robb Wolf does the same on his site. The Whole9 site is also a great place to explore the reasons, both nutritional and psychological, behind the specific foods eliminated. Reading "It Starts With Food" is very helpful. I have my own reasons for appreciating the "no" list on Paleo, since they are all ones that either I tended to overeat and which messed with my blood sugar, and which tended to crowd out space in my diet for healthier fruits and veg.

As for the "modified' version... there is no one Paleo diet. Each person learns what works best, and makes it their own. It's very strict if you keep it strict. Or, you can decide which parts of it work best for you and stick with that. Even people who are "strict" (and I consider myself one of them) generally choose to "treat" from time to time... we're human. Some people focus more on eliminating grains, but not legumes. Others focus more on just eating produce and meats from local farms who use sustainable farming/animal welfare practices, which is as big a part of Paleo as anything else. Some people eliminate most grains, but eat rice. It's all good if it helps you sustain a healthy eating lifestyle. And, Paleo is one of the few "diets" that also stresses regular fitness, sleep, and fun. Read any book or blog on Paleo, and you'll see that there too. Common sense, of course, but that's why people refer to it as a "lifestyle" as well.

Many people do the "Whole30", which is essentially an elimination diet very similar to ones used for allergy testing. Some people do this to try out Paleo for 30 days, and some people wait until they've been eating Paleo for a while before they try it. The philosophy is that you eat for 30 days according to the very strict elimination of grains, legumes, soy, added sugars, dairy, etc. After the 30 days, you systematically add things back in.

You may find that you tolerate grains just fine. Or, you may find that you tolerate oats, but not wheat. So then you know. You may find that when you add dairy back in, you feel just fine, or you may find allergies that you previously never associated with dairy flare up. It's about learning how your body interacts with foods that tend to cause health issues in some people.

You might find that you are completely fine with eating anything under the sun. Or, you might identify certain nutritional sensitivities or psychological associations you had with food that you were not aware of before eliminating, and then you can decide in an informed way what you will do with that new information.

During the 30 days, you're not supposed to cheat, weigh yourself, or count calories, carbs, etc. It's tough. It requires commitment and preparation. It's your 30 day N=1 experiment. Almost everyone who completes the Whole30 either loses weight and/or inches and feels better after such clean eating, but it's not a weight loss diet. It's a diet that gives your gut 30 days to heal from anything that may be bothering it nutritionally, so you can learn what foods make you feel healthy and what foods don't. And it's a chance to give yourself 30 days to avoid foods that may be psychological triggers for overeating, so that you can gain some mental perspective on those triggers, and then decide how you will deal with them in the future. For people who are great at moderating their diet, this may not be important. But for many, many people who do overeat certain foods, this can be very helpful.

I personally had a huge FAIL when I tried Whole30 (yes, Paleo friends, I'm talking about my hot butcher... or should I say... Akimajuktuk's future husband). I'm going to try again soon.

[
Any diet that says some foods are good and some are bad sets you up for emotional food issues bordering on being emotionally disturbed over time.

if you start out as an emotional waste basket, then MAYBE

but these kind of statements are just pure horseshiit

Actually, I think that stating that grains/dairy/legumes are "bad" is the real "horseshiit."

well thats a bit different, no? some foods are bad for SOME people...but blanket statements of any kind usually fail

Exactly! To me, tofu is a "bad" food because it makes me vomit. :laugh:

I recommend learning to use the search feature first. This topic has been beaten to death already.

I also understand how to use the search feature, thanks for the condescension though. I posted because I was hoping that given the way I phrased the question I would get some knowledgeable responses that would point me to good research. Reading through 20+ pages of people arguing back and forth with little information is not something I consider a good use of my time. So while there are posts on this, yes, I didn't think any of them met my needs. You're welcome not to post on topics you feel are redundant.

Makes sense on the intolerance point.

Now do you see what she meant! LOL! Insert open can o worms riiiiiiiiight HERE! to go along with another 20+ pages of people arguing!

I LOVE these forums!!

:flowerforyou:

Thanks for this thread. I had a crush on a boy in Junior high school until I realized he was really two seperate people. I really hadn't realized that Primal and Paleo weren't the same and I too am interested in why not legumes. So I googled and found this answer that says that the Paleo Diet was being a bit incompetent in their scientific analysis on legumes and lectin being an antinutrient. Lectin it turns out is eliminated from legumes when cooked. http://drclydewilson.typepad.com/drclydewilson/2011/02/paleo-diet-is-incompetent-legumes-are-not-anti-nutrients.html
Here is a post on the flip side against beans but stating the reason. http://wellnessmama.com/2029/spill-the-beans-are-they-healthy-or-not/ I also can see why you asked the question. I did use the search function to figure out the difference between the two. but like you didn't get the info about beans that you asked specifically about in the first pages of this post (all I have read so far) and the 1st pages of the Paleo vs Primal thread I found. so I gave up and asked google. Good question as far as I am concerned. I know of a diet/system that takes you off most of the foods that may cause problems for you and then lets you add them back in slowly to see which are really an issue for you. It has some similarities to some of the primal and paleo lists but isn't but isn't really very big on red meats. It wasn't developed for weight loss but seems to work well for it. The problem for me remains giving up sugar completely. I am sure it would be really healthy and I would lose better. You had another question that remained unanswered by the initial posts I am going to look into it after finishing the article above (just found more on this topic).

Hope you got your questions answered somewhere in this thread.

Are you, perhaps, looking for something more like the following:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/05May/Pages/Cavemanfaddiet.aspx

NCT00360516 Paleolithic Diet and Exercise Study
- http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00360516

NCT00692536 Diet Composition - Metabolic Regulation and Long-term Compliance (KNOTA)
- http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00692536

NCT00548782 Paleolithic Diet and Exercise Study
- http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00548782

Beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet on cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes: a randomized cross-over pilot study
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724493/


Personally, it doesn't make much sense to me primarily because some of the basic tennets upon which the diet is based seem questionable (see "Thirty thousand-year-old evidence of plant food processing" - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/10/08/1006993107).