Let's be serious about Paleo

Options
1235

Replies

  • ddhdml
    ddhdml Posts: 22 Member
    Options
    Spaghetti squash. Just cut in half spray with olive oil pam. Sprinkle a little salt an pepper. Place cut side down and roast in a 375 degree oven for about 45 minutes. Until lightly brown and soft. Turn over and scrape out flesf with a fork. It kinda looks like pasta. Then i put some spaghetti sauce on it. Yummy!!!
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Options
    Spaghetti squash. Just cut in half spray with olive oil pam. Sprinkle a little salt an pepper. Place cut side down and roast in a 375 degree oven for about 45 minutes. Until lightly brown and soft. Turn over and scrape out flesf with a fork. It kinda looks like pasta. Then i put some spaghetti sauce on it. Yummy!!!
    i dont understand the point of this post
  • takumaku
    takumaku Posts: 352 Member
    Options

    .
    .
    .

    To believe something is healthy is a little different. Thats like saying I believe 2+2=5 which is not right

    .
    .
    .

    <Off topic> I feel I have to make a comment on this statement. As I have learned in my universal law theory call back in grad school, 2+2 = 5 can be true, depending on the Universal Law being expressed.

    I am assuming the reason you believe 2+2=5 is false is because you are quoting the Universal Law of Mathematics with respect to addition of integers.

    Let me give an example how different Universal Laws are applied.

    Question: What is the shortest distance between two points? Most people would state a straight line, which is correct, depending on which Law is applied. Now, let me apply a Universal Law. With the Universal Law of Gravitation Pull, again, what is the shortest distance between two points? If you had answered a straight line, this would be incorrect, as gravitation pull will direct objects downward. Therefore, an arc would be the shortest distance.

    Again, off topic... ^_^
  • MissChyna
    MissChyna Posts: 358 Member
    Options
    Thanks for posting this!
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Options
    You forgot to mention why the satiety on processed food is so low. Obesity researchers call sugar (sucrose) and high fructose corn syrup, the "anti-satiety" element in processed food. It is included in virtually all processed food, and especially restaurant food: it supplies only calories. The reason why a diet that eliminates processed foods and sweets works is that it eliminates the non-satiety foodstuffs while retaining the nourishing foods our bodies crave (even if our minds don't). Being successful includes training our minds to want what our bodies want. :wink:

    There is no scientific evidence stating about sucrose being the cause of obesity. If you actually look at the index why is it that fruit has a high satiation if the carbohydrate in there is sucrose?

    There are a LOT of substances there beside sucrose (which is typically a quite small amount of the whole fruit) and those nutrients are likely what produce the satiety. In any case, (from Livestrong.com):

    "...Your cells can either use the sucrose you eat immediately, or store it as fat. Typically, the faster you absorb the monosaccharides from sucrose into the bloodstream, the more likely they are to be stored as fat, note Drs. Garrett and Grisham. As such, sucrose that you obtain from eating whole fruit is less likely to be stored as fat than sucrose you get from less fiber-rich sources, like sweetened foods and beverages. Regardless, overconsuming sucrose from any source -- including fruit -- can lead to excess weight gain..."

    We are speaking of volume of absorption over time here. One can of "orange" soda has 44 grams of fructose/glucose and it is very bio-available because there is no fiber. A whole orange has about 9 grams of total sugars and those sugars are encased in fiber where they are released slowly into the body. And because our teeth/mouth were not designed to completely pulverize the fruit, it is likely that a fair bit of the sugar will be unabsorbed and pass out of the body with the fiber. Plus, there are other substances in many fruit (such as an apple) that guard against the precipitous raising of blood sugar and make it less likely the sugars will be stored as fat.

    Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/323696-fruit-and-sucrose/#ixzz2UvLwgHqI

    there is no evidence that talks about sucrose content and satiety.

    Like all addictive substances, sugar consumption tends to lose its satiating effect and, for many, many people, increasing amounts are sought. Here is a study that speaks to the issue of sugar addiction: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/88/56G31/index.xml?section=topstories
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Options
    You forgot to mention why the satiety on processed food is so low. Obesity researchers call sugar (sucrose) and high fructose corn syrup, the "anti-satiety" element in processed food. It is included in virtually all processed food, and especially restaurant food: it supplies only calories. The reason why a diet that eliminates processed foods and sweets works is that it eliminates the non-satiety foodstuffs while retaining the nourishing foods our bodies crave (even if our minds don't). Being successful includes training our minds to want what our bodies want. :wink:

    There is no scientific evidence stating about sucrose being the cause of obesity. If you actually look at the index why is it that fruit has a high satiation if the carbohydrate in there is sucrose?

    There are a LOT of substances there beside sucrose (which is typically a quite small amount of the whole fruit) and those nutrients are likely what produce the satiety. In any case, (from Livestrong.com):

    "...Your cells can either use the sucrose you eat immediately, or store it as fat. Typically, the faster you absorb the monosaccharides from sucrose into the bloodstream, the more likely they are to be stored as fat, note Drs. Garrett and Grisham. As such, sucrose that you obtain from eating whole fruit is less likely to be stored as fat than sucrose you get from less fiber-rich sources, like sweetened foods and beverages. Regardless, overconsuming sucrose from any source -- including fruit -- can lead to excess weight gain..."

    We are speaking of volume of absorption over time here. One can of "orange" soda has 44 grams of fructose/glucose and it is very bio-available because there is no fiber. A whole orange has about 9 grams of total sugars and those sugars are encased in fiber where they are released slowly into the body. And because our teeth/mouth were not designed to completely pulverize the fruit, it is likely that a fair bit of the sugar will be unabsorbed and pass out of the body with the fiber. Plus, there are other substances in many fruit (such as an apple) that guard against the precipitous raising of blood sugar and make it less likely the sugars will be stored as fat.

    Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/323696-fruit-and-sucrose/#ixzz2UvLwgHqI

    there is no evidence that talks about sucrose content and satiety.

    Like all addictive substances, sugar consumption tends to lose its satiating effect and, for many, many people, increasing amounts are sought. Here is a study that speaks to the issue of sugar addiction: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/88/56G31/index.xml?section=topstories

    no. addiction =/= anti-satiation.
    even if addiction was true
    Even people who do drugs dont keep going. they eventually stop after they get their high.
    with that reasoning we should keep eating fruit past satiation regardless of other substances

    http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2008/12/11/sugar-is-an-addictive-drug-ehs/
    http://news.psu.edu/story/141336/2006/01/16/research/probing-question-sugar-addictive
  • tootoop224
    tootoop224 Posts: 281 Member
    Options
    You seem to be on a mission.
    Trying to explain why the diet works so people will understand the effectiveness rather than using the argument of reverting back to the stone age.

    The original basis is wrong

    Who the f cares? If it works for folks, and people want to try it. Let em.
    Then why even go online on the forums? This is for educational purposes.

    ranting against it is not equal to educating people.

    Op is nothing close to ranting. He has laid out a thoughtful, fact based theory for respectful discussion, and with one notable exception, that's what he has gotten. (Note: I am only up to page two in posts, so it could, and probably will, get ugly later. lol).
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Options
    "...Even people who do drugs don't keep going. they eventually stop after they get their high..."

    No--do you know any addicts? Most cocaine addicts will say that if they had a pile of cocaine in front of them, no matter how large, that when they got up (if they got up) it would be all gone. That is the way addiction works--it takes more and more of a substance to create the same affects (in the case of sugary foods--satiation).


    "...with that reasoning we should keep eating fruit past satiation regardless of other substances..."

    Fruit is not a "sugary food". I know a number of people who will polish off an entire package of Oreos in one sitting but I never knew anyone who ate the equivalent amount of sugars in fruit. That's how you know you are dealing with food addiction--examining the food diary of the individual. What invariably shows up in the diaries of food addicts is a lot of sugary foods and ice cream, high sodium/fat foods (like pizza) and LOTS of soda pop. One of the first things I counsel is substituting water or other non-caloric beverages for the soda, and then substituting fruits and vegetables for the high calorie foods like ice cream. Food addicts will typically go weeks at a time without eating any vegetables or fresh fruits. That must change to break the addiction.
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Options
    "...Even people who do drugs don't keep going. they eventually stop after they get their high..."

    No--do you know any addicts? Most cocaine addicts will say that if they had a pile of cocaine in front of them, no matter how large, that when they got up (if they got up) it would be all gone. That is the way addiction works--it takes more and more of a substance to create the same affects (in the case of sugary foods--satiation).


    "...with that reasoning we should keep eating fruit past satiation regardless of other substances..."

    Fruit is not a "sugary food". I know a number of people who will polish off an entire package of Oreos in one sitting but I never knew anyone who ate the equivalent amount of sugars in fruit. That's how you know you are dealing with food addiction--examining the food diary of the individual. What invariably shows up in the diaries of food addicts is a lot of sugary foods and ice cream, high sodium/fat foods (like pizza) and LOTS of soda pop. One of the first things I counsel is substituting water or other non-caloric beverages for the soda, and then substituting fruits and vegetables for the high calorie foods like ice cream. Food addicts will typically go weeks at a time without eating any vegetables or fresh fruits. That must change to break the addiction.

    yes I do know addicts. People die from overdose due to taking in too much of the stimulant.

    I have had patients in the hospital who were ex convicts who were open and honest about everything that they have taken in with me. They were well aware of the laws we have to follow in order to keep their confidentiality. Even as students.

    Fruit is not a sugary food? So you should be able to want more fruit because it has less sugar? You are bringing up sucrose into this conversation when there is little to no indication on the effect of satiation in the human body. there are plenty of products out there that are gluten free and sugar free that have little to no satiation on the body.
    lentils vs cheese.
    mars candy bars vs jelly beans(which is straight sugar)
  • Sieden76
    Sieden76 Posts: 127 Member
    Options
    I just watched this video of this girl that I've been following for awhile. She's having great success with her body but I noticed something today. Her face is starting to look horrible. Her eyes have these black circles under them and she's walking around all lifeless and crap. I was like whoa. She really looked like she was weighed down with chains. Sure she has a nice body but at what cost? She was showing what all she eats too, it was in my opinion, way too much fat for one day and too unhealthy.

    I watched the video today on The China Study, which can be found at the link below. It shows that high levels of protein and fat are linked to heart disease. If ever I've seen a diet that is high in protein and fat it's this one. So, is this diet really ideal, no. Not according this study that was done by medical doctors and I think that is pretty credible in my book. Please feel free to watch it for yourself. What do you have to lose? An hour of time for a video or 20-30 years of your life, you decide.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOEeTJY5zCM
  • tcraw15
    tcraw15 Posts: 223 Member
    Options
    The basic food of paleo are quite effective in satiation in dieting.
    However, that is the true reason why the diet works for people who do not count calories. The real meaning of obesity in a world where we cannot calculate energy would be dependent upon how much we eat.

    Hypothetical situation in a world where we could not count energy in our food this is the ideal thing that would happen
    Person A consumes non processed food until full - 500 calories
    Person B consumes all processed food until full - 1000 calories.

    They have done studies on satiety and the fullness that food gives you and there was a high connection to the more processed a food was, the less satiety per calorie it would have.

    That is not the basis of Paleo, their evidence lies within gluten and sugars which is not the true cause of obesity. Their followers have a cultist like presentation and the scientific community turns against them for being overzealous.

    There is no scientific evidence that sugar and gluten causes obesity.
    Obesity(Mentally) is cause by blind caloric intake and the weakness of satiation of foods that people consume which is normally processed.
    Obesity(Physically) is caused by the laws of thermodynamics of in>out

    Some people say "I am on paleo, but I still eat grains/bread on the occasion"
    No, you are not on paleo. You are on a proper diet of incorporating high satiety foods with processed foods which should be the basis of a blind caloric intake diet. That is the proper diet to live your lifestyle.

    The elimination and full restriction of certain food groups that are not based on a medical condition is the reason why 90% of "dieters" fail. It has to be a sustainable lifestyle.

    Some people are fine with elimination of processed foods, but that is not the case for most people.

    satiety-index.png

    This is the satiety index. As you can see there is a correlation between "paleo foods" and high satiation.

    For those who know me know I consume processed foods. I consume many whole foods as well. I am a big advocate of eating many foods with the skin still on it due to the heavy satiation it can offer.(other than oranges). I am a big advocate of moderation while staying within your energy balance. Fruits and meats probably offer some of the heaviest satiation out all the other foods groups.
    The best way to live your life is by moderation. That includes lifestyle, practices, and thinking

    What I am against are overzealous people who follow a group and argue with little to no scientific evidence.
    Their basis is that our ancestors did it, etc.


    http://www.ucsyd.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/om_uc_syddanmark/dokumenter/marianne_markers_kursus_NRO/110228_Holt et al Satiety index.pdf
    satiety index

    This is a great, informative post. Thanks for sharing. I myself do not really count calories on an everyday basis. If I do, it's just because I like to see where I am at and how I'm doing with it. I generally eat whole foods with little to no processed foods, but I like to indulge every once in a while. Actually, I pretty much eat whatever I want and I seem to be doing well with it.

    So with that being said, yes, moderation is key.
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Options
    I just watched this video of this girl that I've been following for awhile. She's having great success with her body but I noticed something today. Her face is starting to look horrible. Her eyes have these black circles under them and she's walking around all lifeless and crap. I was like whoa. She really looked like she was weighed down with chains. Sure she has a nice body but at what cost? She was showing what all she eats too, it was in my opinion, way too much fat for one day and too unhealthy.

    I watched the video today on The China Study, which can be found at the link below. It shows that high levels of protein and fat are linked to heart disease. If ever I've seen a diet that is high in protein and fat it's this one. So, is this diet really ideal, no. Not according this study that was done by medical doctors and I think that is pretty credible in my book. Please feel free to watch it for yourself. What do you have to lose? An hour of time for a video or 20-30 years of your life, you decide.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOEeTJY5zCM

    the china study is a sham and the results had little to do with what was properly said in the book. That "study" was not peer reviewed before the book was published. He let his personal beliefs create the book rather than the study

    http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
    http://anthonycolpo.com/the-china-study-more-vegan-nonsense/
    http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/
    http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Options
    btw the one Denise Minger wrote is based soley around his data. She is also an ex-vegan
  • NikiandZak
    NikiandZak Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    Bump for later
  • cmcollins001
    cmcollins001 Posts: 3,472 Member
    Options
    In for information and stuff
  • dieKriegerin77
    Options
    bump for later.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Options
    "...Fruit is not a sugary food? So you should be able to want more fruit because it has less sugar? You are bringing up sucrose into this conversation when there is little to no indication on the effect of satiation in the human body. there are plenty of products out there that are gluten free and sugar free that have little to no satiation on the body.
    lentils vs cheese.
    mars candy bars vs jelly beans(which is straight sugar) ..."

    Not at all sure of what you are trying to say here. If you will check back, you will see that I have said all simple carbs and especially sugar (sucrose and hfcs) consumption are problematic. When my brother was diagnosed with Type II, his dopey doc put him on a low fat/no fat diet and told him he didn't need to watch his sugar consumption--that weight loss alone would bring his diabetes under control. So my brother, in spite of the warnings I gave him, would, at times, eat an entire package of Snackwells (fat-free) and drink three glasses of skim milk (for a "snack"). He did actually lose a fair bit of weight (very low-fat diets tend to be low-calorie diets) but the weight loss could have been more a result of the Glucophage than anything else. BUT, HIS DIABETES GOT WORSE. He is now on insulin and since he had gastric issues on the Glucophage, they cut it out. Since he started the insulin and they cut out the Glucophage, he has regained all the weight he lost plus more and he is starting to have complications (foot ulcers). It was absolutely the worst diet he could have been on.

    If he had been on the Paleo diet, I'm pretty sure he would have done a lot better. I don't follow the Paleo diet (I find it to be a bit too restrictive for me) but I eat no added sugar and limit my carbohydrates to 70-100 grams per day (I eat no simple ones). When I reach the point where I am satisfied with the level of body fat, I will up my carbs to between 100 and 150 grams per day. But I will still avoid sugary foods and simple carbs for the rest of my life. When I started on my pursuit of better health three years ago, I had hypertension (even though I was on two b.p. meds--AND my doc wanted to put me on a third). I was beginning to have crippling joint pain, and my blood sugars were running too high. I was a perfect candidate for TYPE II because I had a first degree relative with Type II (my mother also had Type II and died of complications from it) and I had gestational diabetes. I decided I'd had enough of feeling so crummy and started investigating. My fbs is now in the normal range, my HbA1C is great, my triglycerides are low and the best news is that my b.p. runs about 110/70 most days WITHOUT MEDICATION (I was able to taper off shortly after I stopped the sugar and simple carbs--even before I had lost much weight). It's hard to argue with results like that.

    ETA: AND my arthritis has improved a LOT with the weight loss and the swimming I'm doing. :-)
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Options
    "...Fruit is not a sugary food? So you should be able to want more fruit because it has less sugar? You are bringing up sucrose into this conversation when there is little to no indication on the effect of satiation in the human body. there are plenty of products out there that are gluten free and sugar free that have little to no satiation on the body.
    lentils vs cheese.
    mars candy bars vs jelly beans(which is straight sugar) ..."

    Not at all sure of what you are trying to say here. If you will check back, you will see that I have said all simple carbs and especially sugar (sucrose and hfcs) consumption are problematic. When my brother was diagnosed with Type II, his dopey doc put him on a low fat/no fat diet and told him he didn't need to watch his sugar consumption--that weight loss alone would bring his diabetes under control. So my brother, in spite of the warnings I gave him, would, at times, eat an entire package of Snackwells (fat-free) and drink three glasses of skim milk (for a "snack"). He did actually lose a fair bit of weight (very low-fat diets tend to be low-calorie diets) but the weight loss could have been more a result of the Glucophage than anything else. BUT, HIS DIABETES GOT WORSE. He is now on insulin and since he had gastric issues on the Glucophage, they cut it out. Since he started the insulin and they cut out the Glucophage, he has regained all the weight he lost plus more and he is starting to have complications (foot ulcers). It was absolutely the worst diet he could have been on.

    If he had been on the Paleo diet, I'm pretty sure he would have done a lot better. I don't follow the Paleo diet (I find it to be a bit too restrictive for me) but I eat no added sugar and limit my carbohydrates to 70-100 grams per day (I eat no simple ones). When I reach the point where I am satisfied with the level of body fat, I will up my carbs to between 100 and 150 grams per day. But I will still avoid sugary foods and simple carbs for the rest of my life. When I started on my pursuit of better health three years ago, I had hypertension (even though I was on two b.p. meds--AND my doc wanted to put me on a third). I was beginning to have crippling joint pain, and my blood sugars were running too high. I was a perfect candidate for TYPE II because I had a first degree relative with Type II (my mother also had Type II and died of complications from it) and I had gestational diabetes. I decided I'd had enough of feeling so crummy and started investigating. My fbs is now in the normal range, my HbA1C is great, my triglycerides are low and the best news is that my b.p. runs about 110/70 most days WITHOUT MEDICATION (I was able to taper off shortly after I stopped the sugar and simple carbs--even before I had lost much weight). It's hard to argue with results like that.

    ETA: AND my arthritis has improved a LOT with the weight loss and the swimming I'm doing. :-)

    well congratulations. his complications of foot ulcers is not necessarily a complication of his blood sugar.
    It could be poor teaching and foot care. Shoes, etc.

    . His BS was under control and peripheral neuropathy is a problem with diabetes. pretty standard. The insulin resistance is still decreased if he is hypocaloric.
    I am a candidate for T2 as well. There are many factors that will help with BS control. Including resistance training.

    Correlation is not always causation but I do agree with you in regards to paleo for someone of his condition. Glycemic load/index is not necessary for HEALTHY individuals that EXERCISE regularly.
    anyways
    you were talking about sucrose being anti-satiety where jelly beans are straight sucrose. Has a higher satiety than something that is mixed.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Options
    "...his complications of foot ulcers is not necessarily a complication of his blood sugar.
    It could be poor teaching and foot care. Shoes, etc....'

    He goes to a foot care specialist every month. Unfortunately, there's only so much that can be done when there is poor control of blood sugar.

    "...His BS was under control and peripheral neuropathy is a problem with diabetes. pretty standard. The insulin resistance is still decreased if he is hypocaloric..."

    People who are leptin resistant (leptin resistance precedes and predicts insulin resistance) should not eat sugary food and simple carbohydrates. Those who are insulin resistant should definitely not. I think it was very poor medical advice to tell him he could eat anything he wanted as long as it was low fat/no fat. He's 7 years younger than me and he looks like he's about twenty years older than me.
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Options
    "...his complications of foot ulcers is not necessarily a complication of his blood sugar.
    It could be poor teaching and foot care. Shoes, etc....'

    He goes to a foot care specialist every month. Unfortunately, there's only so much that can be done when there is poor control of blood sugar.

    "...His BS was under control and peripheral neuropathy is a problem with diabetes. pretty standard. The insulin resistance is still decreased if he is hypocaloric..."

    People who are leptin resistant (leptin resistance precedes and predicts insulin resistance) should not eat sugary food and simple carbohydrates. Those who are insulin resistant should definitely not. I think it was very poor medical advice to tell him he could eat anything he wanted as long as it was low fat/no fat. He's 7 years younger than me and he looks like he's about twenty years older than me.

    sorry realized the first part was worded wrong. Take leptin with a grain of salt, it is being thrown around all over the place and is still under heavy research. I dont mention it because even though it is labeled as the anti-obesity hormone, there is not much data on it

    There are other factors to consider for insulin resistance. Studies have shown that any hypocaloric diet will be effective for bs, but low carb is more effective than low fat.