PALEO

Options
13

Replies

  • Dragonwolf
    Dragonwolf Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    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.

    Fair enough.

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the type of lifestyle that does require more carbs. :bigsmile:
  • JNick77
    JNick77 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Options
    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.

    Fair enough.

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the type of lifestyle that does require more carbs. :bigsmile:

    Yeah, I'm not sure how she does it some days. Requires more carbs and SLEEP, which she doesn't get enough of.
  • hollys6699
    Options
    Thanks everyone for the info, now i am throughly confussed!! so i think what i will do is start counting calories again. but i dont really know what is should make my target, with working out and all!! because i know that you need to eat enough to feed your body and not go into the starvation state, and not burn any calories. what do you all think of 2000??
    thanks again
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Options
    Happy you are doing a balanced approach paleo is for cavemen..not very enlightening...I did pale..it was an epic failure...eat all foods be abundant LIVE ABUNDANTLY!! learn from us and kick ****ING *kitten*!!!!!!

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

    One of the issues with grains (besides the gluten in the gluten-containing ones) and legumes is the phytic acid, which binds to a number of micronutrients, namely calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc, making them unavailable for humans to absorb, and causing deficiencies in these micronutrients (anemia and osteoporosis, anyone?).
    To go a step further, if you are true Paleo it should also be macrobiotic. People who live inland didn't have sea salt, in colder regions coconut or coffee. I'm also pretty sure they didn't have access to coconut aminos and all of the other special paleo foods.

    It's called Paleo because it's modeled after what Paleolithic man ate, not to completely reproduce what they ate (that's impossible, given that many of those plants and animals are extinct). You don't need "special Paleo foods" to be Paleo, just like you don't need to live on fakemeat to be vegetarian or gluten-free breads/pastas to be gluten-free. Animals, some fruit, some nuts, and vegetables (mainly the less starchy ones, unless you need the extra carbs). That's about it.
    Archeologists beg to differ
    Paleo man ate a 70% plant based diet, they did not eat many foods as paleo dieters eat

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8

    I love this woman, she looks at both sides
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Someone posted this link last week. The last paragraph in the article pretty much sums up my thoughts on the Paleo Diet.

    http://hells-ditch.com/2012/08/archaeologists-officially-declare-collective-sigh-over-paleo-diet/

    “Look, the diet itself is sound; it’s the philosophy that’s bull****. Eat what you want. Just leave the damn cavemen out of it.”
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,025 Member
    Options
    Happy you are doing a balanced approach paleo is for cavemen..not very enlightening...I did pale..it was an epic failure...eat all foods be abundant LIVE ABUNDANTLY!! learn from us and kick ****ING *kitten*!!!!!!

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

    One of the issues with grains (besides the gluten in the gluten-containing ones) and legumes is the phytic acid, which binds to a number of micronutrients, namely calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc, making them unavailable for humans to absorb, and causing deficiencies in these micronutrients (anemia and osteoporosis, anyone?).
    To go a step further, if you are true Paleo it should also be macrobiotic. People who live inland didn't have sea salt, in colder regions coconut or coffee. I'm also pretty sure they didn't have access to coconut aminos and all of the other special paleo foods.

    It's called Paleo because it's modeled after what Paleolithic man ate, not to completely reproduce what they ate (that's impossible, given that many of those plants and animals are extinct). You don't need "special Paleo foods" to be Paleo, just like you don't need to live on fakemeat to be vegetarian or gluten-free breads/pastas to be gluten-free. Animals, some fruit, some nuts, and vegetables (mainly the less starchy ones, unless you need the extra carbs). That's about it.
    Archeologists beg to differ
    Paleo man ate a 70% plant based diet, they did not eat many foods as paleo dieters eat

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8

    I love this woman, she looks at both sides
    That's up for debate, simply because of the nature of geographic latitudes.........some did I'm sure, others probably ate more animal.
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Options
    Happy you are doing a balanced approach paleo is for cavemen..not very enlightening...I did pale..it was an epic failure...eat all foods be abundant LIVE ABUNDANTLY!! learn from us and kick ****ING *kitten*!!!!!!

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

    One of the issues with grains (besides the gluten in the gluten-containing ones) and legumes is the phytic acid, which binds to a number of micronutrients, namely calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc, making them unavailable for humans to absorb, and causing deficiencies in these micronutrients (anemia and osteoporosis, anyone?).
    To go a step further, if you are true Paleo it should also be macrobiotic. People who live inland didn't have sea salt, in colder regions coconut or coffee. I'm also pretty sure they didn't have access to coconut aminos and all of the other special paleo foods.

    It's called Paleo because it's modeled after what Paleolithic man ate, not to completely reproduce what they ate (that's impossible, given that many of those plants and animals are extinct). You don't need "special Paleo foods" to be Paleo, just like you don't need to live on fakemeat to be vegetarian or gluten-free breads/pastas to be gluten-free. Animals, some fruit, some nuts, and vegetables (mainly the less starchy ones, unless you need the extra carbs). That's about it.
    Archeologists beg to differ
    Paleo man ate a 70% plant based diet, they did not eat many foods as paleo dieters eat

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8

    I love this woman, she looks at both sides
    That's up for debate, simply because of the nature of geographic latitudes.........some did I'm sure, others probably ate more animal.
    yea I agree. They mentioned that too
    geography, time of year, etc
  • bookyeti
    bookyeti Posts: 544 Member
    Options
    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.
    This!

    People that say it's not necessary to reduce carbs to see weight loss have most likely never struggled with Metabolic issues. I have insulin resistance and PCOS. Reducing my carbs is not a choice - it is a necessity to improve my health.
  • Dragonwolf
    Dragonwolf Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    Thanks everyone for the info, now i am throughly confussed!! so i think what i will do is start counting calories again. but i dont really know what is should make my target, with working out and all!! because i know that you need to eat enough to feed your body and not go into the starvation state, and not burn any calories. what do you all think of 2000??
    thanks again

    For calories, it's generally safe to use MyFitnessPal's numbers. Many people go with the "Sedentary" setting if their job isn't active, and log all of their exercising. It's generally the easiest way until you get enough data to see where the other activity levels line up.

    If you're following something like Mark Sisson's "carb curve", or are still doing Crossfit, then you're going to want to change your macro percentages. MFP tends to lean high on the carbs and low on the protein. You can adjust them by going to Home -> Goals -> Custom.

    Also, you might want to do a review of your food habits/diary and make sure the technically-Paleo-but-not-really-whole-foods aren't sneaking in too badly (see http://www.humansarenotbroken.com/youre-getting-too-good-at-paleo/ for what I mean). Just like fakemeat in a vegetarian diet, just because it complies with the framework, it doesn't mean you should be eating it (especially on a regular basis).
    Someone posted this link last week. The last paragraph in the article pretty much sums up my thoughts on the Paleo Diet.

    http://hells-ditch.com/2012/08/archaeologists-officially-declare-collective-sigh-over-paleo-diet/

    “Look, the diet itself is sound; it’s the philosophy that’s bull****. Eat what you want. Just leave the damn cavemen out of it.”

    You do know that the article you linked is satire, right?

    But, just so there's no confusion, here's the responses from a number of Paleo-diet people - http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread63652.html

    And here's a nice rebuttal to some of the many strawman arguments against Paleo type diets - http://www.humansarenotbroken.com/debunking-a-paleo-diet-strawman/
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Someone posted this link last week. The last paragraph in the article pretty much sums up my thoughts on the Paleo Diet.

    http://hells-ditch.com/2012/08/archaeologists-officially-declare-collective-sigh-over-paleo-diet/

    “Look, the diet itself is sound; it’s the philosophy that’s bull****. Eat what you want. Just leave the damn cavemen out of it.”

    You do know that the article you linked is satire, right?

    Yes, of course it's satire. Satire doesn't mean untrue. You are not eating as a caveman did.
  • shannashannabobana
    shannashannabobana Posts: 625 Member
    Options
    Yes, of course it's satire. Satire doesn't mean untrue. You are not eating as a caveman did.

    I don't know why people can't deal with the idea that Paleo just is supposed to be closer to the ideal for humans, not turning into an actual caveman.

    The fact that we've had such an increase over the years in obesity, diabetics and other such disease shows that something is wrong with the way we eat now. We're just trying to fix it.

    There is a lecture on youtube by an endocrinologist called 'Sugar: the bitter truth' that blames sugar entirely, rather than carbs in general and he may be right, but the nice thing about Paleo diet is that it cuts out the sugar, cuts down on carbs for those who benefit from that, and it gives you lots of nutrients. So I don't really see the downside.
  • Dragonwolf
    Dragonwolf Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    Someone posted this link last week. The last paragraph in the article pretty much sums up my thoughts on the Paleo Diet.

    http://hells-ditch.com/2012/08/archaeologists-officially-declare-collective-sigh-over-paleo-diet/

    “Look, the diet itself is sound; it’s the philosophy that’s bull****. Eat what you want. Just leave the damn cavemen out of it.”

    You do know that the article you linked is satire, right?

    Yes, of course it's satire. Satire doesn't mean untrue. You are not eating as a caveman did.

    And no one that follows the diet and uses even half of their brain is claiming that we're even capable of eating the exact same way a caveman did (largely due to the fact that a lot of what humans ate a few dozen thousand years ago is either extinct entirely - mammoths and saber toothed cats - or has been altered beyond recognition - bananas).

    It's less about what Grok did eat, and more about what Grok would eat. IE - what modern-day hunter-gatherer populations (yes, they still exist) eat today, with modern plant and animal choices.

    Or, as this person ( http://paleohacks.com/questions/184384/have-you-seen-debunking-the-paleo-diet-christina-warinner-at-tedxou/184387#184387 ) put it so well:
    Paleo is simply a [...] diet, using the Paleolithic principles as a blueprint, new research as a guide, and geared around realistic options today.

    Your hells-ditch article, just like the bulk of Dr. Warinner's TED talk, and many other strawman "debunking" articles, is based almost entirely around the products of marketing departments (remember, sensationalism sells, so marketing likes to hype things up, even/especially when the underlying facts are actually rather boring).

    The ideas behind the Paleo style diets were actually published at least as early as the 1950s ( http://robbwolf.com/2013/04/04/debunking-paleo-diet-wolfs-eye-view/ ), and are constantly evolving as science brings more information to light. One good example of how the ideas in the paleosphere have changed is the stance on lean meat - Loren Cordain used to advocate lean meats, but as time went on, it was found that fattier cuts are better, and so now, even Cordain has moved away from "only eat lean meats" to "eat fatty cuts, too".
  • Wetcoaster
    Wetcoaster Posts: 1,788 Member
    Options
    "It's less about what Grok did eat, and more about what Grok would eat. IE - what modern-day hunter-gatherer populations (yes, they still exist) eat today, with modern plant and animal choices."





    I believe Grok would be chillin in Key West with a Corona and having a Cheeseburger in Paradise listening to some Jimmy Buffett music.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Yes, of course it's satire. Satire doesn't mean untrue. You are not eating as a caveman did.

    I don't know why people can't deal with the idea that Paleo just is supposed to be closer to the ideal for humans, not turning into an actual caveman.

    The fact that we've had such an increase over the years in obesity, diabetics and other such disease shows that something is wrong with the way we eat now. We're just trying to fix it.

    There is a lecture on youtube by an endocrinologist called 'Sugar: the bitter truth' that blames sugar entirely, rather than carbs in general and he may be right, but the nice thing about Paleo diet is that it cuts out the sugar, cuts down on carbs for those who benefit from that, and it gives you lots of nutrients. So I don't really see the downside.

    It's the phrase "ideal for humans" I think that a lot of people have a problem with. I doubt anyone would argue that the average American diet is ideal. There is no evidence that Paleo is ideal.
  • Dragonwolf
    Dragonwolf Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    It's the phrase "ideal for humans" I think that a lot of people have a problem with. I doubt anyone would argue that the average American diet is ideal. There is no evidence that Paleo is ideal.

    I think "ideal" is a troublesome word in the dietary world, because for a species such as us, it's nearly impossible to reach an "ideal" even on an individual level, let alone a population level. Three cheers for being omnivores.

    As a result, there's no evidence that any diet is ideal (in part because it's also a question of "ideal for what purpose?" A bodybuilder's ideal diet is not going to be the same as an ultra-marathoner). There is only evidence that a diet is "more ideal" in relation to another one, usually in relation to the SAD/Western diet (see: 7 Countries Study, French Paradox, Inuit Paradox, and any study involving aboriginal groups that shift from their traditional diets to the Western diet). In that respect, there is quite a bit of evidence that Paleo is at least on par with other such "whole foods" diets as vegetarian and Mediterranean. Where these diets fall in relation to one another still kind of remains to be seen, as there haven't been much in the way of comparing them to each other on a research level.
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Options
    Yes, of course it's satire. Satire doesn't mean untrue. You are not eating as a caveman did.

    I don't know why people can't deal with the idea that Paleo just is supposed to be closer to the ideal for humans, not turning into an actual caveman.

    The fact that we've had such an increase over the years in obesity, diabetics and other such disease shows that something is wrong with the way we eat now. We're just trying to fix it.

    There is a lecture on youtube by an endocrinologist called 'Sugar: the bitter truth' that blames sugar entirely, rather than carbs in general and he may be right, but the nice thing about Paleo diet is that it cuts out the sugar, cuts down on carbs for those who benefit from that, and it gives you lots of nutrients. So I don't really see the downside.

    It's the phrase "ideal for humans" I think that a lot of people have a problem with. I doubt anyone would argue that the average American diet is ideal. There is no evidence that Paleo is ideal.

    I am against the basis of paleo and their "evidence"

    However their choice of foods is optimal for satiation and prevention of obesity. We couldn't always count calories like we can now

    The lack of satiation of processed foods is the reason why people overeat.
    now the cause of getting fat/obese is due to a hypercaloric diet.
    combination of these 2 is why people are fat.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    It's the phrase "ideal for humans" I think that a lot of people have a problem with. I doubt anyone would argue that the average American diet is ideal. There is no evidence that Paleo is ideal.

    I think "ideal" is a troublesome word in the dietary world, because for a species such as us, it's nearly impossible to reach an "ideal" even on an individual level, let alone a population level. Three cheers for being omnivores.

    As a result, there's no evidence that any diet is ideal (in part because it's also a question of "ideal for what purpose?" A bodybuilder's ideal diet is not going to be the same as an ultra-marathoner). There is only evidence that a diet is "more ideal" in relation to another one, usually in relation to the SAD/Western diet (see: 7 Countries Study, French Paradox, Inuit Paradox, and any study involving aboriginal groups that shift from their traditional diets to the Western diet). In that respect, there is quite a bit of evidence that Paleo is at least on par with other such "whole foods" diets as vegetarian and Mediterranean. Where these diets fall in relation to one another still kind of remains to be seen, as there haven't been much in the way of comparing them to each other on a research level.

    Agree. I don't believe any amount of research will ever prove any diet as "ideal", even for those with similar lifestyles other than diet. There is too much evidence that humans can be healthy on a variety of diets. And as long as you are healthy, the diet is ideal.

    I guess that's what bothers me about the premise of the Paleo diet It's nothing to do with the recommended foods, which I believe can keep a person healthy. It's the list of "bad" foods. Foods deemed unhealthy despite millions, probably billions, of healthy people eating them on a regular basis. The so-called SAD full of overly processed grains stripped of most of their nutritents does not = grains are unhealthy for human consumption.
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Options
    It's the phrase "ideal for humans" I think that a lot of people have a problem with. I doubt anyone would argue that the average American diet is ideal. There is no evidence that Paleo is ideal.

    I think "ideal" is a troublesome word in the dietary world, because for a species such as us, it's nearly impossible to reach an "ideal" even on an individual level, let alone a population level. Three cheers for being omnivores.

    As a result, there's no evidence that any diet is ideal (in part because it's also a question of "ideal for what purpose?" A bodybuilder's ideal diet is not going to be the same as an ultra-marathoner). There is only evidence that a diet is "more ideal" in relation to another one, usually in relation to the SAD/Western diet (see: 7 Countries Study, French Paradox, Inuit Paradox, and any study involving aboriginal groups that shift from their traditional diets to the Western diet). In that respect, there is quite a bit of evidence that Paleo is at least on par with other such "whole foods" diets as vegetarian and Mediterranean. Where these diets fall in relation to one another still kind of remains to be seen, as there haven't been much in the way of comparing them to each other on a research level.

    Agree. I don't believe any amount of research will ever prove any diet as "ideal", even for those with similar lifestyles other than diet. There is too much evidence that humans can be healthy on a variety of diets. And as long as you are healthy, the diet is ideal.

    I guess that's what bothers me about the premise of the Paleo diet It's nothing to do with the recommended foods, which I believe can keep a person healthy. It's the list of "bad" foods. Foods deemed unhealthy despite millions, probably billions, of healthy people eating them on a regular basis. The so-called SAD full of overly processed grains stripped of most of their nutritents does not = grains are unhealthy for human consumption.
    what bad foods?

    meat?
  • shannashannabobana
    shannashannabobana Posts: 625 Member
    Options
    I think "ideal" is a troublesome word in the dietary world, because for a species such as us, it's nearly impossible to reach an "ideal" even on an individual level, let alone a population level.

    I do agree with that, but there are some things I think we can all agree are maybe not idea. Lots of cakes, man made trans fats, etc... This is an attempt to get closer to what is most likely to promote health. It's not perfect, and it should adapt to new evidence and to individual. Diabetics, people who can't digest lactose, people with other allergies and diseases...all of these things are on an individual level and would need to be individualized. But I think you can fit most of that within the paleo/primal idea.

    I think we are all an N of 1, and what works for you will have to be tweaked until you get it perfect. Like an experiment.
    The so-called SAD full of overly processed grains stripped of most of their nutritents does not = grains are unhealthy for human consumption.

    But see that's where 80/20 and personal experimentation come in, IMO. For some people, eating a lot of grains might be problematic. That's where experimentation comes in. If you are overweight, something is wrong with the way you are eating. Someone next to you may be 'healthy' and can eat all that stuff and stay a stick, but you can't. Nobody is being forced to switch over to paleo. Or to strictly adhere to any particular dietary rules.
  • SnicciFit
    SnicciFit Posts: 967 Member
    Options
    although only about 2.5 inches total this month.

    is this NOT a good thing?