PALEO

Also, the Standard American Diet ("SAD"; aka "Western" diet) has been pretty heavily correlated with declining health and increases in weight and weight-related issues (heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc). So, even taking physical activity out of the question and assuming that diet is the sole factor for health changes, for the sake of the argument, it stands to reason (and is evidenced by the above "paradoxes") that anything that's NOT the SAD, and is based around real, whole, and minimally processed foods is going to have marked health improvements, regardless of the specifics (which again comes back to my "better than what?" question regarding the Mediterranean diet.

I can agree with that. But my real point is that legumes and whole grains are not unhealthy foods. People can and do eat these things as a dietary staple and remain healthy, so the foods are not unhealthy.

It's pretty hard to argue "healthier diet" since it's only possible to be so healthy (you can't have < 0 diseases) and there will always be factors other than diet to consider.

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

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

Also, the Standard American Diet ("SAD"; aka "Western" diet) has been pretty heavily correlated with declining health and increases in weight and weight-related issues (heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc). So, even taking physical activity out of the question and assuming that diet is the sole factor for health changes, for the sake of the argument, it stands to reason (and is evidenced by the above "paradoxes") that anything that's NOT the SAD, and is based around real, whole, and minimally processed foods is going to have marked health improvements, regardless of the specifics (which again comes back to my "better than what?" question regarding the Mediterranean diet.

I can agree with that. But my real point is that legumes and whole grains are not unhealthy foods. People can and do eat these things as a dietary staple and remain healthy, so the foods are not unhealthy.

It's pretty hard to argue "healthier diet" since it's only possible to be so healthy (you can't have < 0 diseases) and there will always be factors other than diet to consider.

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

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

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

Also, the Standard American Diet ("SAD"; aka "Western" diet) has been pretty heavily correlated with declining health and increases in weight and weight-related issues (heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc). So, even taking physical activity out of the question and assuming that diet is the sole factor for health changes, for the sake of the argument, it stands to reason (and is evidenced by the above "paradoxes") that anything that's NOT the SAD, and is based around real, whole, and minimally processed foods is going to have marked health improvements, regardless of the specifics (which again comes back to my "better than what?" question regarding the Mediterranean diet.

I can agree with that. But my real point is that legumes and whole grains are not unhealthy foods. People can and do eat these things as a dietary staple and remain healthy, so the foods are not unhealthy.

It's pretty hard to argue "healthier diet" since it's only possible to be so healthy (you can't have < 0 diseases) and there will always be factors other than diet to consider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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?

although only about 2.5 inches total this month.

is this NOT a good thing?