PALEO: pros, cons and whatever else you may think?

If you visit paleohacks.com, you'll find some forum messages by paleo followers that are quite disturbing. After being on the diet quiet awhile and getting their six packs (their words, not mine) they're finding their fasting blood glucose going through the roof. In other words, they are prediabetic.

This happens because carbs make insulin and the paleo diet is extremely low in carbs.

Having slightly elevated glucose myself, I would advise you against the diet. I suggest you follow a basic, moderate, intelligent food plan that does not take away any food group. The only thing you really need to avoid is added sugar.

This is the first I've heard of this! I'm genuinely intrigued. Especially since there are a lot of "success stories" out there about paleo helping diabetics reduce or eliminate their meds. What is "quite a while"? I've been eating mostly paleo (after being really strict for a while, I've added a few things back in) for over a year, so that is why I ask. Of course, I am careful to not let my carbs get too low because I CrossFit 4+ days a week and I know I need them! I'm not Keto.

Now that I think about it, a pregnant paleo friend of mine did "fail" her first glucose test for gestational diabetes. She was retested a week or two later after literally pigging out on tons of processed carbs and "passed." She blamed the test saying it was designed for people who eat the SAD diet. I'm pretty sure that's different though, because don't they make you drink a sugary drink before administering the test? So that's not a fasting glucose test and that would make sense (her body would respond wildly to the sugary drink since she doesn't normally ingest much sugar).

But lots of bacon. Bacon > Cake

How is bacon not a processed food?

Because we advocate eating non-processed bacon. Best choice would be right from the farmer. Obviously some people don't do this and just eat regular bacon but most Paleo/Primal plans do discuss the bad parts of normal bacon (which come precisely from it being processed)

Bacon is smoked, cured, pork belly. Smoking and curring are processes. You may call whatever fresh meat you are eating bacon, but it's not bacon. Or you may call your smoked and/or cured meat unprocessed, but it's not.

-sigh- Yes, those could be considered processes. They could also be considered methods of preparing meat. Either way, when I say unprocessed bacon, I mean what in common vernacular is considered processed foods - additives, etc.

Honestly, attacking word choice and definition is kind of way to the side of the point here. Bacon can be Paleo so long as it's not the heavily processed crap you find in plastic wrap at the grocery store, and is instead unprocessed, preferably cured with natural ingredients, from pasture-raised/humanely raised pigs, void of artificial ingredients and preservatives. That is the truly Paleo bacon; there are varied levels below this that get less and less healthy obviously.

But lots of bacon. Bacon > Cake

How is bacon not a processed food?

Because we advocate eating non-processed bacon. Best choice would be right from the farmer. Obviously some people don't do this and just eat regular bacon but most Paleo/Primal plans do discuss the bad parts of normal bacon (which come precisely from it being processed)

Bacon is smoked, cured, pork belly. Smoking and curring are processes. You may call whatever fresh meat you are eating bacon, but it's not bacon. Or you may call your smoked and/or cured meat unprocessed, but it's not.

-sigh- Yes, those could be considered processes. They could also be considered methods of preparing meat. Either way, when I say unprocessed bacon, I mean what in common vernacular is considered processed foods - additives, etc.

Honestly, attacking word choice and definition is kind of way to the side of the point here. Bacon can be Paleo so long as it's not the heavily processed crap you find in plastic wrap at the grocery store, and is instead unprocessed, preferably cured with natural ingredients, from pasture-raised/humanely raised pigs, void of artificial ingredients and preservatives. That is the truly Paleo bacon; there are varied levels below this that get less and less healthy obviously.

Food "preparation" is processing. That's what processing is. Preparing food for consumption. Curing meat (which is literally the process of soaking a meat in a preservative) is processing.

Paleo apparently permits all sorts of food processing not available or used by Paleolithic man.

non-Paleo approved food

That's really the problem with Paleo. It has foods that aren't "approved" because the "philosophy" says they're "less healthy" or actually "make you sick."

And this list of "non-approved foods" includes things like... black beans, oats, and yogurt.

...Yes, yes Paleo does say those foods are less healthy or could make you sick (yoghurt is debatable as some Paleo versions, like Primal, allow dairy). But then, conventional wisdom has foods that are considered less healthy too - trans fats, a Snickers bar, deep fried Twinkies, etc.

So, your issue with Paleo is that is believes not every food in the world is perfectly healthy for us? I guess you have an issue with every diet recommendation in the world then.

The "non-approved foods" list comes not from science, but from a layperson's answer to "would a caveman have eaten this"? It's obviously not historically accurate. It's obviously not excluding only foods that science has proven to be inherently unhealthy.

The logic is backwards. It decided "these things are unhealthy" as a result of some ignorant person answering "would a caveman eat it?"

If you want to show me some science that, say, black beans are inherently unhealthy I'd love to see it.

And yes, I do have an issue with every fad diet that bans or "discourages" particular foods. I thought that was obvious from my initial reply in the thread, which said that any diet that prohibits certain foods is silly.

Your body doesn't react well to a particular food? Well don't eat it! You don't need some fad diet "philosophy" to tell you not to eat something that makes you feel bad.

I think you're getting too caught up in the caveman thing. Honestly, most of us consider it more a backstory than the reason for doing anything. No one would eat this way just because someone said it's how cavemen ate and nothing more. We've looked into the science, we've tested it on ourselves, and we find it works.

Yes, we're not excluded only foods that science has PROVEN are inherently unhealthy, but also foods that there is scientific evidence to suggest COULD be unhealthy.
For legumes for instance, a lot of plans (Primal for example) consider them just not great choice foods rather than absolutely bad foods. The body has a hard time digesting them (thus why we get gassy and bloated eating them) and they're not the best source of nutrients (better protein and mineral availability in other foods for less potential drawback). Proper preparation can help reduce the negative effects of legumes (things like soaking) which would help increase the mineral bioavailability as well. In the end, I can't speak for all plans but for the one I follow, legumes just aren't the best choice but if you like them, prepare them properly and enjoy them - that's that.

As for your dislike of discouraging any food...every nutritional recommendation discourages certain foods. Even the frigging food pyramid discourages making candy a staple of your diet. So what you really have an issue with is Paleo discouraging foods that you personally don't think should be discouraged, since I'm assuming you don't advocate making every food, even ones proven to be unhealthy, the staple of a healthy diet.

Pros: You can try it and see if it works for you. If it doesn't or you think it's not worth it, you don't have to stick with it. Magic.

Cons: MFing comments in posts like this.

I think you're getting too caught up in the caveman thing. Honestly, most of us consider it more a backstory than the reason for doing anything. No one would eat this way just because someone said it's how cavemen ate and nothing more. We've looked into the science, we've tested it on ourselves, and we find it works.

Yes, we're not excluded only foods that science has PROVEN are inherently unhealthy, but also foods that there is scientific evidence to suggest COULD be unhealthy.
For legumes for instance, a lot of plans (Primal for example) consider them just not great choice foods rather than absolutely bad foods. The body has a hard time digesting them (thus why we get gassy and bloated eating them) and they're not the best source of nutrients (better protein and mineral availability in other foods for less potential drawback). Proper preparation can help reduce the negative effects of legumes (things like soaking) which would help increase the mineral bioavailability as well. In the end, I can't speak for all plans but for the one I follow, legumes just aren't the best choice but if you like them, prepare them properly and enjoy them - that's that.

As for your dislike of discouraging any food...every nutritional recommendation discourages certain foods. Even the frigging food pyramid discourages making candy a staple of your diet. So what you really have an issue with is Paleo discouraging foods that you personally don't think should be discouraged, since I'm assuming you don't advocate making every food, even ones proven to be unhealthy, the staple of a healthy diet.

"The caveman thing" is the justification for the entire diet. That's literally the entire idea.

However, we know that the Paleo diet is not based on how cavemen ate. We also know it's not based strictly on science, because it excludes many foods for which there is no scientific evidence saying they're inherently bad.

So what is it based on, then?

So, yes, what I have an issue with is a fad diet plan that prohibits certain foods that many people enjoy and are perfectly healthy.

Fad diets that prohibit certain foods are dumb.

PROS:

It can work well and quickly for weight loss
No need for the hassle of calorie counting
Can help regularise cravings
Can help with digestive discomfort

CONS:

Restrictive food choice
Lack of cake
Can be expensive
Can be hard to implement into day to day life
Did I mention lack of cake?

You still have to count calories doing Paleo. Trust.

It's a very healthy way of eating. I'm not sure why the people who want to eat McDonald's and Taco Bell all day keep arguing in this thread. Maybe it's to make themselves feel better, who knows, just eat the way that makes you feel good, and ignore the others.

I already stated above that processed foods has a certain meaning in the common vernacular that does not include any kind of food preparation. If you prefer to argue based on other meanings instead of actually discussing the merits or drawbacks of Paleo then I'm not going to bother indulging you.

Cooking and curing are very different. Cooking, as in putting food on heat, would be considered processing by few, I would think. But, I doubt you'd find many people that would not consider curing meat to be processing. That's why it is called processed meat. And it has more science suggesting ill effects on health than you will ever find for grains or legumes.

I have been doing Paleo on and off for about a year. Most recently though, I did it very strictly for 4 weeks (following the Whole9 approach).

My only regret? No doing it sooner.

The recipes are delicious and losing 8 lbs in a month was never easier!

More importantly; the food you eat can be either the safest and most powerful form of medicine or the slowest form of poison.

It's a very healthy way of eating. I'm not sure why the people who want to eat McDonald's and Taco Bell all day keep arguing in this thread. Maybe it's to make themselves feel better, who knows, just eat the way that makes you feel good, and ignore the others.

Really?

This is what bothers me about fad diet worshipers.

Just because I don't eat Paleo doesn't mean I eat McDonald's and Taco Bell. Get over yourself.

It's a very healthy way of eating. I'm not sure why the people who want to eat McDonald's and Taco Bell all day keep arguing in this thread. Maybe it's to make themselves feel better, who knows, just eat the way that makes you feel good, and ignore the others.

What about us whole grain and legume eaters? I've made it to a healthy 52 yo by eating these things daily. Never had hypertension, high cholesterol, insulin resistance, bloating, hormone problems, or any other chronic medical problem. When you stick to a Paleo Diet for 30 years or so and can say that, then come back and argue how much healthier your diet is than mine. Come tell me how these beans and peanuts are killing me.

It's a very healthy way of eating. I'm not sure why the people who want to eat McDonald's and Taco Bell all day keep arguing in this thread. Maybe it's to make themselves feel better, who knows, just eat the way that makes you feel good, and ignore the others.

What about us whole grain and legume eaters? I've made it to a healthy 52 yo by eating these things daily. Never had hypertension, high cholesterol, insulin resistance, bloating, hormone problems, or any other chronic medical problem. When you stick to a Paleo Diet for 30 years or so and can say that, then come back and argue how much healthier your diet is than mine. Come tell me how these beans and peanuts are killing me.

I eat beans and grains as well. I DO get bloating etc, but know which grains work for me. I don't think they are bad for most people. ymmv, right? I don't feel a lot of preaching from the paleo folks, but perhaps I've been lucky.
I am quite fine with whatever folks choose as long as it's healthy and they don't shame me or shove theirs down my throat. Someone else mentioned religion. It IS a lot like religion. At least on here.

It's a very healthy way of eating. I'm not sure why the people who want to eat McDonald's and Taco Bell all day keep arguing in this thread. Maybe it's to make themselves feel better, who knows, just eat the way that makes you feel good, and ignore the others.

As evidenced by "it's dumb" for paleo. And yet, they think they are super supportive of others. And that "clean" eaters are the primary folks into shaming others. Go figure.

Paleo is dumb because it prohibits (shames) certain foods.

There is nothing wrong with any of the foods the paleo diet recommends. The problem is the foods it prohibits.

You and Barbellgirl are shaming certain foods. I'm putting down a diet that prohibits certain foods.

Food shaming is bad.

My comment was more toward your next comment which seems very accepting. Except you're not live and let live. You highlighted that. You said that. Right on the heels of saying it's dumb.

What foods have I shamed, by the way? Other than saying that pizza cone looked awful (personal taste). What foods have I shamed. What foods do I publicly state shouldn't be eaten? What approaches to eating have I publicly shamed here?
Do you even KNOW how I eat?
You say I shame foods. You shame eaters.

I already stated above that processed foods has a certain meaning in the common vernacular that does not include any kind of food preparation. If you prefer to argue based on other meanings instead of actually discussing the merits or drawbacks of Paleo then I'm not going to bother indulging you.

I wonder if you asked someone on the street whether soaking a food in preservatives for weeks should be considered "processing" what they would say.

And by the way, the "drawbacks" of Paleo are that it prohibits a whole bunch of delicious, perfectly healthy foods for no reason whatsoever other than "durr caveman wouldn't have eaten that."

Paleo approved bacon wouldn't be cured, preserved, smoked, etc. in anything but Paleo-approved ingredients, so yes, I'd say that most people would say that Paleo approved bacon ISN'T processed.

I've stated MANY times that "durr caveman wouldn't have eaten that" is NOT the reason behind our food choices; again, you're getting bogged down in the caveman thing rather than looking at the science we base our choices on. I doubt you could find a single person who follows Paleo who says that the only reason they do it is because cavemen did; most would point to the fact that there IS some science to show these foods could be unhealthy. You CAN'T say they're perfectly healthy foods because there's science that shows they're bad, some that shows it could be bad, and yes, some that shows they're fine. That doesn't make them fine - that makes them undecided. We chose not to eat them; you choose (presumably) to eat them. That doesn't make your lifestyle any better than mine because you decide if it's not proven bad then it's healthy. What about the reverse - if it's not proven healthy then it's bad? Both are wrong in my opinion, but that's exactly the kind of logic you're arguing here.