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

Eh, I like McDougall and his program has been run in major hospitals for the past 20 years. Why shouldn't he make a buck? I don't work for free either.

I don't care if he makes money off it. However, the profit motive tends to undermine the claims.

When someone is trying to sell you a thing, you can't simply trust them to tell you the truth and the whole truth.

I am not so jaded. That's like saying no business owners have integrity? Making money and being honest are not mutually exclusive concepts. There just are multiple views on how to accomplish goals and that's okay. If I go on the IIFYM website, they "sell" their consulting services. Same thing.

Didn't say he was lying. Said you can't simply trust him.

Besides his claims are stupid. Toxic levels of protein? In dairy? Oils cause obesity? The whole thing is stupid.

Eh, I like McDougall and his program has been run in major hospitals for the past 20 years. Why shouldn't he make a buck? I don't work for free either.

I don't care if he makes money off it. However, the profit motive tends to undermine the claims.

When someone is trying to sell you a thing, you can't simply trust them to tell you the truth and the whole truth.

I am not so jaded. That's like saying no business owners have integrity? Making money and being honest are not mutually exclusive concepts. There just are multiple views on how to accomplish goals and that's okay. If I go on the IIFYM website, they "sell" their consulting services. Same thing.

Didn't say he was lying. Said you can't simply trust him.

Besides his claims are stupid. Toxic levels of protein? In dairy? Oils cause obesity? The whole thing is stupid.

Who CAN you trust then? Just about every single scientist, doctor, nutritionist, etc. in the world makes money from giving their advice on what to eat, what's healthy, how to live, etc. So how do YOU determine how to eat and live to be healthy and happy that doesn't rely on anyone who makes money from their work? Unless you're doing all the tests yourself you have nothing to go on.

You also really seem to enjoy saying things are stupid without any further justification; you do realize that's not an argument right? Presumably those claims have rationale behind them (haven't personally looked at it); where's your rationale? Throughout the large bulk of this thread you've been content to sit by and criticize other lifestyles as doing things for no reason or being stupid, demanding that we justify our lives to you, without providing any justification or even logical argument for your own point of view. Now personally I think we can have and share opinions without needing to back them up, but there's a limit to that and you've more than reached it.

Well it's easier to trust people who aren't trying to sell you the thing they're trying to convince you is great.

Trust science. Scientific papers. People that aren't trying to sell you books and subscriptions. Physicians who are NOT celebrities orauthors . Dietitians who don't make money selling you their special book.

Trust yourself. Read research. Draw your own conclusions.

And if you feel I have to justify saying "poultry has toxic levels of protein and fat" stupid, then....I don't know what to say to that.

Eh, I like McDougall and his program has been run in major hospitals for the past 20 years. Why shouldn't he make a buck? I don't work for free either.

I don't care if he makes money off it. However, the profit motive tends to undermine the claims.

When someone is trying to sell you a thing, you can't simply trust them to tell you the truth and the whole truth.

I am not so jaded. That's like saying no business owners have integrity? Making money and being honest are not mutually exclusive concepts. There just are multiple views on how to accomplish goals and that's okay. If I go on the IIFYM website, they "sell" their consulting services. Same thing.

Didn't say he was lying. Said you can't simply trust him.

Besides his claims are stupid. Toxic levels of protein? In dairy? Oils cause obesity? The whole thing is stupid.

Who CAN you trust then? Just about every single scientist, doctor, nutritionist, etc. in the world makes money from giving their advice on what to eat, what's healthy, how to live, etc. So how do YOU determine how to eat and live to be healthy and happy that doesn't rely on anyone who makes money from their work? Unless you're doing all the tests yourself you have nothing to go on.

You also really seem to enjoy saying things are stupid without any further justification; you do realize that's not an argument right? Presumably those claims have rationale behind them (haven't personally looked at it); where's your rationale? Throughout the large bulk of this thread you've been content to sit by and criticize other lifestyles as doing things for no reason or being stupid, demanding that we justify our lives to you, without providing any justification or even logical argument for your own point of view. Now personally I think we can have and share opinions without needing to back them up, but there's a limit to that and you've more than reached it.

Well it's easier to trust people who aren't trying to sell you the thing they're trying to convince you is great.

Trust science. Scientific papers. People that aren't trying to sell you books and subscriptions. Physicians who are NOT celebrities orauthors . Dietitians who don't make money selling you their special book.

Trust yourself. Read research. Draw your own conclusions.

And if you feel I have to justify saying "poultry has toxic levels of protein and fat" stupid, then....I don't know what to say to that.

You don't think the scientists, doctors, etc. that write those scientific papers aren't making money off of them? Look at how much of that science has been skewed in order to make a profit or benefit a business, etc. I agree with your basic point of doing your research and drawing your own conclusions, but your premise of scientists and non-celebrity doctors being trustworthy while celebrities and dietitians that have written something based on what they think is true somehow aren't. I agree we need to take everything someone says with a grain of salt because most people have motives beyond just helping others altruistically, but there's a difference between that and somehow making someone's point of view stupid and not worth looking into simply because they also make money from it. Everyone you'd be reading information from in the industry of health and nutrition is making money off of it somehow.

I don't disagree with you about it likely being untrue (since that's how I interpret you saying it's stupid), I just think you apply the word stupid too broadly to too many things without any justification. You automatically assume your own point of view is correct, and so correct so as to not even require backing up - the simple fact that you say something is stupid somehow makes it so according to your arguments. That's both ridiculous and completely useless in a discussion.

I've just tuned into Paleo too thanks to another member on MFP. Have a look at Mark Sisson's site - lots of free info and some feedback. Good luck.

You know what's really funny? People who aren't Paleo/Primal/etc. trying to tell people who are how their own lifestyle works. Instead of holding yourselves up as experts who somehow know more about these plans than the people actually on them or the ones who started them, maybe realize you're not perfect and all knowing. Trying to argue a food doesn't fit on the Paleo plan when it's clearly stated as fitting is just ridiculous.

It would probably be best if it changed its name from paleo, because nothing about it is paleo.

Many paleo advocates have said as much too. The name is very unfortunate and problematic.

(Disclaimer: I was very "paleo" for all of calendar year 2012...(and yes, logged it all).)

I think the name ancestral has been floating around. Which encompasses a much broader scope...

You know what's really funny? People who aren't Paleo/Primal/etc. trying to tell people who are how their own lifestyle works. Instead of holding yourselves up as experts who somehow know more about these plans than the people actually on them or the ones who started them, maybe realize you're not perfect and all knowing. Trying to argue a food doesn't fit on the Paleo plan when it's clearly stated as fitting is just ridiculous.

It would probably be best if it changed its name from paleo, because nothing about it is paleo.

Many paleo advocates have said as much too. The name is very unfortunate and problematic.

(Disclaimer: I was very "paleo" for all of calendar year 2012...(and yes, logged it all).)

It seems we spend a lot of time arguing names jonny doesn't like.
I personally don't like "lift heavy". Doesn't mean I don't lift.
Folks: eat how you think you can best lose weight and more importantly MAINTAIN or TRANSITION to a way you can maintain. Don't fret about the name.
South Beach way of life really has nothing to do with South Beach (other than the doctor's office location) yet many folks here are eating in a way that closely mirrors the plan.
Who cares what it's called.
If it works for you, and you enjoy what you're eating, ignore the feckers.

Eat what you enjoy. That's the whole point of all this! Eat what you like, and don't avoid foods you like because they're "not paleo" or "not clean" or whatever.

Avoiding foods because some fad diet with a cute name says they're bad is a terrible idea.

It always bothers me when people say "eat whatever you like" or "eat what you want". It so subjective without knowing what one likes or wants.

While I do agree that one should enjoy their meals, there is a certain balance that is optimal for health. And there is a certain imbalance that is greatly increases risk of disease.

Eat what you enjoy. That's the whole point of all this! Eat what you like, and don't avoid foods you like because they're "not paleo" or "not clean" or whatever.

Avoiding foods because some fad diet with a cute name says they're bad is a terrible idea.

It always bothers me when people say "eat whatever you like" or "eat what you want". It so subjective without knowing what one likes or wants.

While I do agree that one should enjoy their meals, there is a certain balance that is optimal for health. And there is a certain imbalance that is greatly increases risk of disease.

Yes, and the balance is determined by nutrient content. Hence the phrase "if it fits your macros."

To achieve the right balance, focus on nutrients not labels.

I honestly don't know much about IIFYM, but I assume that you set a calorie goal and macro percentage goals and go from there. My question is, what about micro-nutrients? What about things like your Omega 3:6 ratio? What about nutrient absorption and bio-availability? Are all of these considered?

Eat what you enjoy. That's the whole point of all this! Eat what you like, and don't avoid foods you like because they're "not paleo" or "not clean" or whatever.

Avoiding foods because some fad diet with a cute name says they're bad is a terrible idea.

It always bothers me when people say "eat whatever you like" or "eat what you want". It so subjective without knowing what one likes or wants.

While I do agree that one should enjoy their meals, there is a certain balance that is optimal for health. And there is a certain imbalance that is greatly increases risk of disease.

Yes, and the balance is determined by nutrient content. Hence the phrase "if it fits your macros."

To achieve the right balance, focus on nutrients not labels.

I honestly don't know much about IIFYM, but I assume that you set a calorie goal and macro percentage goals and go from there. My question is, what about micro-nutrients? What about things like your Omega 3:6 ratio? What about nutrient absorption and bio-availability? Are all of these considered?

You can track and plan any or all of those things. I personally don't think tracking most micronutrients is much to worry about. If you're hitting your macros and getting a few servings of fruits and veggies every day then I think you're doing fine. Focus on a micronutrient if you actually demonstrate a deficiency in that nutrient.

The entire point of IIFYM as an eating philosophy is that it's the nutrients that matter, so pay attention to the nutrients that matter to you (or that you believe matter to you). If you're particularly concerned about vitamin D or omega 3:6 ratio, then it makes sense to pay attention to those things directly instead of adopting some restrictive diet that, by proxy, may help manage those things.

I've been doing Paleo and was strict with a 21 day challenge through my crossfit bootcamp...I lost 21 lbs in 21 days and in the past I had NEVER EVER lost that much doing ANYTHING! I firmly believe in the program and still continue to do it - although I haven't been "as good" for the past few weeks...I'm gonna try to lose another 20 lbs by the end of the year though!

Eat what you enjoy. That's the whole point of all this! Eat what you like, and don't avoid foods you like because they're "not paleo" or "not clean" or whatever.

Avoiding foods because some fad diet with a cute name says they're bad is a terrible idea.

It always bothers me when people say "eat whatever you like" or "eat what you want". It so subjective without knowing what one likes or wants.

While I do agree that one should enjoy their meals, there is a certain balance that is optimal for health. And there is a certain imbalance that is greatly increases risk of disease.

Yes, and the balance is determined by nutrient content. Hence the phrase "if it fits your macros."

To achieve the right balance, focus on nutrients not labels.

But people may not want to eat the recommended nutrient ratio. So, it is more than just "eat what you like".

And even if you hit the desired macro ratio, you could still be deficient in many micronutrients. Eating to reduce disease risk is more than just "eat whatever you like within these macro goals".

Focus on the "your" in "if it fits your macros." Set up your nutrient targets however you like. Some ways are better than others, but ultimately that choice is up to you.

Yeah, I get that. But I still maintain my point that it may not mesh with "eat whatever you like".

Yeah, I get that. But I still maintain my point that it may not mesh with "eat whatever you like".

It's not "eat whatever you like." It's "eat whatever you like if it fits your nutrient goals." And it meshes just fine.

Why is it that some can always remember the "eat whatever you like" part but can't seem to remember the "If It Fits Your Macros" part. Within that context, you are free to set any additional micronutrient goals you like and "eat to avoid disease risk" quite easily. Is this really that difficult a concept to grasp?

Because people cannot accept a world where there are no demon foods that must be avoided.

So butter.
Yes or no?

Eat whatever food you like but maybe not in the quantities you would like...

I'd figured I'd give my opinion on the matter.

I think the paleo philosophy is fine in the sense that it avoids heavily processed foods and incorporates more whole foods. Whole foods generally have more fiber and micronutrients. I just don't understand some of the restrictions, though. I sorta kinda understand avoiding wheat and other processed products, but I find it baffling that you are not allowed potatoes, dairy, beans and other legumes! It's as if the diet is so restrictive that you avoid foods that are very nutritious for you. Also, what do you do when you go to a party or out to eat for business? It seems almost antisocial as well.

I also have issues with the other side of the argument. I think telling a person to “eat whatever they want as long as they don’t have a medical issue” is too extreme too. First of all, how do you know that someone doesn't have the gene that makes them more susceptible to diabetes or high blood pressure? Science is finding more and more that the nurture vs. nature argument is an oversimplification. So, if you have a gene it can be "dormant" and can be "activated" by something in the environment (i.e. diet, stress).

"The truth is somewhere in the middle." I like to advocate a more sensible diet that is also preventative. For example, eat whole nutrient dense foods 75% of the time and indulge in some treats in moderation. Sure, if you have the genes, you can probably eat pop tarts and ice cream all day long and be perfectly healthy as long as you control calories. But how do you know? I know it's fun and clever to "prove" that you can be healthy and fit on the Twinkie diet, but I think it's irresponsible to use that as a way to say anyone can do it.

Again, this is just my dumb stupid humble opinion.