Paleo.

1568101114

Replies

  • onefortyone
    onefortyone Posts: 531 Member
    I don't think I got stuck on the name Palaeo, I got stuck on the idea that you can't eat something because - because why exactly? Because it's not natural? Because you didn't pluck it from the ground slash grocery store and process it yourself?

    Firstly, carbs have always, and will always, be a thing that people eat. Have you seen the teeth on cavemen? Meat, veggies and an absence of Colgate alone don't cause cavities THAT bad. And you can mill your own flour at home. All you need is wheat and two stones. Wheat wasn't invented by a pharmaceutical company in 10,000 BC. So I already eat like a caveman - opportunistically, ritualistically, and at my leisure.

    I've read this whole thread so far, and beyond medical reasons (intolerances, etc), I have yet to see a convincing reason that certain foods should be eliminated from our diet. Plus my whole thing about believing modern food is fine and how we are all, as a predominantly western, internet-connected group of people, are more likely to die of old age than a bread or cake related incident.
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,348 Member
    Indeed.

    An interesting one, maybe more on the 'clean eaters', but possibly paleo too...

    I buy a Cottage Pie ready meal from the budget range at the local supermarket.
    Is this 'Paleo'? I doubt many would include it so.

    I go to the kitchen and make some boiled potatoes and beef, a few herb and spices; grav.y from the meat.
    Pretty sure that's paleo?

    Now, I mash the potatoes and mince the beef first.
    Still paleo?

    What if my girlfriend makes it and leaves it for me to heat up and eat the next day.
    Still paleo?

    What if it was made by someone I didn't know for me to heat up and eat the next day?
    Of course, we're right back at the start, because the budget 'processed ready meal' is advertised as "being made from kitchen cupboard ingredients'.

    Yet for many, this final step seems to mean it's automatically terrible for you, even if it were exactly the same thing.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Indeed.

    An interesting one, maybe more on the 'clean eaters', but possibly paleo too...

    I buy a Cottage Pie ready meal from the budget range at the local supermarket.
    Is this 'Paleo'? I doubt many would include it so.

    I go to the kitchen and make some boiled potatoes and beef, a few herb and spices; grav.y from the meat.
    Pretty sure that's paleo?

    Now, I mash the potatoes and mince the beef first.
    Still paleo?

    What if my girlfriend makes it and leaves it for me to heat up and eat the next day.
    Still paleo?

    What if it was made by someone I didn't know for me to heat up and eat the next day?
    Of course, we're right back at the start, because the budget 'processed ready meal' is advertised as "being made from kitchen cupboard ingredients'.

    Yet for many, this final step seems to mean it's automatically terrible for you, even if it were exactly the same thing.

    You're clearly stressing too much about what people eating paleo consider acceptable or not.

    I doubt most people eating the diet strictly would have cottage pie!
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,348 Member
    Not sure how you got signs of 'stress' from that.
    "Amused" and "avoiding doing useful work by posting on mfp" would be more accurate conclusions ;).

    Of course, I'm questioning the arbitrary nature of the whole thing; segmenting food in to 'good' and 'bad' groups.
    Unless of course said people do believe taking a fork to mash the potatoes and a grinder for the meat would change it significantly as far as nutrition goes.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Not sure how you got signs of 'stress' from that.
    "Amused" and "avoiding doing useful work by posting on mfp" would be more accurate conclusions ;).

    Of course, I'm questioning the arbitrary nature of the whole thing; segmenting food in to 'good' and 'bad' groups.
    Unless of course said people do believe taking a fork to mash the potatoes and a grinder for the meat would change it significantly as far as nutrition goes.

    Not sure that anyone would believe that mashing potato will change its nutrient value.

    In regards to things being good and bad, I thing people use these terms to categorise things that fit into their diet and things that don't.

    It doesn't necessarily mean the things they are avoiding are actual bad for everyone.

    I suppose it's like TV programmes, I would say that Eastenders is bad TV and 8 out of 10 cats is good TV.
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,348 Member
    I suppose it's like TV programmes, I would say that Eastenders is bad TV and 8 out of 10 cats is good TV.
    And I would expect you use that to decide on what you watch.

    In the same way, I don't see any logical reasons to exclude foods from your 'diet' unless you believe them to be 'bad'.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    I suppose it's like TV programmes, I would say that Eastenders is bad TV and 8 out of 10 cats is good TV.
    And I would expect you use that to decide on what you watch.

    In the same way, I don't see any logical reasons to exclude foods from your 'diet' unless you believe them to be 'bad'.

    For me I suppose bad (if I used the term) = less beneficial (in taste and nutrient per calorie).

    As we all have different tastes and needs that would sit well with some and not for others.
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,348 Member
    Of course, I believe you've suggested elsewhere that you do appreciate you don't need ALL food to be nutrient dense, merely enough to fulfil your nutrient requirements.

    Which brings us back to "there is no bad food" - just a case of making it fit within an overall plan to meet objectives :).
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    I don't think I got stuck on the name Palaeo, I got stuck on the idea that you can't eat something because - because why exactly? Because it's not natural? Because you didn't pluck it from the ground slash grocery store and process it yourself?

    Firstly, carbs have always, and will always, be a thing that people eat. Have you seen the teeth on cavemen? Meat, veggies and an absence of Colgate alone don't cause cavities THAT bad. And you can mill your own flour at home. All you need is wheat and two stones. Wheat wasn't invented by a pharmaceutical company in 10,000 BC. So I already eat like a caveman - opportunistically, ritualistically, and at my leisure.

    I've read this whole thread so far, and beyond medical reasons (intolerances, etc), I have yet to see a convincing reason that certain foods should be eliminated from our diet. Plus my whole thing about believing modern food is fine and how we are all, as a predominantly western, internet-connected group of people, are more likely to die of old age than a bread or cake related incident.

    palaeolithic people's teeth were not that bad. A dental abscess can be fatal without medical intervention, should the infection spread beyond the infected tooth/root, so would represent a serious threat to survival. They probably didn't mill flour - that's more neolithic and neolithic people's teeth were in a worse state than palaeolithic peoples' although the likely culprit wasn't so much flour, it was the narrow range of the diet... palaeolithic people ate a little of whatever they could get when it was in season (including wild grains and legumes), while neolithic people relied on large quantities of dietary staples that came from their crops, so had a narrower diet and were more at risk of vitamin and mineral deficiency, which likely led to weaker bones and teeth.

    anyway, I don't eat paleo (honey with bee larvae still in it isn't my thing), I just like to try to insert a little bit of science into these threads here and there :laugh:
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Of course, I believe you've suggested elsewhere that you do appreciate you don't need ALL food to be nutrient dense, merely enough to fulfil your nutrient requirements.

    Which brings us back to "there is no bad food" - just a case of making it fit within an overall plan to meet objectives :).

    Agreed, but I think my point was that for some people certain foods are less attractive than others and that they refer to these ( rightly, or wrongly) as bad food.

    Some people refer to broad beans as good food, I don't care what plant/universe their from they're just plain wrong. I don't even refer to broad beans as a food.
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,348 Member
    Some people refer to broad beans as good food, I don't care what plant/universe their from they're just plain wrong. I don't even refer to broad beans as a food.
    Hmmm, I'm afraid to say...

    On that; I completely agree with you!

    :P

    And thus I entirely exclude them from my diet wherever possible.

    That's probably why I've been succusful at losing weight/getting fitter :P.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Some people refer to broad beans as good food, I don't care what plant/universe their from they're just plain wrong. I don't even refer to broad beans as a food.
    Hmmm, I'm afraid to say...

    On that; I completely agree with you!

    :P

    And thus I entirely exclude them from my diet wherever possible.

    That's probably why I've been succusful at losing weight/getting fitter :P.

    Lol:smile:
  • dayone987
    dayone987 Posts: 645 Member
    Hi guys! I heard about the Paleo diet a while back because my mother in law has lost a lot of weight and improved her health eating the Paleo/Primal Blueprint. In December I saw that my father in law was ablr to control his diabetes without meds eating Paleo/Blueprint and exercising. He writes down everything he eats and drinks, exersices and blood sugar levels. I saw it with my own eyes it works. He is not overweight!
    Anyway I started eating Paleo/Blueprint in January. Overall I feel better. I do sleep better, my acne has become better and I do not get hungry as much. I also do not have bloating or gas anymore and I do not get tired after meals either.
    I am supplementing with fish oil, vitamin D3 and magnesium.
    I noticed some negative changes as well. One of them is ridges in my nails and I feel like I have some hair loss. Not balled spots but I feel like my hair is slightly thinner. I have been trying to lose weight for a while now but for some reason it is not happening. I consulted a doctor to help me figure out what is going on. I have tried many different things to lose weight. Low fat diet, juice fasting, I had a membership for the gym (which I used for several months) I did the Beachbody workout Insanity for several weeksand followed their nutrition guide and the high calories. I did not lose weight doing this so I restricted my calorie intake with the workout and tried this for several weeks...still no weight loss. I found out I had a very very low Vitamin D level. I started supplementing, my levels are very good now so it can not be the reason for my weight problems. From what I read People lose tons of weight eating Paleo/Blueprint. At first I did not count calories but since I did not lose weight I started tracking my food intake on my fitnesspal. I changed the ratio of fat/carb and carbs to the Paleo guidelines...still no weight loss. 5 weeks ago I started Beachbody T25 eating Paleo/Blueprint and the T25 recommended 1600 calories. It is slowly coming off...or maybe I am just flexuating. It is very frustrating! I got some of my blood work back and my cholesterol level is higher than normal, my glucose is lower than normal......and there are tow other levels which are not normal but I do not remember what thery were one of them is urea something.......I read that it can be normal to have these levels not be in the "normal" range due to the body trying to lose weight. As I understand the body doesnt have to deal with all the carbs therefore it will not convert carbs into fat and will not store fat. It burns your own body fat and you have more colesterol floating around in your blood stream. As you body weight stabilizes your cloesterol levels will get lower as well.
    I have been a carb lover all my life and I could not imagine I could live on such little carbs. The truth is it is easier than I thought. My taste buds changed a lot. If I want a treat I allow myself a bowl of berries. Raspberries are my favorite. I whip up some heavy cream and put a tablespoon or two on top and sometimes some mini semi sweet chocolate chips and nuts. Or I have a little all natural chocolate ice cream. Most of my meals are super clean. I am only using good fats to cook like coconut oil or olive oil or butter. No legumens or grains. Every once in a while, maybe once a week I do allow myself a cheat like a hamburger or taccos. I still try to calculate it into my calorie and carb allownace for the day.
    I am around 250 lbs with the hight of 5"5. I am 32 year old and a female. I am trying to aim for at 100 grams of Protein and between 50-100g of carbs each day. I am doing T25 5 days a week, at least I am trying.Fitnesspal has been calculating a about 20 lbs weight loss in 5 weeks for many months now.....it is not happening for me.
    I am seing a Endocrinologist and nutritionist next months to get some lab work done. I will also see a sleep specialist.
    I know this was a long post.....ok here is my thought on Paleo. I think it is bad to eat a lot of carbs due to your body messing with Insulin etc. The whole thought about gluten etc...I am not sure. I have been wondering if our body did not adapt to the modern style of eating. I personally feel like this diet makes me feel better. I stay full much longer. I actually do not feel like I am dieting. Before with low calorie and low carb I was always so hungry. I saw Peoples health improve and I saw people losing lots of weight. Ecen though I am not losing weight I feel that Paleo is a very healthy way of eating. If you think about it mostly everything is from scatch. Preffered is organic and grass fed so you are trying to avoid to feed the body with all sorts of hormones and chemicals. A high protein diet is recommended by almost everybody. Paleo is very similar to Atkins accept that it is natural...what can be wrong about eating healthy foods? The high fat intake obviously does not make people fat!

    High urea can be a sign of kidney failure. I would assume your doctor also checked your creatinine level which is another test for kidney function. Obviously I can't diagnose you, but just providing some information.For people with kidney disease, high protein diets are generally not recommended.

    IMO you should go back to your doctor to discuss your results.
  • FatGuyNL
    FatGuyNL Posts: 23 Member
    Paleo sounds interesting and I know a lot of elite level athletes have jumped on the bandwagon.

    I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the philosophy. I get the fact that our bodies haven't changed much since that period, but why are we so confident that our Paleolithic ancestors were receiving optimum nutrition? I don't think it's any real stretch to say that scientific advancement has come a long way since we were living in caves and hunting animals with spears.

    Shouldn't we just be more concerned with eating stuff that does our body good than worrying about what we were and weren't eating back in the stone age? It just seems a little ridiculous to me.

    With that said, all respect to those on the diet, if it's working for you, awesome.
  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,399 Member
    I don't think I got stuck on the name Palaeo, I got stuck on the idea that you can't eat something because - because why exactly? Because it's not natural? Because you didn't pluck it from the ground slash grocery store and process it yourself?

    Firstly, carbs have always, and will always, be a thing that people eat. Have you seen the teeth on cavemen? Meat, veggies and an absence of Colgate alone don't cause cavities THAT bad. And you can mill your own flour at home. All you need is wheat and two stones. Wheat wasn't invented by a pharmaceutical company in 10,000 BC. So I already eat like a caveman - opportunistically, ritualistically, and at my leisure.

    I've read this whole thread so far, and beyond medical reasons (intolerances, etc), I have yet to see a convincing reason that certain foods should be eliminated from our diet. Plus my whole thing about believing modern food is fine and how we are all, as a predominantly western, internet-connected group of people, are more likely to die of old age than a bread or cake related incident.

    palaeolithic people's teeth were not that bad. A dental abscess can be fatal without medical intervention, should the infection spread beyond the infected tooth/root, so would represent a serious threat to survival. They probably didn't mill flour - that's more neolithic and neolithic people's teeth were in a worse state than palaeolithic peoples' although the likely culprit wasn't so much flour, it was the narrow range of the diet... palaeolithic people ate a little of whatever they could get when it was in season (including wild grains and legumes), while neolithic people relied on large quantities of dietary staples that came from their crops, so had a narrower diet and were more at risk of vitamin and mineral deficiency, which likely led to weaker bones and teeth.

    anyway, I don't eat paleo (honey with bee larvae still in it isn't my thing), I just like to try to insert a little bit of science into these threads here and there :laugh:

    I prefer to call it a little bit of realism
    thank you. :smile:
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Paleo sounds interesting and I know a lot of elite level athletes have jumped on the bandwagon.

    I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the philosophy. I get the fact that our bodies haven't changed much since that period, but why are we so confident that our Paleolithic ancestors were receiving optimum nutrition? I don't think it's any real stretch to say that scientific advancement has come a long way since we were living in caves and hunting animals with spears.

    Shouldn't we just be more concerned with eating stuff that does our body good than worrying about what we were and weren't eating back in the stone age? It just seems a little ridiculous to me.

    With that said, all respect to those on the diet, if it's working for you, awesome.

    palaeolithic people probably got fairly optimal nutrition at least for most of the year round. I recently read about a study that found that 75% of neanderthal skeletons sampled showed evidence from their bones that they'd suffered from nutritional stress (i.e. not had enough to eat for long enough to affect the skeleton) at some point in their lives. But it's the kind of thing that would vary, i.e. phases of having plenty to eat and phases of struggling to get enough, possibly e.g. during a particularly harsh winter or something. But on the whole I think they would have been well nourished.

    Evolution didn't stop when we evolved vertical foreheads and pointy chins though... in particular there is evidence of evolutionary adaptation to post-neolithic diets. Humans are highly adaptable and I don't see any reason to give up foods that aren't making you ill. The evolution thing does make a difference, e.g. populations that don't have a long history of dairy farming have much higher rates of lactose intolerance, because those populations with a history of dairy farming have evolved the ability to digest lactose as adults. So in some cases, people can't eat certain foods because they're not adapted to eat that food. But that just comes down to common sense: if a food makes you ill don't eat it. If it doesn't make you ill then no reason to not eat it if you want to.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    I don't think I got stuck on the name Palaeo, I got stuck on the idea that you can't eat something because - because why exactly? Because it's not natural? Because you didn't pluck it from the ground slash grocery store and process it yourself?

    Firstly, carbs have always, and will always, be a thing that people eat. Have you seen the teeth on cavemen? Meat, veggies and an absence of Colgate alone don't cause cavities THAT bad. And you can mill your own flour at home. All you need is wheat and two stones. Wheat wasn't invented by a pharmaceutical company in 10,000 BC. So I already eat like a caveman - opportunistically, ritualistically, and at my leisure.

    I've read this whole thread so far, and beyond medical reasons (intolerances, etc), I have yet to see a convincing reason that certain foods should be eliminated from our diet. Plus my whole thing about believing modern food is fine and how we are all, as a predominantly western, internet-connected group of people, are more likely to die of old age than a bread or cake related incident.

    palaeolithic people's teeth were not that bad. A dental abscess can be fatal without medical intervention, should the infection spread beyond the infected tooth/root, so would represent a serious threat to survival. They probably didn't mill flour - that's more neolithic and neolithic people's teeth were in a worse state than palaeolithic peoples' although the likely culprit wasn't so much flour, it was the narrow range of the diet... palaeolithic people ate a little of whatever they could get when it was in season (including wild grains and legumes), while neolithic people relied on large quantities of dietary staples that came from their crops, so had a narrower diet and were more at risk of vitamin and mineral deficiency, which likely led to weaker bones and teeth.

    anyway, I don't eat paleo (honey with bee larvae still in it isn't my thing), I just like to try to insert a little bit of science into these threads here and there :laugh:

    I prefer to call it a little bit of realism
    thank you. :smile:

    thank you :smile:
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    tumblr_llt30gcMHK1qk8egjo1_500.gif

    Wheat tends to make people fat, yes. But any food that raises blood sugar precipitously (as wheat and/or sugary foods do) will tend to make many people fat. So, unless you want to look like you ate an enormous doughnut and it settled around your waist, it is best to limit both wheat and sugar to an occasional indulgence (and by that, I mean once a month or less). Wheat contains gliadin (a component of wheat gluten) and amylopectin-A. Both are highly addictive. For myself, I never eat either wheat or added sugar. Formerly, I ate a lot of "healthy whole grains" even while following a calorie-restricted diet (read low-fat). It was not sustainable for me and I always reverted to eating "normally" and gaining the weight back (plus more). I have been eating lower carb--about 100--120 grams of carbs per day--(I eat everything but added sugar and wheat). I eat a bit of oats and rye in moderation. I have been following this plan for about three years. I have lost 66 pounds, and have not once regained an ounce in that three years. That is a first for me. While Paleo is a bit too restrictive for me, I recognize it is an essential diet for some people who have a severe problem with a deranged metabolism.
  • onefortyone
    onefortyone Posts: 531 Member
    I am sure they didn't eat carbs/sugars in the same amount we do, but I have yet to see much in the way of evidence that they didn't eat their fair share of it. The way I was taught, was that early modern humans were just as capable and willing as us to make their lives easier by manipulating and processing their environment. From burning down areas to encourage growth of preferred plants on purpose, and small amounts of planting and weeding, to complex cooking of unfavourable ingredients to make them more digestable. So I'd have a hard time excluding any one thing from their diet.

    I like discussing this stuff, I don't even care about crazy fad dieters any more. Man, it's been years, and now I remember why it was my favourite subject. :D
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Hi guys! I heard about the Paleo diet a while back because my mother in law has lost a lot of weight and improved her health eating the Paleo/Primal Blueprint. In December I saw that my father in law was ablr to control his diabetes without meds eating Paleo/Blueprint and exercising. He writes down everything he eats and drinks, exersices and blood sugar levels. I saw it with my own eyes it works. He is not overweight!
    Anyway I started eating Paleo/Blueprint in January. Overall I feel better. I do sleep better, my acne has become better and I do not get hungry as much. I also do not have bloating or gas anymore and I do not get tired after meals either.
    I am supplementing with fish oil, vitamin D3 and magnesium.
    I noticed some negative changes as well. One of them is ridges in my nails and I feel like I have some hair loss. Not balled spots but I feel like my hair is slightly thinner. I have been trying to lose weight for a while now but for some reason it is not happening. I consulted a doctor to help me figure out what is going on. I have tried many different things to lose weight. Low fat diet, juice fasting, I had a membership for the gym (which I used for several months) I did the Beachbody workout Insanity for several weeksand followed their nutrition guide and the high calories. I did not lose weight doing this so I restricted my calorie intake with the workout and tried this for several weeks...still no weight loss. I found out I had a very very low Vitamin D level. I started supplementing, my levels are very good now so it can not be the reason for my weight problems. From what I read People lose tons of weight eating Paleo/Blueprint. At first I did not count calories but since I did not lose weight I started tracking my food intake on my fitnesspal. I changed the ratio of fat/carb and carbs to the Paleo guidelines...still no weight loss. 5 weeks ago I started Beachbody T25 eating Paleo/Blueprint and the T25 recommended 1600 calories. It is slowly coming off...or maybe I am just flexuating. It is very frustrating! I got some of my blood work back and my cholesterol level is higher than normal, my glucose is lower than normal......and there are tow other levels which are not normal but I do not remember what thery were one of them is urea something.......I read that it can be normal to have these levels not be in the "normal" range due to the body trying to lose weight. As I understand the body doesnt have to deal with all the carbs therefore it will not convert carbs into fat and will not store fat. It burns your own body fat and you have more colesterol floating around in your blood stream. As you body weight stabilizes your cloesterol levels will get lower as well.
    I have been a carb lover all my life and I could not imagine I could live on such little carbs. The truth is it is easier than I thought. My taste buds changed a lot. If I want a treat I allow myself a bowl of berries. Raspberries are my favorite. I whip up some heavy cream and put a tablespoon or two on top and sometimes some mini semi sweet chocolate chips and nuts. Or I have a little all natural chocolate ice cream. Most of my meals are super clean. I am only using good fats to cook like coconut oil or olive oil or butter. No legumens or grains. Every once in a while, maybe once a week I do allow myself a cheat like a hamburger or taccos. I still try to calculate it into my calorie and carb allownace for the day.
    I am around 250 lbs with the hight of 5"5. I am 32 year old and a female. I am trying to aim for at 100 grams of Protein and between 50-100g of carbs each day. I am doing T25 5 days a week, at least I am trying.Fitnesspal has been calculating a about 20 lbs weight loss in 5 weeks for many months now.....it is not happening for me.
    I am seing a Endocrinologist and nutritionist next months to get some lab work done. I will also see a sleep specialist.
    I know this was a long post.....ok here is my thought on Paleo. I think it is bad to eat a lot of carbs due to your body messing with Insulin etc. The whole thought about gluten etc...I am not sure. I have been wondering if our body did not adapt to the modern style of eating. I personally feel like this diet makes me feel better. I stay full much longer. I actually do not feel like I am dieting. Before with low calorie and low carb I was always so hungry. I saw Peoples health improve and I saw people losing lots of weight. Ecen though I am not losing weight I feel that Paleo is a very healthy way of eating. If you think about it mostly everything is from scatch. Preffered is organic and grass fed so you are trying to avoid to feed the body with all sorts of hormones and chemicals. A high protein diet is recommended by almost everybody. Paleo is very similar to Atkins accept that it is natural...what can be wrong about eating healthy foods? The high fat intake obviously does not make people fat!

    You are probably leptin resistant. When leptin works properly, it signals to your brain to stop eating (means that you will eat less overall) because your body fat level is higher than is desirable. Exercise is essential for re-sensitizing your brainstem to leptin and for reducing body fat (so that a lower amount of leptin is produced--thus having the longer-term effect of "healing" the leptin-resistance) . Almost all obese women have leptin resistance and most very obese men. Leptin resistance is much more common for women because our bodies produce 2 to 3 times the amount of leptin at even the same level of body fat as a man and women, as a whole, almost always have more body fat that men (it's a hormone thing--estrogen LOVES body fat and seeks to preserve it). Leptin resistance precedes and predicts insulin-resistance (which, in turn, precedes Type II diabetes) if nothing is done to turn the tide. You are on the right track but it takes a long time to turn things around. Staying really well nourished is essential to the process. Exercise allows you to eat a higher volume of nourishing low carb food (read a lot of vegetables and fat and moderate protein).
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    I am sure they didn't eat carbs/sugars in the same amount we do, but I have yet to see much in the way of evidence that they didn't eat their fair share of it. The way I was taught, was that early modern humans were just as capable and willing as us to make their lives easier by manipulating and processing their environment. From burning down areas to encourage growth of preferred plants on purpose, and small amounts of planting and weeding, to complex cooking of unfavourable ingredients to make them more digestable. So I'd have a hard time excluding any one thing from their diet.

    I like discussing this stuff, I don't even care about crazy fad dieters any more. Man, it's been years, and now I remember why it was my favourite subject. :D

    yeah I totally find this entire subject fascinating

    honey is a prized food by modern hunter-gatherers, probably has been ever since humans figured out how to smoke out a beehive, or even earlier than that.... and lots of people will point out that some fruits have as much sugar are various chocolate bars... well that's what our Miocene ape ancestors ate an awful lot of, probably Australopithecines too. Humans moved towards more of a meat based diet but we clearly never lost our taste for sweet things.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    I am sure they didn't eat carbs/sugars in the same amount we do, but I have yet to see much in the way of evidence that they didn't eat their fair share of it. The way I was taught, was that early modern humans were just as capable and willing as us to make their lives easier by manipulating and processing their environment. From burning down areas to encourage growth of preferred plants on purpose, and small amounts of planting and weeding, to complex cooking of unfavourable ingredients to make them more digestable. So I'd have a hard time excluding any one thing from their diet.

    I like discussing this stuff, I don't even care about crazy fad dieters any more. Man, it's been years, and now I remember why it was my favourite subject. :D

    I think a whole tribe of paleolithic people would have delighted to have found a honey tree and gobbled it up. But they didn't find a honey tree every day. The problem is that we are finding honey trees every day in the modern world. When agriculture came on the scene, humans began to get fat (at least those who had access to plentiful supplies of food). Slaves were never fat because they were given barely enough food to sustain them. But the wealthy landowners and nobility were often very fat, if they ate and drank immoderately (think of King Henry VIII). Ultimately, the answer to obesity is moderation but the addictive nature of some foods makes moderation VERY difficult for some people. The Paleo diet helps them to eat moderately.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    I am sure they didn't eat carbs/sugars in the same amount we do, but I have yet to see much in the way of evidence that they didn't eat their fair share of it. The way I was taught, was that early modern humans were just as capable and willing as us to make their lives easier by manipulating and processing their environment. From burning down areas to encourage growth of preferred plants on purpose, and small amounts of planting and weeding, to complex cooking of unfavourable ingredients to make them more digestable. So I'd have a hard time excluding any one thing from their diet.

    I like discussing this stuff, I don't even care about crazy fad dieters any more. Man, it's been years, and now I remember why it was my favourite subject. :D

    I think a whole tribe of paleolithic people would have delighted to have found a honey tree and gobbled it up. But they didn't find a honey tree every day. The problem is that we are finding honey trees every day in the modern world. When agriculture came on the scene, humans began to get fat (at least those who had access to plentiful supplies of food). Slaves were never fat because they were given barely enough food to sustain them. But the wealthy landowners and nobility were often very fat, if they ate and drank immoderately (think of King Henry VIII). Ultimately, the answer to obesity is moderation but the addictive nature of some foods makes moderation VERY difficult for some people. The Paleo diet helps them to eat moderately.

    Easy availability of food is just ONE part of the equation - and it's easy availability of food, not "addiction" to specific foods. Zoo apes become obese if they're not given stimulating enough surroundings, it's something zookeepers find it hard to do when looking after great apes... i.e. giving them enough mental stimulation to get them moving around their enclosure rather than just sitting around eating fruit all day. They're fed their natural foods, they're not fed high fructose corn syrup or other foods demonised by paleo dieters.

    Lack of exercise is another major part. Henry VIII was injured in a jousting accident as a young man and so was immobile for most of his life. Other kings would have eaten similar diets yet were not as fat as him. (go look at all the paintings of all the other English kings, Henry VIII was much fatter than average even for a king). And the example with zoo apes.... lack of exercise + freely available food makes them fat. Every other era of history and prehistory, people had to work their butts off to get food. Even in my grandmother and mother's time, people had more physical jobs, less labour saving devices, and had to walk all round different shops to get all the food they needed. Nowadays you can drive to the supermarket for 1 weekly shop and even get all your supermarket shopping delivered to your door.

    Demonising food groups isn't the answer. Portion control and getting plenty of exercise is the answer. For humans and other great apes.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    I am sure they didn't eat carbs/sugars in the same amount we do, but I have yet to see much in the way of evidence that they didn't eat their fair share of it. The way I was taught, was that early modern humans were just as capable and willing as us to make their lives easier by manipulating and processing their environment. From burning down areas to encourage growth of preferred plants on purpose, and small amounts of planting and weeding, to complex cooking of unfavourable ingredients to make them more digestable. So I'd have a hard time excluding any one thing from their diet.

    I like discussing this stuff, I don't even care about crazy fad dieters any more. Man, it's been years, and now I remember why it was my favourite subject. :D

    I think a whole tribe of paleolithic people would have delighted to have found a honey tree and gobbled it up. But they didn't find a honey tree every day. The problem is that we are finding honey trees every day in the modern world. When agriculture came on the scene, humans began to get fat (at least those who had access to plentiful supplies of food). Slaves were never fat because they were given barely enough food to sustain them. But the wealthy landowners and nobility were often very fat, if they ate and drank immoderately (think of King Henry VIII). Ultimately, the answer to obesity is moderation but the addictive nature of some foods makes moderation VERY difficult for some people. The Paleo diet helps them to eat moderately.

    Easy availability of food is just ONE part of the equation - and it's easy availability of food, not "addiction" to specific foods. Zoo apes become obese if they're not given stimulating enough surroundings, it's something zookeepers find it hard to do when looking after great apes... i.e. giving them enough mental stimulation to get them moving around their enclosure rather than just sitting around eating fruit all day. They're fed their natural foods, they're not fed high fructose corn syrup or other foods demonised by paleo dieters.

    Lack of exercise is another major part. Henry VIII was injured in a jousting accident as a young man and so was immobile for most of his life. Other kings would have eaten similar diets yet were not as fat as him. (go look at all the paintings of all the other English kings, Henry VIII was much fatter than average even for a king). And the example with zoo apes.... lack of exercise + freely available food makes them fat. Every other era of history and prehistory, people had to work their butts off to get food. Even in my grandmother and mother's time, people had more physical jobs, less labour saving devices, and had to walk all round different shops to get all the food they needed. Nowadays you can drive to the supermarket for 1 weekly shop and even get all your supermarket shopping delivered to your door.

    Demonising food groups isn't the answer. Portion control and getting plenty of exercise is the answer. For humans and other great apes.

    I have no doubt that lack of exercise is part of the problem--but I was discussing dietary elements. There are hormonal considerations that need to be taken into account. Obesity is much more complex than simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out". It may work that way for most men but obesity in women is compounded by those pesky hormonal considerations. Just as alcoholics know that, if they are to maintain their sobriety, they must refrain from even a taste of alcohol, so many people (women in particular) understand that there are certain foods that trigger undesirable effects.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    Interesting discussion of leptin-resistance: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC33319/
  • mumblemagic
    mumblemagic Posts: 1,090 Member
    Thoughts?

    Do you really want someone to "prescribe" a diet for you, or would you rather eat foods you like? That's a question that I would ask myself. Since I don't have any health-related dietary restrictions, I just choose to eat what I like in moderation. I find that most sustainable and beneficial.

    As does science :smile:

    In fairness, some people enjoy having a highly restrictive diet and that's fine as long as they are getting enough nutrients and not spouting unscientific crap at people. Some people really find Paleo good for them. But the science behind Paleo being good for everyone is sketchy at best. Paleo bothers me mainly because of the Paleo-followers who insist that the science is good and demonize food unnecessarily.

    Edit:
    The Paleo diet helps them to eat moderately.

    No it doesn't. The definition of moderation is "the avoidance of excess or extremes, especially in one's behaviour or political opinions.". The Paleo diet is an example of an extreme restriction, and is therefore by definition, not moderation.

    I suspect what you mean is that it helps people limit calories, which is not the same thing at all.
  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,399 Member
    tumblr_llt30gcMHK1qk8egjo1_500.gif

    Wheat tends to make people fat, yes. But any food that raises blood sugar precipitously (as wheat and/or sugary foods do) will tend to make many people fat. So, unless you want to look like you ate an enormous doughnut and it settled around your waist, it is best to limit both wheat and sugar to an occasional indulgence (and by that, I mean once a month or less). Wheat contains gliadin (a component of wheat gluten) and amylopectin-A. Both are highly addictive. For myself, I never eat either wheat or added sugar. Formerly, I ate a lot of "healthy whole grains" even while following a calorie-restricted diet (read low-fat). It was not sustainable for me and I always reverted to eating "normally" and gaining the weight back (plus more). I have been eating lower carb--about 100--120 grams of carbs per day--(I eat everything but added sugar and wheat). I eat a bit of oats and rye in moderation. I have been following this plan for about three years. I have lost 66 pounds, and have not once regained an ounce in that three years. That is a first for me. While Paleo is a bit too restrictive for me, I recognize it is an essential diet for some people who have a severe problem with a deranged metabolism.

    OK I'm curious---I live in Italy, which is carb heaven, and we have very few obese. How is this explained if wheat makes one fat. I know the portion sizes--100g dry of pasta, and so it isn't that they are eating small portions. In the pizzarias evenings I see really skinny young people eating a huge pizza plus deserts. I also observe family members and so know the food culture here. They laugh when someone mentions the paleo diet. Would like to know how this is explained by the wheat is bad folks. Thanks. :smile:
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    tumblr_llt30gcMHK1qk8egjo1_500.gif

    Wheat tends to make people fat, yes. But any food that raises blood sugar precipitously (as wheat and/or sugary foods do) will tend to make many people fat. So, unless you want to look like you ate an enormous doughnut and it settled around your waist, it is best to limit both wheat and sugar to an occasional indulgence (and by that, I mean once a month or less). Wheat contains gliadin (a component of wheat gluten) and amylopectin-A. Both are highly addictive. For myself, I never eat either wheat or added sugar. Formerly, I ate a lot of "healthy whole grains" even while following a calorie-restricted diet (read low-fat). It was not sustainable for me and I always reverted to eating "normally" and gaining the weight back (plus more). I have been eating lower carb--about 100--120 grams of carbs per day--(I eat everything but added sugar and wheat). I eat a bit of oats and rye in moderation. I have been following this plan for about three years. I have lost 66 pounds, and have not once regained an ounce in that three years. That is a first for me. While Paleo is a bit too restrictive for me, I recognize it is an essential diet for some people who have a severe problem with a deranged metabolism.
    Um, no. Gliadin and amylopectin certainly aren't addictive. You need to provide some evidence for that outlandish claim. Especially considering both gliadin and mylopectin are in far more foods than just wheat, so I'd be curious to see how you reached the conclusion that it's wheat that's bad, rather than rice, potatoes, corn, bananas, beans, chestnuts, carrots, or any of the other starchy foods that humans eat.
  • Charlottesometimes23
    Charlottesometimes23 Posts: 687 Member
    tumblr_llt30gcMHK1qk8egjo1_500.gif

    Wheat tends to make people fat, yes. But any food that raises blood sugar precipitously (as wheat and/or sugary foods do) will tend to make many people fat. So, unless you want to look like you ate an enormous doughnut and it settled around your waist, it is best to limit both wheat and sugar to an occasional indulgence (and by that, I mean once a month or less). Wheat contains gliadin (a component of wheat gluten) and amylopectin-A. Both are highly addictive. For myself, I never eat either wheat or added sugar. Formerly, I ate a lot of "healthy whole grains" even while following a calorie-restricted diet (read low-fat). It was not sustainable for me and I always reverted to eating "normally" and gaining the weight back (plus more). I have been eating lower carb--about 100--120 grams of carbs per day--(I eat everything but added sugar and wheat). I eat a bit of oats and rye in moderation. I have been following this plan for about three years. I have lost 66 pounds, and have not once regained an ounce in that three years. That is a first for me. While Paleo is a bit too restrictive for me, I recognize it is an essential diet for some people who have a severe problem with a deranged metabolism.

    Congratulations on losing your weight.

    However, I must say, gliadin and amylopectin-A are not addictive. I understand that it's in the Paleo/Wheat Belly blurb but it is based on misinterpretaion and misrepresentation of in-vitro (test tube) work, not human effects.

    Some people may feel that they do better restricting wheat due to bloating from IBS, or those with sensitivities/allergies to gliadins (eg. celiac disease) but to make a blanket statement that gliadin and amylopectin-A is addictive is incorrect.
  • SanteMulberry
    SanteMulberry Posts: 3,202 Member
    tumblr_llt30gcMHK1qk8egjo1_500.gif

    Wheat tends to make people fat, yes. But any food that raises blood sugar precipitously (as wheat and/or sugary foods do) will tend to make many people fat. So, unless you want to look like you ate an enormous doughnut and it settled around your waist, it is best to limit both wheat and sugar to an occasional indulgence (and by that, I mean once a month or less). Wheat contains gliadin (a component of wheat gluten) and amylopectin-A. Both are highly addictive. For myself, I never eat either wheat or added sugar. Formerly, I ate a lot of "healthy whole grains" even while following a calorie-restricted diet (read low-fat). It was not sustainable for me and I always reverted to eating "normally" and gaining the weight back (plus more). I have been eating lower carb--about 100--120 grams of carbs per day--(I eat everything but added sugar and wheat). I eat a bit of oats and rye in moderation. I have been following this plan for about three years. I have lost 66 pounds, and have not once regained an ounce in that three years. That is a first for me. While Paleo is a bit too restrictive for me, I recognize it is an essential diet for some people who have a severe problem with a deranged metabolism.

    OK I'm curious---I live in Italy, which is carb heaven, and we have very few obese. How is this explained if wheat makes one fat. I know the portion sizes--100g dry of pasta, and so it isn't that they are eating small portions. In the pizzarias evenings I see really skinny young people eating a huge pizza plus deserts. I also observe family members and so know the food culture here. They laugh when someone mentions the paleo diet. Would like to know how this is explained by the wheat is bad folks. Thanks. :smile:

    1. Italians tend to get a LOT of exercise (as do Europeans in general). 2. Young people haven't had time to develop blood sugar problems. 3. Probably the most important reason is that Italians do not drink fluoridated water because they wisely refused to fluoridate their water after World War II. Only 3% of Europeans drink fluoridated water (fluoride was once recommended as a way to curb thyroid activity among hyperthyroid individuals in Europe). World obesity figures are directly linked to water fluoridation. Fluoride, because it fills the iodine receptors in the thyroid, impairs thyroid activity. Virtually all major cities in the U.S. fluoridate the municipal water supply and it is estimated that approximately 2/3 of Americans drink fluoridated water despite the fact that: "...[Even though Europeans have eschewed] 'one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,' [according to the propaganda from the CDC], tooth decay rates have declined in Europe as precipitously over the past 50 years as they have in the United States. This raises serious questions about the CDC’s assertion that the decline of tooth decay in the United States since the 1950s is largely attributable to the advent of water fluoridation..." Because of the thyroid impairment, there are millions of Americans who simply cannot convert blood sugar to energy and as it climbs higher, it is recognized as being a grave threat by the body which then, moves to convert it to body fat as a "safer alternative" than going into diabetic coma. :frown: Fluoride dosing was developed by the Nazis as a potential way to pacify the people. :huh: Make of it what you will.