Paleo Eating

Let me see...

I started my morning with oatmeal (processed) with brown sugar (processed), chopped pecans (processed), and raisins (processed). I also enjoyed a large coffee (processed) with cream (processed) , sugar (processed) and hazelnut shot (processed).

I'll let you know what have for lunch.

This is what drives me nuts....of course in this day and age you are going to eat "processed" food, whether Paleo or not. Unless you're a farmer who grows/raises everything you eat and does all of the butchering, etc, yourself, you are eating processed food. I think everyone has enough common sense to know that what is meant by processed, in this discussion, is the chemical/sodum/sugar laden food that is abundantly available, like chips, cookies, freezer meals, and many other forms of convenience foods. Of course our meat, nuts, raisins, coffee, etc are processed, because we don't do it ourselves. There is a big difference between processed chopped pecans and processed oreos. For example, tuna in a can....something healthy for you, full of good for you stuff, so why do they feel the need to add vegetable broth (which has lord knows what chemicals and additives) and soy to it? Why can't we just get tuna in a can with water or olive oil?? Thankfully some companies do that, but the majority of them add stuff. Dates is another example...they are super sweet on their own, so why does the bag I bought the other day have sugar added??? It's unnecessary and unhealthy.

Medicakes --- this is because you're new. This is one of the very common red herring arguments that is often presented in Paleo discussions. A few others that you'll often see in these discussions:

(1) The idea of what "clean eating" is. "Everyone has such different ideas, that the whole concept is meaningless".
(2) Those that judge others as not being "Paleo" enough -- though it usually comes from those who don't follow any of the concepts at all. It's like they're atheists walking into a church, synagogue or mosque and telling people that they're not Christian, Jewish or Muslim enough. Because, hey, if you're not the strictest orthodox that adheres to the 100% letter of the law principles, then you can't be a Jew, Christian or Muslim.
(3) Those that complain that they speak out against Paleo and its variations because people that follow those are just trying to be kewl or are overbearing in pushing their views on others. There is a great irony and hypocrisy there.
(4) It's sooooo restrictive. Of course, completely ignoring that fact that EVERY diet/lifestyle is restrictive in some way or other other -- whether it's calories, macros, moderation or food groups.
(5) Arguments about the factual basis of paleolithic man -- how since some paleolithic people ate grains, etc., the whole diet concept is bunk. Or how the average life span of ancient people's were less, the diet doesn't make much sense (of course, not accounting for sanitation, antibiotics, infant mortality, modern medicine, etc.)

It's pretty ridiculous. But apparently some people think these faux arguments are quite clever and illuminating. Very few tend to actually debate the diet claims and theories.

You know perfectly well that people have supplied peer reviewed article debunking the inflammation, etc claims of Paleo. You have yet to supply any original research supporting paleo health claims.

I could copy and paste these links, but it's kind of a waste of time and provides less of a dialogue than asking somebody to explain how their definition of "clean" and their argument that "clean is healthier" isn't arbitrary.

Because there are contrary opinions isn't debunking. As with almost every area of newly emerging science, there are contrary opinions. The reasons behind Paleo definitely fall into that area -- there are some things that support it and some things that don't support it. There is a LOT more that we need to learn about nutrition and the interactions in the body. But just because there are contrary opinions doesn't nullify the supporting facts.

This is what you don't seem to understand. Reasonable people can disagree, and both view points can be legitimate.

I've been waiting for months for you to post the original research supporting these claims.

I've posted several sources. There are several books you know you can read out there. You just want me to go through the books for you and spoonfeed you the support. That I refuse to do -- go do it yourself. But, that would take actual effort on your part.

I don't think you understand the difference between the context of judgments, opinions and observations. Sometimes being too literal has its drawbacks. No worries, it happens to the best of us humans.

(2) Those that judge others as not being "Paleo" enough -- though it usually comes from those who don't follow any of the concepts at all. It's like they're atheists walking into a church, synagogue or mosque and telling people that they're not Christian, Jewish or Muslim enough. Because, hey, if you're not the strictest orthodox that adheres to the 100% letter of the law principles, then you can't be a Jew, Christian or Muslim.

It would have its similarities to this if people were going into groups to say this. In a general discussion forum, it's like someone proclaiming to be a practicing Catholic priest and others saying, based on objective facts, "Um, you sure? You're married with kids."

People don't have immunity from questioning when they say they are Paleo but don't actually follow the diet as much of the time as not. People have been criticized for questioning the Paleoishness of diets that frequently included hundreds to thousands of calories of candy, pizza, baked goods, and beer.

But in any case, I think I can complain, because as a vegan I eat Paleo, I just include peanuts, lentils, beans, potatoes, soy milk, and tofu.

Wouldn't that be ridiculous if no one could question that statement?

I guess to me, it seems to be useless judgment (as I find most judgments to be). If they have a misunderstanding of the concept, sure discuss that. But if they understand it and are simply making a variation -- and you're judging that as not being Paleo/Jewish/Christian/Muslim enough, that to me is foolish, adds nothing to the discussion and really terribly hypocritical.

See, me? I'm just in for ridiculous health claims regarding clean eating. I know a lot of people who feel like they struggle with their diet when, in fact they are doing fine and would be better focused on simply finding ways to sate themselves on their calories allowance.

It's my major beef on the fitness threads too. People make things so complicated and then feel that they don't have the time or energy to be healthy.

You can be paleo all you want. Just don't act like it's the one true way to be "healthy"

Your accusations are unfounded, at least in regards to me. I've NEVER acted like Paleo/Primal is the "one true way to be 'healthy"" -- I just personally think it's ONE way. There are many paths up the mountain.

So you don't have any cites to research that actually support your claims then. Got it. Just say that. It's far less disingenuous. Perhaps you could say that you *hope* that research will be done that supports your claims. (I've said as much about "clean eating" many times on these forums...that I *wished* that the research supported the position that eating only "clean" food resulted in superior health, but acknowledged that it didn't.)

No, that's not what I'm saying. But, thank you for the intentional misrepresentation.

You see, I actually read books as well as articles and other information on the internet. But, when I read them, I don't keep a running list of cites for internet fights with disingenuous people. I know. Crazy idea. So, when people are genuinely interested in the information, I'll give them the sources I used -- sometimes books, sometimes internet sites, sometimes direct studies if I have links to them.

But I don't consider direct links to peer-reviewed studies to be the ONLY reliable source of scientific information. Many times, many of the books I've cited contain such cites. But, you'd actually have to read them. And I know that's so bothersome to some people.

You say that as if I haven't done research...haven't read books...haven't spent a full year adhering strictly to the "paleo lifestyle".

I have spent a lot of time trying to find compelling research for the claims you are making and have made in the forums. A lot of time...but found that the support simply wasn't there. When you have claimed that it existed in previous threads, I got my hopes up...but having been consistently unable or unwilling to produce it, my hopes have been dashed.

I get it. I understand how the literature twists the research to support claims that it simply does not support. I've seen it many *many* times. The difference is that I accepted that what I wanted to be true simply wasn't. You, however, still hold fast to your claims perhaps because 1) you don't understand how the literature is misleading, or 2) you understand it but really *really* want it to be true...but I'm just speculating here.

Perhaps one day solid research *will* support your claims. I actually hope it does. Until then, it is at the very least disingenuous to continue to claim that your opinions are supported facts in the absence of actual support.

(2) Those that judge others as not being "Paleo" enough -- though it usually comes from those who don't follow any of the concepts at all. It's like they're atheists walking into a church, synagogue or mosque and telling people that they're not Christian, Jewish or Muslim enough. Because, hey, if you're not the strictest orthodox that adheres to the 100% letter of the law principles, then you can't be a Jew, Christian or Muslim.

It would have its similarities to this if people were going into groups to say this. In a general discussion forum, it's like someone proclaiming to be a practicing Catholic priest and others saying, based on objective facts, "Um, you sure? You're married with kids."

People don't have immunity from questioning when they say they are Paleo but don't actually follow the diet as much of the time as not. People have been criticized for questioning the Paleoishness of diets that frequently included hundreds to thousands of calories of candy, pizza, baked goods, and beer.

But in any case, I think I can complain, because as a vegan I eat Paleo, I just include peanuts, lentils, beans, potatoes, soy milk, and tofu.

Wouldn't that be ridiculous if no one could question that statement?

I guess to me, it seems to be useless judgment (as I find most judgments to be). If they have a misunderstanding of the concept, sure discuss that. But if they understand it and are simply making a variation -- and you're judging that as not being Paleo/Jewish/Christian/Muslim enough, that to me is foolish, adds nothing to the discussion and really terribly hypocritical.

See, me? I'm just in for ridiculous health claims regarding clean eating. I know a lot of people who feel like they struggle with their diet when, in fact they are doing fine and would be better focused on simply finding ways to sate themselves on their calories allowance.

It's my major beef on the fitness threads too. People make things so complicated and then feel that they don't have the time or energy to be healthy.

You can be paleo all you want. Just don't act like it's the one true way to be "healthy"

Your accusations are unfounded, at least in regards to me. I've NEVER acted like Paleo/Primal is the "one true way to be 'healthy"" -- I just personally think it's ONE way. There are many paths up the mountain.

I didn't say "I hate it when Lindsey acts like Paleo is the one true way." now did I? For the record, I think it was Tennisdude who suggested that people (was it DamePiglet?) had unidentified underlying conditions based on the fact that they ate grain and legumes.

However, when people in general say that they eat "clean" because of the health problems that result from "processed" foods, that's exactly what they are saying.

There was an argument in there somewhere? You don't want to discuss the merits of the regime but an individual's personal compliance with it to see if they've "earned" the title of Paleo or otherwise according to you? That's an argument? Okay.

I find that sort of thing totally useless -- as I would questioning someone's faith tenets as being Jewish enough for my non-Jew standards (or any other variation). It has nothing to do with the actual, underlying philosophy or nutrition plan. Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise? And who cares? Oh, you. Oh, okay.

You were the one who brought it up, actually. So I guess it's something you like to talk about but can't stand when people respond, unless it's to agree with you. I wouldn't have brought it up on this thread, as that's not what it was originally about. But you took it there.

Why do people who eat dairy have the title primal, since none of this matters at all?

And finally, again: Many non-Catholics know that practicing Catholic priests cannot marry and have sex. Is it useless to ask why he believes he is? Can only Catholics question facts about Catholicism?

Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise?

A person who has a working brain and can differentiate facts from statements.

But since you asked, the only time I've been interested in a Paleo dieter's diary was when it was brought up and the person willingly engaged in conversation about it. I have no idea what you eat, and truly, I don't care. I also don't check the diaries of people who call themselves vegans. But do I raise an eyebrow when someone says, "I'm a vegan but I eat eggs?" Yeah, sorry.

Who are you to say that I can't have opinions on who is Paleo enough?

There was an argument in there somewhere? You don't want to discuss the merits of the regime but an individual's personal compliance with it to see if they've "earned" the title of Paleo or otherwise according to you? That's an argument? Okay.

I find that sort of thing totally useless -- as I would questioning someone's faith tenets as being Jewish enough for my non-Jew standards (or any other variation). It has nothing to do with the actual, underlying philosophy or nutrition plan. Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise? And who cares? Oh, you. Oh, okay.

You were the one who brought it up, actually. So I guess it's something you like to talk about but can't stand when people respond, unless it's to agree with you. I wouldn't have brought it up on this thread, as that's not what it was originally about. But you took it there.

Why do people who eat dairy have the title primal, since none of this matters at all?

And finally, again: Many non-Catholics know that practicing Catholic priests cannot marry and have sex. Is it useless to ask why he believes he is? Can only Catholics question facts about Catholicism?

Is the definition of Paleo necessarily as strict as the sacrament of holy orders per the Catholic church? Is that really an argument you want to put forward -- that the definition of Paleo according to you should be as strict as a Catholic sacrament? Really? And this isn't useless semantics....

I think titles and a labels are helpful in the exchange of ideas. But when people focus on them so much so that it distorts the content of the idea exchange, I think it's no longer that helpful. Especially if people are getting totally lost in useless semantics. This is what it appears you are doing. Perhaps you disagree.

So Paleo means that you eat whatever you want as long as it fits your macros?

Who are you to say that someone is "enough" Paleo or otherwise?

A person who has a working brain and can differentiate facts from statements.

But since you asked, the only time I've been interested in a Paleo dieter's diary was when it was brought up and the person willingly engaged in conversation about it. I have no idea what you eat, and truly, I don't care. I also don't check the diaries of people who call themselves vegans. But do I raise an eyebrow when someone says, "I'm a vegan but I eat eggs?" Yeah, sorry.

Who are you to say that I can't have opinions on who is Paleo enough?

I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on who is Paleo enough. You can do whatever you like and have whatever opinion you want. But, likewise, I can have that opinion that such judgment is petty, unnecessary and does not contribute to the general conversation about the pros and cons of Paleo diets and their variations. See, we can both have opinions

Is the definition of Paleo necessarily as strict as the sacrament of holy orders per the Catholic church? Is that really an argument you want to put forward -- that the definition of Paleo according to you should be as strict as a Catholic sacrament? Really? And this isn't useless semantics....

I think titles and a labels are helpful in the exchange of ideas. But when people focus on them so much so that it distorts the content of the idea exchange, I think it's no longer that helpful. Especially if people are getting totally lost in useless semantics. This is what it appears you are doing. Perhaps you disagree.

Why is that a problem? Tell a Catholic and a Baptist that it's all semantics, and you'll get roasted. Why does religion have the market on definitions? And once you compared challenging people who say they eat Paleo to intruding on a temple, you took it there. (Again.)

Again: Why is Primal its own title?

Take it out of religion and food. A person who sits at a desk and wears a business suit is the boss. True, false?

True, if they meet other qualifications. But who are you to question when people proclaim that they are something? I personally always believe it when people tell me something.