Paleo Eating

Meh, I understood the comparison but it still made me laugh.

No doubt. Sadly, I think it's terribly appropriate in other ways -- especially how so many factions will come out and bash other factions, for a variety of reasons. As if they have the one and only true way -- and are terribly threatened by others' truths. I'm not sure of any other topic that inspires that sort of fanaticism and tunnel vision than religion.

It must be so difficult for you to be in the top 10% of smart people and have to suffer fools like us.

Only when it's disingenuous. I hate when people try to purposely muddy the waters -- obfuscates true discussion, sharing of ideas and learning. But, it's inevitable on the internet, especially at poorly moderated sites.

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

How can we have a discussion about the pros and cons of the Paleo diets if Paleo means that people eat whatever they want as adults who make choices?

Just a comment... just because a Catholic person doesn't follow the Catholic doctrines perfectly doesn't mean Catholicism doesn't exist. It means that Catholic person could do better to follow Catholicism in it's entirety. Doesn't change what Catholicism is actually supposed to be. But that person will still call themselves a Catholic because sin (or in this case, eating something that's on the "no-no list") is something extremely few humans have ever been able to resist. Using that same metaphor.

The thing is that "Christian" or "Catholic" isn't defined by a set of acts, it's a state of grace. That state of grace is exemplified in a number of ways, but you don't get to be a Christian by simply going through the motions. God is the final arbitrator of who makes it and who doesn't. It was a bad metaphor to begin with.

However, you can't be an ethical Vegan and still eat meat. Veganism is defined by the acts of the person ascribing to the philosophy. They eat sausage and they aren't vegan anymore even if their ethics remains the same.

Theoretically, Paleo should be a set of acts like Veganism (diet/lifestyle). We should be able to define what Paleo is and isn't. And, just like Vegans, we should be able to say "this set of people adhere to this lifestyle."

I'm fairly certain there are some Christians that don't hold to the state of grace definition. But, pish. That would be beside the point, right?

It's a simple metaphor in that there are several sects and definitions of different types of Christians -- and because you happen to adhere to one or only adhere to some of the guiding tenants doesn't nullify your inclusion in the group in general.

But, some fail to understand the basis of basic analogies, so they get wrapped up in catechism definitions of what is a state of grace which is completely inapplicable. The whole point of an analogy is that they share a similar relationship (not that all issues are perfectly parallel). Man, I hope such people don't make their living on critical thinking and reasoning skills.

All Christians believe in salvation through faith in Jesus. The disagreement is mostly over whether that is enough.

All Christians believe in salvation through faith in Jesus.

Even that isn't true.

All Christians believe in salvation through faith in Jesus.

Even that isn't true.

Who not? I thought that was a key part of the major creeds?

All Christians believe in salvation through faith in Jesus.

Even that isn't true.

Who not? I thought that was a key part of the major creeds?

You don't need to believe in the divinity of Jesus to be a Christian, as evidenced by many of the founding fathers.

That would be an interesting debate - are Unitarians Christian?

The Paleolithic diet, also popularly referred to as the caveman diet, Stone Age diet and hunter-gatherer diet.

The diet is based on several premises, one of which is that human ancestors evolved for thousands of years and became well-adapted to foods of the Paleolithic era. Advocates argue that food cultivation and preparation greatly declined in quality about 10,000 years ago, with the advent of agriculture and domestication of animals and that humans have not evolved to properly digest new foods such as grain, legumes, and dairy, much less the highly-processed and high-calorie processed foods that are so readily available and cheap, and this has led to modern-day problems such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Advocates claim that followers of the diet may enjoy a longer, healthier, more active life.

I don't really understand how people could claim people will live longer on a diet fad that started in the 2000's when all the research we have of the paleolithic era shows that "cavemen" had significantly shorter lifespans than even some of the most unhealthy of us now.

I'm not saying don't try it. It seems to have good aspects. But I think it's probably blown out of proportion.

For the last three years I've been studying diet fads. This statement is simply untrue, as are most statements in this thread. For what it's worth, I am not a biochemical expert (although I did major in biological sciences), but I have been eating almost strictly paleo for the last 3 years (not because it's a fad or because I believe in the history of the diet, but because no scientist or nutritionist can tell me what nutrition I am not able to get on the diet that I could get with foods that aren't allowed on the diet).

The diet did not start in the 2000's. The origins of the diet idea date back to the late 60s. Scientific research on the diet started in the mid-1980s, and it was largely left alone, not gaining a lot of public recognition. In the 90s the Atkins diet came along, and, put simply, overshadowed the paleolithic diet because it was better publicized. In the mid-2000s the Atkins diet fell out of favor due to scientific studies, one in particular that suggested increased levels of a marker protein for heart disease. After that numerous diets fell in and out of favor, then came the paleo diet. I am not a marketing expert, so I don't know exactly why it gained so much popularity, but it did around the beginning of 2012 (many suggest it's due to a book published in 2010, but the diet did not gain popularity until over a year later, so I don't subscribe to that).

As for the people saying it's difficult to know what is allowed on the diet and what isn't, that is a major problem with the diet. Ironically, the problem stems from how the diet originated in the first place (which also makes it difficult to conduct studies). The fact that the diet is supposed to be based on what was eaten in the paleolithic era makes it difficult to determine what is allowed and what isn't because at this point we only have guesses as to what was eaten in that era. Additionally, most people don't understand food preparation or have enough knowledge about food to know what can be eaten on the diet. A common example is corn, which most people think is a vegetable, when it is in fact a grain. The easiest way, in my opinion, to start is to determine whether fire is required to make a food edible, and if it is, that food is not allowed on the paleo diet. But this also causes problems. No one in their right mind would eat chicken raw, but chicken is allowed on the diet. Why? Well, first of all, it is a low-fat protein source so it's necessary for it to be allowed on the diet, but that's not really an explanation of why it would've been eaten by paleo era humans. More likely, it's because the diseases in chicken were not around in that period, but how would anyone know that. Carrots can be eaten raw, but if you cook them are they allowed on the paleo diet? Most would argue no, because cooking carrots changes their chemical composition, so although the paleo diet is not a raw food diet, you cannot cook everything that you would otherwise be allowed to eat. Can you eat raw baby carrots? No, they have been genetically engineered and their chemical composition is thus different from the chemical composition of regular carrots.

After a while, you start to get used to what you're allowed to eat and what you're not and you can make educated guesses as to whether you can eat something.

The fact is, the diet in and of itself is, at least at this point in time, believed to be healthy as long as you don't overdo meats. Most critics argue against the origin of the diet. Which is fair, but these critiques are generally from historians and scientific historians, not dieticians, nutritionists, or the like. If you want to argue against whether the diet is really the diet of those during the paleo era, that's fine, and in all likelihood, you'd probably win that argument. But it's generally a moot point when determining whether or not a diet is healthy.

I didn't read many of the other posts but I am starting paleo-esque. Paleo is more of a mind-set and what I would consider a "low-grain" diet. You can still eat carbs (sweet potatoes, carbohydrates through fruits, etc.). What I've found is that the main thing it allowed me to do is cut out sugars which was SUPER hard for me, that is why I chose this "diet" anyways.

Really when shopping you just have to think "Is this paleo?" which, more simply put, "Does this have processed grains, processed sugars, or a bunch of ingredients I don't know what they are?" If the answer to those three questions is no, eat it.

Now, I said I do paleo-esque because I'm not super restrictive to the point of insanity. My work provided us with sub sandwiches for lunch so I went for it instead of not eating the bread. The other day I put 1/4 cup heavy cream in a soup I made *gasp*, and I still use greek yogurt for vegetable dips.

Really, it seems paleo have evolved more of just an "eat clean" mentality. I DEFINITELY have noticed I feel better after having started this diet. I don't have as many crashes during the day and I feel full longer. That comes from just putting quality food into your body that won't cause blood sugar spike.

Maybe I don't find this change that hard because I'm lactose intolerant so technically I shouldn't have dairy anyways (though I seriously can't stop eating cheese!), never really liked pasta (which many people have a hard time with), and didn't have sandwiches, etc. often. The only hard thing is not having granola bars, though I supplement that by having larabars.

Wow, this turned out long! Sorry! Basically just make simple paleo substitutions in your basic meal plan and it will decrease calories regardless and allow for weight loss. I have been using a bunch of simple things like cauliflower for "rice" and using turnips instead of potatoes in soups, and I started using sweet potatoes instead of beans in chili. Seems good for me so far!

Weight loss is simply calories in versus calories out. No gimmicks, no books. It simply means eat less, move more. Something that no one has figured out a way to sell yet-LOL.

This is absolutely true. There is no question about this whatsoever. The PROBLEM is that people generally don't understand what this means and they oversimplify it. Eating an 100 calorie banana and an 100 calorie piece of chocolate are two different things. Why? Clearly the calorie intake is the same. The difference is calories out. When you substitute the banana for the chocolate your calorie exertion increases. (That is a major over-simplification, but it has to do with the nutrients involved and how your body processes the food). And THAT is why certain diets have an effect on the way you lose weight. It's why calorie counting diets are not entirely accurate because your resting calories exerted are different based on what you eat. For the record, I'm not knocking calorie counting diets, I'm just saying that it matters where you get the calories from.

Seriously?

Are you offended by what the above person said? It makes perfect sense. You can eat a 1000 calorie burger from Mcdonalds or 1000 calorie meal of chicken and steamed vegetables. Which one gives you more bang for your buck nutrients wise?

Calories in vs. calories out. It IS that simple for losing weight. For being HEALTHY (heart, organs, etc.) it isn't that simple. You still need to get all of your vitamins, daily values, etc. etc. You can't do that by eating 10-100 calorie pieces of chocolate, though *technically* that is going to end up a calorie deficit and you would lose weight.

Weight loss is simply calories in versus calories out. No gimmicks, no books. It simply means eat less, move more. Something that no one has figured out a way to sell yet-LOL.

This is absolutely true. There is no question about this whatsoever. The PROBLEM is that people generally don't understand what this means and they oversimplify it. Eating an 100 calorie banana and an 100 calorie piece of chocolate are two different things. Why? Clearly the calorie intake is the same. The difference is calories out. When you substitute the banana for the chocolate your calorie exertion increases. (That is a major over-simplification, but it has to do with the nutrients involved and how your body processes the food). And THAT is why certain diets have an effect on the way you lose weight. It's why calorie counting diets are not entirely accurate because your resting calories exerted are different based on what you eat. For the record, I'm not knocking calorie counting diets, I'm just saying that it matters where you get the calories from.

Seriously?

Are you offended by what the above person said? It makes perfect sense. You can eat a 1000 calorie burger from Mcdonalds or 1000 calorie meal of chicken and steamed vegetables. Which one gives you more bang for your buck nutrients wise?

Calories in vs. calories out. It IS that simple for losing weight. For being HEALTHY (heart, organs, etc.) it isn't that simple. You still need to get all of your vitamins, daily values, etc. etc. You can't do that by eating 10-100 calorie pieces of chocolate, though *technically* that is going to end up a calorie deficit and you would lose weight.

Did you actually read what he posted? He didn't say anything about "healthy". He specifically addressed weight loss/CICO and said that 100 banana calories <> 100 chocolate calories.

Weight loss is simply calories in versus calories out. No gimmicks, no books. It simply means eat less, move more. Something that no one has figured out a way to sell yet-LOL.

This is absolutely true. There is no question about this whatsoever. The PROBLEM is that people generally don't understand what this means and they oversimplify it. Eating an 100 calorie banana and an 100 calorie piece of chocolate are two different things. Why? Clearly the calorie intake is the same. The difference is calories out. When you substitute the banana for the chocolate your calorie exertion increases. (That is a major over-simplification, but it has to do with the nutrients involved and how your body processes the food). And THAT is why certain diets have an effect on the way you lose weight. It's why calorie counting diets are not entirely accurate because your resting calories exerted are different based on what you eat. For the record, I'm not knocking calorie counting diets, I'm just saying that it matters where you get the calories from.

Seriously?

I'm not sure what that comment means, so if you'd like to elaborate I can speak to your comment. If you're generally disagreeing with the fact that different foods have different effects on what you burn, I can tell you that you are surely wrong, and that is not a disputed statement in the scientific community. Different foods affect hormone levels differently. Those different hormones cause changes to your metabolism.

If you are specifically arguing that chocolate and bananas aren't different, then I would say that maybe you are right because I don't have specific definitive evidence to back that up as I do not know the exact affects that those two foods have on hormone levels.

If you are referring to the thermic effect of food (the amount of calories it takes to digest and burn food) then yes, that is a 'real' thing - but its frankly a pretty small difference so outside of dietary extremes its fairly meaningless. And even within dietary extremes, its not huge. Maybe 1-200 cals worth of burn in a normal 2000 calorie diet?

If you are referring to some kind of magic where your body looks at micronutrients and thinks "potassium? better burn more calories!"

Then.

Well.

...... Well.

but FTR - chocolate has caffeine and a banana does not. Caffeine has a reasonable thermic effect. A banana does have fiber though, which chocolate also has but not usually once its been processed and mixed with fat and sugar. So. Well.

I don't even know why I bothered responding to this. DAMN YOU JOF.

ETA: on glancing at the thermic effects of various macronutrients, I would maybe want to adjust my estimates upwards if I could be arsed to do even simple arithmetic for you. But my general point stands.

Weight loss is simply calories in versus calories out. No gimmicks, no books. It simply means eat less, move more. Something that no one has figured out a way to sell yet-LOL.

This is absolutely true. There is no question about this whatsoever. The PROBLEM is that people generally don't understand what this means and they oversimplify it. Eating an 100 calorie banana and an 100 calorie piece of chocolate are two different things. Why? Clearly the calorie intake is the same. The difference is calories out. When you substitute the banana for the chocolate your calorie exertion increases. (That is a major over-simplification, but it has to do with the nutrients involved and how your body processes the food). And THAT is why certain diets have an effect on the way you lose weight. It's why calorie counting diets are not entirely accurate because your resting calories exerted are different based on what you eat. For the record, I'm not knocking calorie counting diets, I'm just saying that it matters where you get the calories from.

Seriously?

I'm not sure what that comment means, so if you'd like to elaborate I can speak to your comment. If you're generally disagreeing with the fact that different foods have different effects on what you burn, I can tell you that you are surely wrong, and that is not a disputed statement in the scientific community. Different foods affect hormone levels differently. Those different hormones cause changes to your metabolism.

If you are specifically arguing that chocolate and bananas aren't different, then I would say that maybe you are right because I don't have specific definitive evidence to back that up as I do not know the exact affects that those two foods have on hormone levels.

If you are referring to the thermic effect of food (the amount of calories it takes to digest and burn food) then yes, that is a 'real' thing - but its frankly a pretty small difference so outside of dietary extremes its fairly meaningless. And even within dietary extremes, its not huge. Maybe 1-200 cals worth of burn in a normal 2000 calorie diet?

If you are referring to some kind of magic where your body looks at micronutrients and thinks "potassium? better burn more calories!"

Then.

Well.

...... Well.

but FTR - chocolate has caffeine and a banana does not. Caffeine has a reasonable thermic effect. A banana does have fiber though, which chocolate also has but not usually once its been processed and mixed with fat and sugar. So. Well.

I don't even know why I bothered responding to this. DAMN YOU JOF.

ETA: on glancing at the thermic effects of various macronutrients, I would maybe want to adjust my estimates upwards if I could be arsed to do even simple arithmetic for you. But my general point stands.

Just so that I'm clear, are you arguing that two identically situated individuals, that eat completely different diets but consume the same exact number of calories will lose or gain the exact same amount of weight?

You clearly don't understand the mechanics. Yes, your body reacts differently to potassium than it does to any other molecule. Hormones are designed to keep levels of various molecules relatively stable. When the levels of molecules in your body change due to food consumption, your body produces more or less hormones to account for this. The production of various hormones causes changes in your body, and results in a different calorie expenditure. The most common and well known hormones in the dietary context are insulin and glucagon.

Voted the worst diet of 2014. . . . .

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet

Yeah Johnny!

Easiest to follow: rank 27th.

Is mole and tortillas paleo?

No?

Screw it, I'm starting Meso eating!

Mole negro!
Tortillas!
The hearts of the fallen! (Vegans)

I always knew I could end up on the menus of bears and mountain lions, but MFP posters? :frown:

In any case, for food quality, I'm far more interested in organic than whether cavemen ate it. Especially after reading about a possible link between herbicides and pesticides and diabetes.

Voted the worst diet of 2014. . . . .

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet

Yeah Johnny!

Easiest to follow: rank 27th.

Media must be sponsored by the wheat and grain board. There are many many worse diets. I don't see why people are against paleo. It is getting back to eating unadulterated wholesome natural food grown in a more ethical way. Why does food need to be processed??? Convenience, and to make the processors of the food lots of money. Corn and grain is cheap to produce lots of mark up.

Ignoring the economic argument that you close with and focusing solely on the question, "Why are people against paleo?"

Semantics, extremism, faddishness, and arbitrariness.

One can eat fresh fruits, vegetables and other produce without labelling it Paleo. The distinction between "paleo" and "eating fresh produce" is that Paleo in its most attainable form eschews all 'processed' foods.

A true paleo diet would not include iodized salt, things of that nature.

It's needlessly restrictive. UNLESS! You don't actually universally observe "paleo" eating. In which case, why bother describing your diet as paleo when all you're really doing is trying to eat more fresh produce?

When you combine these logical issues with the implied and at times express belief in dietary superiority (lol) of "true" paleo adherents, it makes the whole thing a mock-worthy mess of stupid and lame.