Paleo Eating

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.

I can't be the only one that found the comparison of the Paleo diet to a religion a bit comical?

You aren't the only one. Ridiculous.

Several thousand year old religions are just like fad diets that became popular last year, guys.

Did I tell you I keep kosher, but I eat bacon sometimes? It's really hard to stick to it 100%, this is the real world.

And yet there are quite a few jews that don't keep Kosher. You should tell them right away that they aren't really Jews. I'm sure they'll appreciate it,

I didn't think that Judaism was about diet, but about ethnic heritage. You can be non-practicing but still ethnically Jewish.

However - if you eat pork, you aren't Kosher, no matter Kosher you are in your heart and mindset or the fact that you keep Kosher 99% of the time.

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.

People generally believe what diet they are doing is superior to all other diets. So while most people on the paleo diet believe that, and probably try to convince others that that is the best diet, it's the same for other diets as well.

Diets are individualized. The best diet for some is not the best diet for others (if one can't follow a diet, it doesn't matter how scientifically effective it is, it is not an effective diet for that person). I'd agree that it is restrictive, and very likely needlessly restrictive. If one can't follow that, it is not a good diet for them.

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.

People generally believe what diet they are doing is superior to all other diets. So while most people on the paleo diet believe that, and probably try to convince others that that is the best diet, it's the same for other diets as well.

Diets are individualized. The best diet for some is not the best diet for others (if one can't follow a diet, it doesn't matter how scientifically effective it is, it is not an effective diet for that person). I'd agree that it is restrictive, and very likely needlessly restrictive. If one can't follow that, it is not a good diet for them.

I'm not on a diet. I just eat the food I like within my calorie goals.

The silliness comes in when you say a person can't be "truly" healthy without following the set of guidelines.

Further silliness ensues when you say that you follow this set of guidelines and then don't.

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.

People generally believe what diet they are doing is superior to all other diets. So while most people on the paleo diet believe that, and probably try to convince others that that is the best diet, it's the same for other diets as well.

Diets are individualized. The best diet for some is not the best diet for others (if one can't follow a diet, it doesn't matter how scientifically effective it is, it is not an effective diet for that person). I'd agree that it is restrictive, and very likely needlessly restrictive. If one can't follow that, it is not a good diet for them.

I'm not on a diet. I just eat the food I like within my calorie goals.

The silliness comes in when you say a person can't be "truly" healthy without following the set of guidelines.

Further silliness ensues when you say that you follow this set of guidelines and then don't.

A diet is what you eat on a daily basis. Everyone is on a diet.

Yes.

My diet is not superior to anyone else's - - it's just mine. It's what I tend to eat on a regular basis and is comprised of the foods available to me, those which I enjoy, those whose prep time is within my free time, and which en total fit my nutritional goals, except to the extent I prioritze other factors such as taste or craving for overarching nutritive objectives.

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.

The "exertion" you're talking about, is wrong.

Some foods do take more energy to process than others, but the difference is insignificant next to the errors introduced through estimation.

Summary conclusions are fun, but provide nothing. Saying I'm wrong is fine, and I've been wrong about a lot of things, so I'm not offended about being wrong. However, your conclusion that I'm wrong isn't based on anything. Show me scientific studies. Since I'm asking for scientific studies showing I'm wrong, I think it's only fair to provide studies backing up my point, so here is one (I've chosen a study that is accessible for free, there are many other ones, but it's not fair to provide studies that people can't read):

Journal of the American Medical Association, January 4, 2012, Effect of Dietary Protein Content on Weight Gain, Energy Expenditure, and Body Composition During Overeating. Bray, George, et. al.
(Finding that participants eating the same number of calories per day gained more weight in the high protein diet group than the normal protein diet group and more weight in the normal protein diet group than the low protein diet group). In other words, there is a statistically relevant difference in terms of the amount of weight gained based on the composition of the diet when caloric intake remained the same.

Quoting specifically: "Resting energy expenditure in the low protein group was significantly lower during the 8 weeks of overeating than the other 2 protein groups (P<.001)... The increase in resting energy expenditure was strongly related to protein intake (r=0.75, P<.001)."

Also: "The low protein diet group gained less weight than the normal or high protein groups when extra calories were eaten."
Do you think their conclusion is wrong? Is it not backed up by their data? Is their scientific method flawed? Is their data collection mechanism flawed?
I'd be the first to admit that experiments can be wrong, but since I've pointed to a specific and recent study, you should be able to dispute it if you are so convinced. You can either dispute it by providing a contradictory study, or by pointing to flaws in the individual study.

It should be noted that Bray is actually arguing for the importance of measuring calories in diets. His conclusion has to do with "increases in body fat." That is not what is being argued in this thread, but he does believe that calories are more important than protein while with respect to increases in body fat. But you specifically claimed that different diet compositions have no effect on weight gain, which as evidenced in this study, is simply untrue.

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.

People generally believe what diet they are doing is superior to all other diets. So while most people on the paleo diet believe that, and probably try to convince others that that is the best diet, it's the same for other diets as well.

Diets are individualized. The best diet for some is not the best diet for others (if one can't follow a diet, it doesn't matter how scientifically effective it is, it is not an effective diet for that person). I'd agree that it is restrictive, and very likely needlessly restrictive. If one can't follow that, it is not a good diet for them.

I'm not on a diet. I just eat the food I like within my calorie goals.

The silliness comes in when you say a person can't be "truly" healthy without following the set of guidelines.

Further silliness ensues when you say that you follow this set of guidelines and then don't.

A diet is what you eat on a daily basis. Everyone is on a diet.

I'd argue that there is a difference between "my diet" and "A diet."

I am not on a diet. I have a diet.

Then you would be arguing just for the sake of arguing since the poster you were replying to was using diet in the general sense in my opinion.

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.

People generally believe what diet they are doing is superior to all other diets. So while most people on the paleo diet believe that, and probably try to convince others that that is the best diet, it's the same for other diets as well.

Diets are individualized. The best diet for some is not the best diet for others (if one can't follow a diet, it doesn't matter how scientifically effective it is, it is not an effective diet for that person). I'd agree that it is restrictive, and very likely needlessly restrictive. If one can't follow that, it is not a good diet for them.

I'm not on a diet. I just eat the food I like within my calorie goals.

The silliness comes in when you say a person can't be "truly" healthy without following the set of guidelines.

Further silliness ensues when you say that you follow this set of guidelines and then don't.

A diet is what you eat on a daily basis. Everyone is on a diet.

I'd argue that there is a difference between "my diet" and "A diet."

I am not on a diet. I have a diet.

Then you would be arguing just for the sake of arguing since the poster you were replying to was using diet in the general sense in my opinion.

"...doing...a diet"
"...on the Paleo Diet"
"...follow a diet"

I don't "follow" a diet.
I have a generally strategy for meeting my dietary requirements within my calorie goals, but I'm not "on" a diet.

Okay... whatever you say.

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.

This response is fabulous.

This is a question about coconut flour...

Hey everyone, my naturopathic doctor recommended I eat Paleo (long story short).

I tried it for a week, and had the most intense stomach pains ever! (I think/know I was eating too little, but I was worried that it might be from too much meat.)

I was wondering what your (anyone's) take is on coconut flour. Is it Paleo? I see it called for in a LOT of "Paleo" recipes, but I don't quite know. I see coconut oil as Paleo all over the place, but is what about the flour?

I'm considering going paleo. What brand of coffee do primitive man drink?

Don't worry. I think Reebok is coming out with their own brand of paleo coffee next month.

Thanks Lindsey!