"Paleo diet" - 70% fat???

To the OP -
I don't completely adhere to a Paleo diet, but I follow the more relaxed Primal Blueprint version, which allows for an 80/20 split (80% adherence, 20% off-diet stuff such as dairy, processed meats and other modern, low-carb goodies). My ratios are about 10% carbs, 40% protein, and 50% fat (which usually vary by about 5% up or down). At 1600 calories a day, that's around 40g of carbs, but I do increase it proportionally when I've worked out so I can replenish the glycogen in my muscles. I don't have any brain fog problems (I actually can't - I teach and that would be disastrous) nor do I have problems losing muscle mass. I may be overweight, but I actually carry a significant amount of muscle for a female (my body fat % is around 30%, which puts me at about 150 pounds of lean mass on my 5'7" frame). So far I've lost 17 pounds, maintained that through multiple health problems, and have now started to lose fat again.
I've learned through my own research that you can't really trust anyone else's opinions when it comes down to your own health. I sat in the exact same spot as you for at least a year, debating whether I should do this or not.... Eventually I just made the time to read the information and decide for myself. If I had to choose one book that I really think you should start with, it's Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes. It's an easy read, information dense but not incomprehensible. It is heavily referenced and provides a perfect starting point for whatever eating plan you decide to go for, even if it its moderate carbs instead of paleo/primal. I've read a bunch of others, and it's not where I started, but it's what I recommend now.
If you have any more questions, feel free to message me. I don't mind talking it out in a non-judgemental kind of way, but I don't like my lifestyle being attacked by people who don't understand it so I rarely participate in this kind of topic any more other than one post.

I eat PLENTY carbs and I do fine. I am not about to risk my muscle mass because the assumption "carbs are bad."

Really? That's what you're afraid of? Losing muscle mass? You've got the wrong idea, buddy. Paleo & Primal puts muscle ON. The rapid fat loss on the lifestyle helps one look even more ripped. How could you not gain muscle eating steak and other yummy things? Tell it to my 140 lb tricep dip or the fact that I easily jumped up 20 lbs in the weight room just a short time ago.

To the OP -
I don't completely adhere to a Paleo diet, but I follow the more relaxed Primal Blueprint version, which allows for an 80/20 split (80% adherence, 20% off-diet stuff such as dairy, processed meats and other modern, low-carb goodies). My ratios are about 10% carbs, 40% protein, and 50% fat (which usually vary by about 5% up or down). At 1600 calories a day, that's around 40g of carbs, but I do increase it proportionally when I've worked out so I can replenish the glycogen in my muscles. I don't have any brain fog problems (I actually can't - I teach and that would be disastrous) nor do I have problems losing muscle mass. I may be overweight, but I actually carry a significant amount of muscle for a female (my body fat % is around 30%, which puts me at about 150 pounds of lean mass on my 5'7" frame). So far I've lost 17 pounds, maintained that through multiple health problems, and have now started to lose fat again.
I've learned through my own research that you can't really trust anyone else's opinions when it comes down to your own health. I sat in the exact same spot as you for at least a year, debating whether I should do this or not.... Eventually I just made the time to read the information and decide for myself. If I had to choose one book that I really think you should start with, it's Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes. It's an easy read, information dense but not incomprehensible. It is heavily referenced and provides a perfect starting point for whatever eating plan you decide to go for, even if it its moderate carbs instead of paleo/primal. I've read a bunch of others, and it's not where I started, but it's what I recommend now.
If you have any more questions, feel free to message me. I don't mind talking it out in a non-judgemental kind of way, but I don't like my lifestyle being attacked by people who don't understand it so I rarely participate in this kind of topic any more other than one post.

We have already established that Gary Taubes is a fake. No credibility.

The primal blueprint has no scientific backing.

I would like to see at least a real clinical trial on the effects of a paleo diet. Not just what a guy with no medical or biology background says.

I think we all have to do what is right and working for us. As long as you are getting the nutrition your body needs and your Dr. tells you your numbers are good. Go for it. But if your going on a diet and cutting out any food group, you should have a follow up with a Physician. Just my opinion.

http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html

An interesting bit on the opposing side to the Paleo diet.

Good read and he references REAL doctors. Crazy.

Even if you don't subscribe to vegetarianism (I did for 4 years so I don't get mad when they talk about how our bodies don't NEED a bunch of meat) it is still interesting to think about why our digestive system is the way it is. And, that humans have always been humans and ate foods by choice, not just instinct.

I lost 85 lbs before as a vegetarian (weight gain is a complicated story) and I am losing weight now as an omnivore. One portion of carb (slice of ww bread or cup of ww pasta), one portion of protein (3-5 oz of fish or chicken) and lots of veggies per meal with protein snacks (string cheese, nuts, greek yogurt, protein bar). At my last body scan, I had lost 25 lbs of pure fat and maintained all the muscle.

It works for me so I am sticking to it

I eat PLENTY carbs and I do fine. I am not about to risk my muscle mass because the assumption "carbs are bad."

Really? That's what you're afraid of? Losing muscle mass? You've got the wrong idea, buddy. Paleo & Primal puts muscle ON. The rapid fat loss on the lifestyle helps one look even more ripped. How could you not gain muscle eating steak and other yummy things? Tell it to my 140 lb tricep dip or the fact that I easily jumped up 20 lbs in the weight room just a short time ago.

So you're telling me when my body runs out of carbs it uses.... fat to power my workouts??? Oh no, you have that all wrong. Just because you eat protein does not mean it builds muscle, there is an order to everything.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/information/nutrition/ammonia-sweat-smell.htm

but isn't that what keto does?
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/keto.htm

I'll believe a doctor with research on that subject. Not some power lifter who thinks he knows whats right.

http://women.webmd.com/guide/high-protein-low-carbohydrate-diets

Unhealthy metabolic state (ketosis). Low-carb diets can cause your body to go into a dangerous metabolic state called ketosis since your body burns fat instead of glucose for energy. During ketosis, the body forms substances known as ketones, which can cause organs to fail and result in gout, kidney stones, or kidney failure. Ketones can also dull a person's appetite, cause nausea and bad breath. Ketosis can be prevented by eating at least 100 grams of carbohydrates a day.

The appendix still has a function. Unfortunately I don't have an answer about why it malfunctions and needs removing.

It is speculated it might have a function but never proven. It fills with waste and rots and that's why it needs to be removed.

More widely accepted it that it used to contain enzymes that broke down the high fiber diets our ancestors ate.

I was taught that the appendix has become useless and atrophied over time because it's function was to aid in the digestion of raw meat. Since humans started cooking their food the body has evolved over time. It sometimes gets inflammed and needs to be removed because of the reason above. It fills with fecal matter and because it does not have the same peristalsis function as the rest of the colon it can not move the fecal matter the way the rest of the colon.

That's the first time I've heard that one. Can you provide a source?

EDIT: Nevermind, found one. But just like the fiber digestion, nobody can prove it.

The appendix still has a function. Unfortunately I don't have an answer about why it malfunctions and needs removing.

It is speculated it might have a function but never proven. It fills with waste and rots and that's why it needs to be removed.

More widely accepted it that it used to contain enzymes that broke down the high fiber diets our ancestors ate.

I was taught that the appendix has become useless and atrophied over time because it's function was to aid in the digestion of raw meat. Since humans started cooking their food the body has evolved over time. It sometimes gets inflammed and needs to be removed because of the reason above. It fills with fecal matter and because it does not have the same peristalsis function as the rest of the colon it can not move the fecal matter the way the rest of the colon.

That's the first time I've heard that one. Can you provide a source?

EDIT: Nevermind, found one. But just like the fiber digestion, nobody can prove it.

The source was a radiologist I worked under when I was in clinical training in radiology.

Home » Ask the Experts »
Ask the Experts | Health
What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost?

| October 21, 1999 | 11

.ShareEmailPrint.
Loren G. Martin, professor of physiology at Oklahoma State University, replies:

"For years, the appendix was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults. Endocrine cells appear in the appendix of the human fetus at around the 11th week of development. These endocrine cells of the fetal appendix have been shown to produce various biogenic amines and peptide hormones, compounds that assist with various biological control (homeostatic) mechanisms. There had been little prior evidence of this or any other role of the appendix in animal research, because the appendix does not exist in domestic mammals.

"Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions. Lymphoid tissue begins to accumulate in the appendix shortly after birth and reaches a peak between the second and third decades of life, decreasing rapidly thereafter and practically disappearing after the age of 60. During the early years of development, however, the appendix has been shown to function as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies. Researchers have also shown that the appendix is involved in the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body.

"In this context, the function of the appendix appears to be to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens, or foreign substances, present in the gastrointestinal tract. Thus, the appendix probably helps to suppress potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity. The appendix--like the tiny structures called Peyer's patches in other areas of the gastrointestinal tract--takes up antigens from the contents of the intestines and reacts to these contents. This local immune system plays a vital role in the physiological immune response and in the control of food, drug, microbial or viral antigens. The connection between these local immune reactions and inflammatory bowel diseases, as well as autoimmune reactions in which the individual's own tissues are attacked by the immune system, is currently under investigation.

"In the past, the appendix was often routinely removed and discarded during other abdominal surgeries to prevent any possibility of a later attack of appendicitis; the appendix is now spared in case it is needed later for reconstructive surgery if the urinary bladder is removed. In such surgery, a section of the intestine is formed into a replacement bladder, and the appendix is used to re-create a 'sphincter muscle' so that the patient remains continent (able to retain urine). In addition, the appendix has been successfully fashioned into a makeshift replacement for a diseased ureter, allowing urine to flow from the kidneys to the bladder. As a result, the appendix, once regarded as a nonfunctional tissue, is now regarded as an important 'back-up' that can be used in a variety of reconstructive surgical techniques. It is no longer routinely removed and discarded if it is healthy.


Found this on Scientific American. Interesting!

The appendix still has a function. Unfortunately I don't have an answer about why it malfunctions and needs removing.

It is speculated it might have a function but never proven. It fills with waste and rots and that's why it needs to be removed.

More widely accepted it that it used to contain enzymes that broke down the high fiber diets our ancestors ate.

I was taught that the appendix has become useless and atrophied over time because it's function was to aid in the digestion of raw meat. Since humans started cooking their food the body has evolved over time. It sometimes gets inflammed and needs to be removed because of the reason above. It fills with fecal matter and because it does not have the same peristalsis function as the rest of the colon it can not move the fecal matter the way the rest of the colon.

That's the first time I've heard that one. Can you provide a source?

EDIT: Nevermind, found one. But just like the fiber digestion, nobody can prove it.

If you don't want to do it, that's fine. But is it really necessary to attack those who choose the lifestyle for themselves and are having success with it?