"Paleo diet" - 70% fat???

12357…12

Replies

  • dls06
    dls06 Posts: 6,774 Member
    I don't think the food pyramid is telling you to eat mcdonalds and lucky charms they are saying a balance of fruit, veg, meat and whole grains. Advitisers tell us is telling you how to eat not the big bad government, (doesn't anyone have a mind of their own, they are always looking for someone to blame). If you are stupid enough to believe them then that is on you. If we choose to get your nutrition out of a box or from a pilll or from processed foods that is your fault. Don't blame the Government for people being lazy............
  • tross0924
    tross0924 Posts: 909 Member
    To attack the Paleo diet as a fad, unscientific, or unhealthy, is nothing but un-researched ignorance. Anyone that has actually researched the Paleo diet knows there are plenty of (actual) Doctors that will back it up, there is plenty of research to back it up, and there is plenty of real people showing real results. Is it perfect? I doubt it. But in the opinion of many it is much more perfect than the BS shoveled by the FDA’s food pyramid.

    Sigh . . . The thing that frustrates me the most I think is the "don't attack me while I rip on you" attitude. I don't think anyone except someone defending the Paleo diet putting words into someone else's mouth said that the food Pyramid is perfect for all. It's not, but neither is the Paleo diet.

    I agree with the Doc, and most others it seems, here that processed foods suck, but in my personal opinion they don't suck as much as the level of inactivity we've subjected ourselves to. I think consuming a pound of refined white sugar a day over the course of the day would be just fine, provided you were running 50 miles a day. (OK extreme example, and no, this probably wouldn't really be a good thing, but you get the idea)

    As far as carbs fueling a work out over protein. I think it really depends on your goals. If your goal is to keep moving and exercise, burn some calories, improve your cardiovascular health, then you're body will run just fine on protein, fat, and very few carbs. If your goal is to run the fastest, or lift the most, then I think you need to have the carbs available in a greater quantity to get the best possible performance. And this is where it could effect your muscle mass. Not that your body burns your muscle mass to fuel cadio or any other exercise with readily available calories in the form of proteins and fat, but that in order to increase muscle mass you have to really really stress your muscles. Which isn't impossible to do on the Paleo diet, but it is slightly easier with higher carbs because you can do/lift just a little bit more than otherwise.

    I think the reason both DrBorkBork and freerange have see such an increase in strength since the switched could be one of 2 reasons. In freerange's case I think that if you haven't lifted in a while then you're going through what everybody that starts lifting weights goes through. The first time you pick up a weight you're weak and can barely move it. The second time your even weaker (there's a standard drop in performance at the beginning of any weight lifting). But after that your body starts adapting crazy fast and you make big gains.

    Your strength, measured by how much you can lift, increase radically. This increase comes because your body is increasing the energy storage in the muscles you're using, not necessarily that the fibers themselves are getting bigger and stronger, but that the energy they have available when they're called to do the work is greater. Eventually you hit a point where the current mass you have with as much energy as can be stored there, isn't enough to show an increase in the amount you lift. This is where your body has to grow by increasing mass and bringing in additional storage so that it can work harder. And this is where the fast gains come to an end and you join life with the rest of the people who've been lifting for a while.

    As for DrBorkBork's increase, it could be because of this reason, or it could be because of the nutrition. If you've reached a point where you're stores are at their max and you're lifting the most you can with you're available mass, then the second thing you have to do is feed your body essential amino acids so that it can repair and create new tissue. If you're diet is very high in carbs then the chances of you being able to provide the damaged muscles with the proper amounts of building material are fairly low. Once you did start eating more protein, that get's broken down into those building blocks, then you're muscles started repairing the damage that'd been done over the last few weeks/months, and you'd see a fairly quick jump in strength once repairs got underway.

    The problem I could see with a 70% fat diet would be 2 things. 1 - It might be just as hard to get the necessary protein to rebuild the damaged muscles as with a 70% carb diet. And 2 - from a purely volume perspective I'd think I'd wind up ravenous all the time. I mean 1 Tbs of Olive oil vs 4 egg whites. There's a lot more food in 4 egg whites than in a table spoon of olive oil, but the calories are fairly close. And no matter where they come from if you eat more calories than you need, they get stored as fat.
  • mrphil86
    mrphil86 Posts: 2,382 Member
    I don't think the food pyramid is telling you to eat mcdonalds and lucky charms they are saying a balance of fruit, veg, meat and whole grains. Advitisers tell us is telling you how to eat not the big bad government, (doesn't anyone have a mind of their own, they are always looking for someone to blame). If you are stupid enough to believe them then that is on you. If we choose to get your nutrition out of a box or from a pilll or from processed foods that is your fault. Don't blame the Government for people being lazy............

    I agree with the statement. I'm not sure where in the food pyramid does it say eat processed foods.

    I do not think the food pyramid works every time, not did I say that. I don't even follow the food pyramid exactly. My diet is based off of it because I have had luck with it. I've managed my weight and size for years. Never been over weight, sick, or any other problems with my health.

    I never said grains were awesome and we should bow before their feet. I hardly eat grains (except for rice.) as it is but I do eat plenty of carbs. If it's high wild game meats, i'm all for that as well. (I grew up in the mountains of Idaho.) But again, my argument was about the fat.

    EDIT: 100% agree with tross. Thank you for that.
  • cutmd
    cutmd Posts: 1,168 Member
    I agree with DrBorkBork (no fantastic reason to eliminate rice and beans), freerange (I don't think the ignorance part was directed at anyone actively posting but there were some crazy posts earlier), tross (most women don't get enough protein), AND MrPhil :laugh: I agree with the argument but not the aggressive/mean-spirited content of pds.

    Let's get real here - what percentage of the population is basing anything off the food pyramid? Everyone is following advertising, either mcdonalds or the latest fad diet. It's not like we're all fat because we followed the pyramid, there's just no evidence to suggest it's wrong to deviate from it.
    Anyway, I think we can all get along and have a good discussion here.
  • FrodoB
    FrodoB Posts: 19
    My biggest problem with this diet is that the basic logic of it is flawed. Yes in a world where our main objectives for a day was to hunt and gather food of course you needed more fat because you were burning so many calories. And there is no way to know how healthy people where back then.

    Have you ever worked on a farm? It is a lot of work. SE Asian rice farmers spend 3000 hours a year farming. By contrast, tribespeople like the San Bushmen and Amazonian Indians spend as little as two hours a day in pursuit of food and spend the rest of the day telling stories, socializing, playing, and interacting with one another. That costs a lot fewer calories that farming, I'm sure. As to your question about health of primitive populations, Cro Magnon males were about 5'10", about as tall as modern human males. But until recently, humans were much shorter than they are today. For example, in Europe the doorways in old building are uncomfortably small for people today.

    Which raises the question, if hunting and gathering is so great, why do people farm at all? The advantage of agriculture is that it will support a much higher population density, approximately ten times higher. Since humans tend to naturally dislike other humans not of our tribe (it seems), a more populous tribe will almost always kill off a smaller tribe. As a result, the hunter gatherers were pushed into areas of the world unsuitable for agriculture, like deserts or the arctic. Even so, agriculture has spread amazingly slowly across the world. Less than a mile a year.

    Very interesting thread, by the way.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member

    I believe yes, it works. Time and time again, proper diet and exercise is key. Diet based off the food pyramid have ALWAYS worked.

    Actually yes they did say the food pyramid ALWAYS works.

    The fact is, all of our schools have gone overboard pushing the FOOD PYRAMID, the fact is the FDA has spent more and more money pushing the FOOD PYRAMID, the FACT is America is getting fatter and more unhealthy and the FOOD PYRAMID is pushed more and more. Now either the food pyramid doesn't work or the FDA should find better advertising methods. You would think, as the FDA pushes the food pyramid there would be at least some gains in our health. But there has not been any, and in fact we are headed in the wrong direction.
  • tross0924
    tross0924 Posts: 909 Member

    I believe yes, it works. Time and time again, proper diet and exercise is key. Diet based off the food pyramid have ALWAYS worked.

    Actually yes they did say the food pyramid ALWAYS works.

    The fact is, all of our schools have gone overboard pushing the FOOD PYRAMID, the fact is the FDA has spent more and more money pushing the FOOD PYRAMID, the FACT is America is getting fatter and more unhealthy and the FOOD PYRAMID is pushed more and more. Now either the food pyramid doesn't work or the FDA should find better advertising methods. You would think, as the FDA pushes the food pyramid there would be at least some gains in our health. But there has not been any, and in fact we are headed in the wrong direction.

    Err . . . slight point of order here. Saying that diets based on the food pyramid always work isn't the same as saying the food pyramid always works. Nit picky I know, but there it is.

    And correlation is not causation. As America has gotten fatter we've gotten more sedentary. That could be it. Listing an increase in 2 different seemingly related things and saying that one causes the other is not science or fair arguing. As an example - In a given area the larger the number of subscriptions to pornographic magazines there are, the higher the incidence of sexual assault there is. It is false to claim therefore pornography causes sexual assaults. (this is a real statistic BTW, or at least it was when I took psychology courses a few years ago) The actual reason they go up together is because there's more people. More people to subscribe and more bad people mixed in with the rest. So to say that because the food pyramid is being pushed and our health is getting worse means that the food pyramid is to blame, is not proof of anything, and is, in fact, a method of disinformation.
  • FrodoB
    FrodoB Posts: 19
    Anyone read Michael Pollan? So far he's the nutrition expert I believe in the most...

    Michael Pollan has been hugely influential on my thinking regarding diet. He is persuasive without being preachy, which makes him a delight to read. I highly recommend people take the time to read his books.

    Appropriate to this thread, he has a great discussion of primitive diets in one of his books (I believe in the "Omnivore's Dilemma" but I'm not sure). Even by 1900 it was observed there seemed to be diseases associated with modern diets that were unknown in primitive populations.

    Pollan recounts a study done on Australian aborigines who were typical modern diets. They had all the typical problems, like high incidence of Type II diabetes, obesity, etc. However, a small number still had institutional knowledge of hunting and gathering. Researchers took this group and let them live in the bush for a period of time. At the end of the study period, the aborigines lost weight, has normal cholesterol and triglyceride levels, etc. To me, this was a clear signpost that the modern diet ain't all it is cracked up to be.

    Pollan also gives a good discussion why nutrition and diet are so hard to research and why studies sometimes give conflicting results.
  • mrphil86
    mrphil86 Posts: 2,382 Member

    I believe yes, it works. Time and time again, proper diet and exercise is key. Diet based off the food pyramid have ALWAYS worked.

    Actually yes they did say the food pyramid ALWAYS works.

    The fact is, all of our schools have gone overboard pushing the FOOD PYRAMID, the fact is the FDA has spent more and more money pushing the FOOD PYRAMID, the FACT is America is getting fatter and more unhealthy and the FOOD PYRAMID is pushed more and more. Now either the food pyramid doesn't work or the FDA should find better advertising methods. You would think, as the FDA pushes the food pyramid there would be at least some gains in our health. But there has not been any, and in fact we are headed in the wrong direction.

    Yeah, not the same thing.

    I'm not sure you're reasoning why the food pyramid makes people fatter. It does not say eat 3000 calories at McDonalds and sit on your couch America.

    Just like I explained someone earlier, when I'm doing cardio intensive workout phase, I eat about 45% carbs, 35% protein, and 20% fat.

    When I'm in my bulking phase it goes 45% protein, 35% carbs, and 20% fat.

    I got this diet from the principles of the food pyramid and experimenting around. It works for me. Is this diet for everyone? No.

    If I just happen to be sitting around for a couple of months for some reason, it would be even closer to the pyramid. It's not my bible. I'm just saying, I've never seen anyone do something similar to this and exercise and watch it fail.
  • maliyshka
    maliyshka Posts: 10 Member
    I skimmed but didn't read the whole thread so sorry if this has been mentioned...

    But, you should google the "primal blueprint" or go to marksdailyapple.com. Eating this way is actually quite balanced, and isn't as strict with carbs as 5%. I'm getting plenty of carbs but just from mostly veggies or stuff like that.

    I'm having the best success following what he outlines in the "primal blueprint" and I've never felt healthier, to be honest.

    I'd say an average day I'm eating about 45-50% fat 35-40% protein and 10-15% carbs following the model of this diet.

    It actually is quite balanced - sure, I'm not getting my carbs from processed food like bread, etc. Or starch like rice, etc... but I am getting adequate carbs. I'll eat say - a sweet potato on hard excercise days to up my carbs, but other days I get plenty from eating copious veggies and what not.

    I don't follow it 100% primal/paleo, because I can't live without my cottage cheese or a few other things lol, but I'm pretty strict.

    A typical day would look like...
    Breakfast:
    3 scrambled eggs or 1 cup 4% cottage cheese [that's not really primal, but I can't live without it!]

    Typical Lunch:
    A BIG salad with spinach, lots of chicken, veggies, avocado [that's where I'm getting a lot of my fat], oil & vinegar dressing [again, getting more fat from oil] or if I'm splurging a bit I will have blue cheese dressing [again, the blue cheese isn't really "primal" but there's a few things I divert from].

    Or, leftovers of some sort of meat source from the night before - pot roast, pulled pork, chicken of sorts, etc. With a side of veggies.

    Snacks as needed or throughout the day... almonds, or almond butter [again, that's upping my fat there]. Stuff like that.

    Dinner... any combo of meat and veggies, really. Sometimes pot roast, chicken, salmon [which is high in fat], steak, etc. Maybe some Persian food so various horesh but I don't eat the rice with it.

    So, I'd say my days are pretty balanced. I get adequate carbs from lots of veggies. On days I need more carbs like a tough workout day I'll just eat some starchier stuff like yams, sweet potatoes, etc. If I feel like doing a "carb reload" I will.

    70% I think would be pretty hard. I would really have to TRY to be consuming fat that way. But, I'd say the more average paleo/primal diet isn't quite those ratios. The point isn't to be scarfing down bacon and other stuff to be able to get enough fat... but I personally sort of look at it like.. not WORRYING about how much fat I'm eating per se, and trying to get it from good sources. When you consume stuff like coconut milk, coconut oil, olive oil, avocado, nuts/nut butter, not worrying about only eating lean meat [so being able to eat pulled pork, a steak, etc.] it's very easy to get adequate fat without going overboard. I personally prefer chicken/lean meat, but you can eat fattier meat and still be "paleo." I do eat steak probably 1x a week and get some red meat other ways too like a roast, etc.

    To quote Taubes... although I don't entirely agree with him on everything... I don't know the exact quote but it's something like, "carbs drive insulin and insulin drives fat." Eating this way my insulin is very controlled. I was hypoglycemic before this, constant blood sugar swings, and it totally sucked. I've never eaten in a way where I feel so.. even all the time. And when I do get hungry it's not like this hole in my stomach where I'm just dying of hunger like I used to be. It's more like, a dull hunger, "okay, it's time to eat" but without the blood sugar crash.

    Obviously different things work for different people... and I'm not going to get on a bandwagon bashing all carbs or anything like that... I lost weight and kept it off in the past in the past doing a more "typical" healthy diet of lean meat, lowish fat, whole grains, etc. I just personally, feel like a million bucks eating this way AND can lose weight!

    I'm addicted to sushi so my "treat" and cheat to myself is sushi, but get a few rolls with the rice. So, again, that wouldn't be considered "paleo" when I do that but I'm all for what works with people... and also sustainability. If treating myself to sushi every once in awhile helps me stick with a healthy lifestyle and it works for me... then great!

    Eating this way isn't for everyone, and I'm not on the bandwagon of condemning all carbs as the devil, but I'd argue it actually is quite healthy. I'm also not going to argue whether or not whole grains, etc. are "bad" or "good" for you... but one thing is true, we don't NEED them to survive. That's how I look at it eating like this. We can get adequate carbs from natural sources, and one thing I DO personally believe, is we don't NEED as many carbs as the traditional food pyramid says we do - whether you're cutting out grains or not.

    I had been doing the "typical" healthy diet when I lost weight in the past, and kept it off. Going "primal" is a pretty recent endeavor for me, I was VERY skeptical at first... but so far, it's exceeded my expectations. I'm not expert, but even just attempting to follow the "blueprint" has been awesome for me.

    Just my 2 cents :)
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    I don’t believe I said the food pyramid “caused” Americans to get fat. What I was intimating is the food pyramid is not helping, and people that point to it as “the way to go” and that it’s so much more healthy than a diet based on cutting out grains, sugars, vegetable oils, and processed foods, are IMO fooling themselves.

    Now to be clear, I do think the food pyramid is at least partially to blame by putting so much importance on grains. I don’t have the statistics to back this up, but I would bet the consumption of whole grain bread, pasta, chips, crackers, and what have you, has gone up 10 fold over the last 20 years. The FDA would have you believe that is a good thing. But is it? Where is the evidence, lower heart disease? Nope. Lower rates of diabetes? Nope. Lower rates of cancer? Nope. Thinner children, adults? Nope. Where is the evidence that grains, even whole grains should be the base of our diet pyramid?
  • mrphil86
    mrphil86 Posts: 2,382 Member
    I don’t believe I said the food pyramid “caused” Americans to get fat. What I was intimating is the food pyramid is not helping, and people that point to it as “the way to go” and that it’s so much more healthy than a diet based on cutting out grains, sugars, vegetable oils, and processed foods, are IMO fooling themselves.

    Now to be clear, I do think the food pyramid is at least partially to blame by putting so much importance on grains. I don’t have the statistics to back this up, but I would bet the consumption of whole grain bread, pasta, chips, crackers, and what have you, has gone up 10 fold over the last 20 years. The FDA would have you believe that is a good thing. But is it? Where is the evidence, lower heart disease? Nope. Lower rates of diabetes? Nope. Lower rates of cancer? Nope. Thinner children, adults? Nope. Where is the evidence that grains, even whole grains should be the base of our diet pyramid?

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/70/3/307.short
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/5/848.short

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=608100
  • lodro
    lodro Posts: 982 Member
    More about Joanne Slavin, author of the article from the last link posted above, and how Cargill possibly influences research at the University of Minnesota, where she is a professor in nutrition sciences:

    http://www.dietheartpublishing.com/Revising-the-Dietary-Guidelines
    Dr. Slavin: Is there a carbohydrate requirement? If you go back in nutrition and if you are as old as I am, you can go back and say there is no technical requirement, because we can make carbohydrate from protein. So technically, you could take protein, deaminate it and use it for gluconeogenesis [body made glucose]...
    Watson: Dr. Slavin is confirming that our bodies have no specific biological requirement for carbohydrates. Carbs are used just for energy.
    Dr. Slavin: We don’t know exactly how much [carbohydrate] we need, we don’t know exactly how much is necessary for optimum health, but we know that carbohydrates are a good source of energy, and that if there are none around, you use ketone bodies in breaking down body fats...
    Watson: Dr. Slavin is acknowledging that the 65 percent figure was taken out of thin air. Dr. Slavin states that if you restrict carbohydrates, you will burn fat. This is the point Dr. Robert Atkins made in his best selling 1973 Diet Revolution. Carbohydrate restriction is a physiologically safe way to burn fat for energy and thereby more easily maintain ideal body weight.
    Dr. Slavin: The recommendation is 45 to 65 percent of calories should come from carbohydrates... Where did we get to these levels? We know that below 45 percent [carbohydrate] I am not going to get my adequate intake for fiber, and based on our discussion yesterday, fiber continues to be a problem.
    Watson: Dr. Slavin is saying; in order to get enough fiber in our diets – a substance with no nutritional value – we must emphasize a food component that we have no biological requirement for.
    Dr. Slavin: So, getting people to eat more carbohydrates is an important part of getting them to eat the fiber that they need. So, if carbohydrates go down, lipids and protein have to go up. So, there is no real reason to do that. Higher than 65, if you go really high, there is some data on the high triglycerides people get concerned about, and that you decrease fat and protein to too low of levels.
    Watson: Dr. Slavin says there is “some data” about triglycerides. In fact, there is conclusive scientific evidence that elevated triglycerides from eating excess carbohydrates are the most predictive risk factor for coronary heart disease. According to Gerald Reaven, MD, Stanford University, 25 percent of the American population has elevated triglycerides, excess body-made blood fats associated with high carbohydrate diets.
    Dr. Slavin: Recommendation for added sugars is that they not be more than 25 percent of total calories ...
    Watson: Dr. Slavin is saying that it’s perfectly okay for Americans to eat up to 25 percent of their calories as sugar – an empty calorie blood-sugar-raising food component with no fiber or nutritional value! Although our bodies require protein, the current Dietary Guidelines do not mention protein or explain how to achieve optimum levels of complete protein.
  • Grokette
    Grokette Posts: 3,330 Member
    I'm interested on how you know med school is out dated. Everything gives a baseline.

    Food pyramid was updated in 2010 and has scientific evidence to support it.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/pyramid-full-story/index.html <-- Does not have everything but is pretty good on showing it. (Yes it says the USDA Pyramid is not complete but their pyramid is based on it.)

    I'm not stubborn when straight hard facts are put in my face. When someone THINKS it is good, that's where I have the problem.

    I think we've steered away from the original point:

    Why is a high fat diet good for you????

    It has been mentioned several times that a high fat diet is healthier because it inhibits insulin production and secretion. We don't want to have insulin responses as it leads to insulin resistance and then Diabetes............
  • Grokette
    Grokette Posts: 3,330 Member
    I skimmed but didn't read the whole thread so sorry if this has been mentioned...

    But, you should google the "primal blueprint" or go to marksdailyapple.com. Eating this way is actually quite balanced, and isn't as strict with carbs as 5%. I'm getting plenty of carbs but just from mostly veggies or stuff like that.

    I'm having the best success following what he outlines in the "primal blueprint" and I've never felt healthier, to be honest.

    I'd say an average day I'm eating about 45-50% fat 35-40% protein and 10-15% carbs following the model of this diet.

    It actually is quite balanced - sure, I'm not getting my carbs from processed food like bread, etc. Or starch like rice, etc... but I am getting adequate carbs. I'll eat say - a sweet potato on hard excercise days to up my carbs, but other days I get plenty from eating copious veggies and what not.

    I don't follow it 100% primal/paleo, because I can't live without my cottage cheese or a few other things lol, but I'm pretty strict.

    A typical day would look like...
    Breakfast:
    3 scrambled eggs or 1 cup 4% cottage cheese [that's not really primal, but I can't live without it!]

    Typical Lunch:
    A BIG salad with spinach, lots of chicken, veggies, avocado [that's where I'm getting a lot of my fat], oil & vinegar dressing [again, getting more fat from oil] or if I'm splurging a bit I will have blue cheese dressing [again, the blue cheese isn't really "primal" but there's a few things I divert from].

    Or, leftovers of some sort of meat source from the night before - pot roast, pulled pork, chicken of sorts, etc. With a side of veggies.

    Snacks as needed or throughout the day... almonds, or almond butter [again, that's upping my fat there]. Stuff like that.

    Dinner... any combo of meat and veggies, really. Sometimes pot roast, chicken, salmon [which is high in fat], steak, etc. Maybe some Persian food so various horesh but I don't eat the rice with it.

    So, I'd say my days are pretty balanced. I get adequate carbs from lots of veggies. On days I need more carbs like a tough workout day I'll just eat some starchier stuff like yams, sweet potatoes, etc. If I feel like doing a "carb reload" I will.

    70% I think would be pretty hard. I would really have to TRY to be consuming fat that way. But, I'd say the more average paleo/primal diet isn't quite those ratios. The point isn't to be scarfing down bacon and other stuff to be able to get enough fat... but I personally sort of look at it like.. not WORRYING about how much fat I'm eating per se, and trying to get it from good sources. When you consume stuff like coconut milk, coconut oil, olive oil, avocado, nuts/nut butter, not worrying about only eating lean meat [so being able to eat pulled pork, a steak, etc.] it's very easy to get adequate fat without going overboard. I personally prefer chicken/lean meat, but you can eat fattier meat and still be "paleo." I do eat steak probably 1x a week and get some red meat other ways too like a roast, etc.

    To quote Taubes... although I don't entirely agree with him on everything... I don't know the exact quote but it's something like, "carbs drive insulin and insulin drives fat." Eating this way my insulin is very controlled. I was hypoglycemic before this, constant blood sugar swings, and it totally sucked. I've never eaten in a way where I feel so.. even all the time. And when I do get hungry it's not like this hole in my stomach where I'm just dying of hunger like I used to be. It's more like, a dull hunger, "okay, it's time to eat" but without the blood sugar crash.

    Obviously different things work for different people... and I'm not going to get on a bandwagon bashing all carbs or anything like that... I lost weight and kept it off in the past in the past doing a more "typical" healthy diet of lean meat, lowish fat, whole grains, etc. I just personally, feel like a million bucks eating this way AND can lose weight!

    I'm addicted to sushi so my "treat" and cheat to myself is sushi, but get a few rolls with the rice. So, again, that wouldn't be considered "paleo" when I do that but I'm all for what works with people... and also sustainability. If treating myself to sushi every once in awhile helps me stick with a healthy lifestyle and it works for me... then great!

    Eating this way isn't for everyone, and I'm not on the bandwagon of condemning all carbs as the devil, but I'd argue it actually is quite healthy. I'm also not going to argue whether or not whole grains, etc. are "bad" or "good" for you... but one thing is true, we don't NEED them to survive. That's how I look at it eating like this. We can get adequate carbs from natural sources, and one thing I DO personally believe, is we don't NEED as many carbs as the traditional food pyramid says we do - whether you're cutting out grains or not.

    I had been doing the "typical" healthy diet when I lost weight in the past, and kept it off. Going "primal" is a pretty recent endeavor for me, I was VERY skeptical at first... but so far, it's exceeded my expectations. I'm not expert, but even just attempting to follow the "blueprint" has been awesome for me.

    Just my 2 cents :)

    I am no longer a Primal Blue Printer, but going with the stricter approach of Paleo.............I feel better with the eating format.

    Another website I belong to recommended the following ratios: 65-70% fat, 25% protein, and 5-10% carbs. That is what I aim for.

    If anyone looks at MY posts, it has never been said by me that is what the Paleo diet is like it is set in stone. I have repeatedly said that is WHAT I DO for ME and works FOR ME to feel good and healthy, with lots of energy and also able to lose weight easily!!
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member

    I believe yes, it works. Time and time again, proper diet and exercise is key. Diet based off the food pyramid have ALWAYS worked.

    Actually yes they did say the food pyramid ALWAYS works.

    The fact is, all of our schools have gone overboard pushing the FOOD PYRAMID, the fact is the FDA has spent more and more money pushing the FOOD PYRAMID, the FACT is America is getting fatter and more unhealthy and the FOOD PYRAMID is pushed more and more. Now either the food pyramid doesn't work or the FDA should find better advertising methods. You would think, as the FDA pushes the food pyramid there would be at least some gains in our health. But there has not been any, and in fact we are headed in the wrong direction.

    Err . . . slight point of order here. Saying that diets based on the food pyramid always work isn't the same as saying the food pyramid always works. Nit picky I know, but there it is.

    And correlation is not causation. As America has gotten fatter we've gotten more sedentary. That could be it. Listing an increase in 2 different seemingly related things and saying that one causes the other is not science or fair arguing. As an example - In a given area the larger the number of subscriptions to pornographic magazines there are, the higher the incidence of sexual assault there is. It is false to claim therefore pornography causes sexual assaults. (this is a real statistic BTW, or at least it was when I took psychology courses a few years ago) The actual reason they go up together is because there's more people. More people to subscribe and more bad people mixed in with the rest. So to say that because the food pyramid is being pushed and our health is getting worse means that the food pyramid is to blame, is not proof of anything, and is, in fact, a method of disinformation.

    Another point of order,,,, is in order. Anything you put in your mouth is considered a diet, to be correct he should of said restricted calorie diet, and as a matter of fact the restricted calorie Paleo diet has always worked too.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    I don’t believe I said the food pyramid “caused” Americans to get fat. What I was intimating is the food pyramid is not helping, and people that point to it as “the way to go” and that it’s so much more healthy than a diet based on cutting out grains, sugars, vegetable oils, and processed foods, are IMO fooling themselves.

    Now to be clear, I do think the food pyramid is at least partially to blame by putting so much importance on grains. I don’t have the statistics to back this up, but I would bet the consumption of whole grain bread, pasta, chips, crackers, and what have you, has gone up 10 fold over the last 20 years. The FDA would have you believe that is a good thing. But is it? Where is the evidence, lower heart disease? Nope. Lower rates of diabetes? Nope. Lower rates of cancer? Nope. Thinner children, adults? Nope. Where is the evidence that grains, even whole grains should be the base of our diet pyramid?

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/70/3/307.short
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/5/848.short

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=608100

    Copy and past links is so cool, you put a lot of thought into that. At least copy and past a couple lines that you think are important.

    I've seen those studies,,,,,,,,, guess what they still don't know if the grains are helping or some other factor.

    And I ask again where is the evidence? You have to concede that whole grain consumption is up by at least double over 20 years ago, has any health risk gone down in that time?
  • GarminForerunner
    GarminForerunner Posts: 2
    I'm definitely not doing it yet (especially not with research!), but I was hoping I could get some insight into the reasoning before I invest hours of time reading a book that I may end up disagreeing with! I'm trying to learn more about alternate methods of eating (clean eating, etc), but this seems a little strange... I'd love to learn & be enlightened though!

    Hope your hope become true


    Brooks Adrenaline GTS 11
  • tross0924
    tross0924 Posts: 909 Member
    I don’t believe I said the food pyramid “caused” Americans to get fat. What I was intimating is the food pyramid is not helping, and people that point to it as “the way to go” and that it’s so much more healthy than a diet based on cutting out grains, sugars, vegetable oils, and processed foods, are IMO fooling themselves.

    Now to be clear, I do think the food pyramid is at least partially to blame by putting so much importance on grains. I don’t have the statistics to back this up, but I would bet the consumption of whole grain bread, pasta, chips, crackers, and what have you, has gone up 10 fold over the last 20 years. The FDA would have you believe that is a good thing. But is it? Where is the evidence, lower heart disease? Nope. Lower rates of diabetes? Nope. Lower rates of cancer? Nope. Thinner children, adults? Nope. Where is the evidence that grains, even whole grains should be the base of our diet pyramid?

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/70/3/307.short
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/5/848.short

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=608100

    Copy and past links is so cool, you put a lot of thought into that. At least copy and past a couple lines that you think are important.

    I've seen those studies,,,,,,,,, guess what they still don't know if the grains are helping or some other factor.

    And I ask again where is the evidence?

    The evidence is the same as yours. Thousand of success stories. More to the point there is no evidence that it doesn't work, just as there's no evidence that there's any thing really wrong with Paleo. They both work. Find what's right for you.

    As for your point of order - I think he meant it as "anything you put in your mouth" and not just in the restricted calorie sense. Proper diet and exercise should be followed by everyone. Those trying to lose weight, those trying to maintain, and those trying to gain. And a way of living where what you put in your mouth is "based," not necessarily follows to the absolute letter, on the food groups does work. Again there are personal variations, but the idea is to eat in moderation from all the food groups for optimal health.
    You have to concede that whole grain consumption is up by at least double over 20 years ago, has any health risk gone down in that time?
    Yes whole grain consumption is up. So is fast food consumption, total calorie consumption, processed food consumption, eating out, and we get less exercise than ever before. Why do whole grains, with doctors and studies saying that they're good for you, get the blame over all those other things, with no doctors or studies saying anything good about them?

    I don't understand why you're so defensive. Nobody's saying Paleo sucks don't do it. But you seem to be saying that people that don't follow Paleo are deluding themselves and attacking others for their choices. Maybe it's just an internet thing since it's so hard to communicate a tone via message board posts, but the tone that I'm getting from you is rather angry.

    And one last thing for the record - You're right you never did say that the food pyramid caused people to gain weight. I inferred it. Now I personally don't think it was a radically totally off base inference based on the things you'd written and continue to write, but you didn't "say" it, and I stand corrected.
  • maliyshka
    maliyshka Posts: 10 Member
    I
    Just my 2 cents :)

    I am no longer a Primal Blue Printer, but going with the stricter approach of Paleo.............I feel better with the eating format.

    Another website I belong to recommended the following ratios: 65-70% fat, 25% protein, and 5-10% carbs. That is what I aim for.

    If anyone looks at MY posts, it has never been said by me that is what the Paleo diet is like it is set in stone. I have repeatedly said that is WHAT I DO for ME and works FOR ME to feel good and healthy, with lots of energy and also able to lose weight easily!!

    Which site is that? Just curious :) I love reading about stuff.

    I have a few friends that are REALLY strict paleo... hearing about it from them is where I first hear about it. I've always been the type to ease into things... I'd say I'm fairly strict now, and having great results, and as I adjust more will probably get more strict as time goes on.

    My thing with diet/weight loss/weight maintenance/being healthy is that it has to be sustainable for me or I fall off the bandwagon hard. The key to sustainability for me is allowing "treats" here in there... I think it's a psychological thing for me. Like on paleo my big treat is sushi. Although, I can't even remember the last time I treated myself to sushi. I think that's another funny thing about stuff... the longer you're on it, the stricter you can get over time and not even realize you're not missing some of the stuff you used to eat....
  • Grokette
    Grokette Posts: 3,330 Member
    I
    Just my 2 cents :)

    I am no longer a Primal Blue Printer, but going with the stricter approach of Paleo.............I feel better with the eating format.

    Another website I belong to recommended the following ratios: 65-70% fat, 25% protein, and 5-10% carbs. That is what I aim for.

    If anyone looks at MY posts, it has never been said by me that is what the Paleo diet is like it is set in stone. I have repeatedly said that is WHAT I DO for ME and works FOR ME to feel good and healthy, with lots of energy and also able to lose weight easily!!

    Which site is that? Just curious :) I love reading about stuff.

    I have a few friends that are REALLY strict paleo... hearing about it from them is where I first hear about it. I've always been the type to ease into things... I'd say I'm fairly strict now, and having great results, and as I adjust more will probably get more strict as time goes on.

    My thing with diet/weight loss/weight maintenance/being healthy is that it has to be sustainable for me or I fall off the bandwagon hard. The key to sustainability for me is allowing "treats" here in there... I think it's a psychological thing for me. Like on paleo my big treat is sushi. Although, I can't even remember the last time I treated myself to sushi. I think that's another funny thing about stuff... the longer you're on it, the stricter you can get over time and not even realize you're not missing some of the stuff you used to eat....

    I sent you a PM with the other site.
  • lodro
    lodro Posts: 982 Member
    Proper diet and exercise should be followed by everyone.

    Indeed. The only point is, that for a sizable number of people, this means reducing carbohydrates for the rest of their lives if they don't want to end up as Type 2 diabetics with all the risks that it and metabolic syndrome entails. If you can achieve your goals with a carbohydrate intake of 250grams/day, then that's wonderful. But my body, and that of others doesn't work that way (anymore) sadly. So why not leave it at that? Point is: for many people the standard diet is a hindrance to health, not a help.
  • Grokette
    Grokette Posts: 3,330 Member
    Proper diet and exercise should be followed by everyone.

    Indeed. The only point is, that for a sizable number of people, this means reducing carbohydrates for the rest of their lives if they don't want to end up as Type 2 diabetics with all the risks that it and metabolic syndrome entails. If you can achieve your goals with a carbohydrate intake of 250grams/day, then that's wonderful. But my body, and that of others doesn't work that way (anymore) sadly. So why not leave it at that? Point is: for many people the standard diet is a hindrance to health, not a help.

    You are so right, there are more people in this boat than just you and me. Most people just don't want to face the facts of truly having to change their eating and lifestyle, so they go with the crutch of "everything in moderation".

    The bigger problem is most people are only interested in losing weight, not health.

    Most people that reduce sugar, starches, carbs and go with a cleaner eating plan for the majority of the time are more focused on health. At least that is what I SEE..........
  • mrphil86
    mrphil86 Posts: 2,382 Member
    I don’t believe I said the food pyramid “caused” Americans to get fat. What I was intimating is the food pyramid is not helping, and people that point to it as “the way to go” and that it’s so much more healthy than a diet based on cutting out grains, sugars, vegetable oils, and processed foods, are IMO fooling themselves.

    Now to be clear, I do think the food pyramid is at least partially to blame by putting so much importance on grains. I don’t have the statistics to back this up, but I would bet the consumption of whole grain bread, pasta, chips, crackers, and what have you, has gone up 10 fold over the last 20 years. The FDA would have you believe that is a good thing. But is it? Where is the evidence, lower heart disease? Nope. Lower rates of diabetes? Nope. Lower rates of cancer? Nope. Thinner children, adults? Nope. Where is the evidence that grains, even whole grains should be the base of our diet pyramid?

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/70/3/307.short
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/5/848.short

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=608100

    Copy and past links is so cool, you put a lot of thought into that. At least copy and past a couple lines that you think are important.

    I've seen those studies,,,,,,,,, guess what they still don't know if the grains are helping or some other factor.

    And I ask again where is the evidence? You have to concede that whole grain consumption is up by at least double over 20 years ago, has any health risk gone down in that time?

    There is never a definitive answer when it comes to diet. If you are looking for an article that says, "Yes, we have 100% proof that grains are healthy/unhealthy."

    You'll never find it. I'm not sure the point you are trying to convey.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/agr_gra_whe_con_percap-grains-wheat-consumption-per-capita

    We are not at the top of the list for grain consumption

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;cd=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCoQxQEwAg&amp;url=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:CgabIdDcsSMJ:www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf+grain+consumption+per+year&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShktcMoOpDUFMKwo6T6rn3lDozsDR7gNlJLTTtu84BRooDvRx6Fcw1l-ShLvBz5vnQynNy34i5vZa_nO3XrabIVbpWFO_6b5AYadCwH_2jZcNFzU_KErGml1wC_qb48AQ1Fznoh&sig=AHIEtbTOZN9xUOs7QJk4wUfhU1n-QxiO4A&amp;rct=j&amp;q=grain consumption per year&amp;ei=diWrTcTLEOXViALP-6jvDA&amp;usg=AFQjCNGDYqxKGGzi3BY4ePJUkfdabyyRiA&amp;cad=rja

    If you wanted your evidence that grain consumption has gone up, well then there you go. But so have a lot of things. You can not blame one food group and say that is the SOLE cause of people become fat. If that is what you are trying to say, then I'd love to see the proof.

    If you exercise like you are supposed to. Walk, play with kids, run, hike, or something like that, You burn those carbs anyways. Just people are lazy in America.

    Here is a question but not ment to be a offensive. How many of you were overweight because you exercised and had a proper diet for your lifestyle?
  • Grokette
    Grokette Posts: 3,330 Member
    I don’t believe I said the food pyramid “caused” Americans to get fat. What I was intimating is the food pyramid is not helping, and people that point to it as “the way to go” and that it’s so much more healthy than a diet based on cutting out grains, sugars, vegetable oils, and processed foods, are IMO fooling themselves.

    Now to be clear, I do think the food pyramid is at least partially to blame by putting so much importance on grains. I don’t have the statistics to back this up, but I would bet the consumption of whole grain bread, pasta, chips, crackers, and what have you, has gone up 10 fold over the last 20 years. The FDA would have you believe that is a good thing. But is it? Where is the evidence, lower heart disease? Nope. Lower rates of diabetes? Nope. Lower rates of cancer? Nope. Thinner children, adults? Nope. Where is the evidence that grains, even whole grains should be the base of our diet pyramid?

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/70/3/307.short
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/5/848.short

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=608100

    Copy and past links is so cool, you put a lot of thought into that. At least copy and past a couple lines that you think are important.

    I've seen those studies,,,,,,,,, guess what they still don't know if the grains are helping or some other factor.

    And I ask again where is the evidence? You have to concede that whole grain consumption is up by at least double over 20 years ago, has any health risk gone down in that time?

    There is never a definitive answer when it comes to diet. If you are looking for an article that says, "Yes, we have 100% proof that grains are healthy/unhealthy."

    You'll never find it. I'm not sure the point you are trying to convey.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/agr_gra_whe_con_percap-grains-wheat-consumption-per-capita

    We are not at the top of the list for grain consumption

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;cd=3&amp;sqi=2&amp;ved=0CCoQxQEwAg&amp;url=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:CgabIdDcsSMJ:www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf+grain+consumption+per+year&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShktcMoOpDUFMKwo6T6rn3lDozsDR7gNlJLTTtu84BRooDvRx6Fcw1l-ShLvBz5vnQynNy34i5vZa_nO3XrabIVbpWFO_6b5AYadCwH_2jZcNFzU_KErGml1wC_qb48AQ1Fznoh&sig=AHIEtbTOZN9xUOs7QJk4wUfhU1n-QxiO4A&amp;rct=j&amp;q=grain consumption per year&amp;ei=diWrTcTLEOXViALP-6jvDA&amp;usg=AFQjCNGDYqxKGGzi3BY4ePJUkfdabyyRiA&amp;cad=rja

    If you wanted your evidence that grain consumption has gone up, well then there you go. But so have a lot of things. You can not blame one food group and say that is the SOLE cause of people become fat. If that is what you are trying to say, then I'd love to see the proof.

    If you exercise like you are supposed to. Walk, play with kids, run, hike, or something like that, You burn those carbs anyways. Just people are lazy in America.

    Here is a question but not ment to be a offensive. How many of you were overweight because you exercised and had a proper diet for your lifestyle?

    I can honestly say due to the "Standard American Diet" going the low calorie, low fat approach and working out got me fatter and fatter. The SAD has also caused inflammatory response to those foods and a major contributing factor to Type 2 Diabetes, PCOS, symptoms of arthritis and bi-polar symptoms.

    I have always been an active person.

    These things didn't go away until I gut out the grains, beans and legumes and most of the dairy.

    I actually grew up eating the way I am back to eating now. Farm raised meats, eating the fat, home grown fruits and veggies (or came from a local orchard), nuts and drinking water. I was never over weight as a child.
  • mrphil86
    mrphil86 Posts: 2,382 Member
    I can honestly say due to the "Standard American Diet" going the low calorie, low fat approach and working out got me fatter and fatter. The SAD has also caused inflammatory response to those foods and a major contributing factor to Type 2 Diabetes, PCOS, symptoms of arthritis and bi-polar symptoms.

    I have always been an active person.

    These things didn't go away until I gut out the grains, beans and legumes and most of the dairy.

    I actually grew up eating the way I am back to eating now. Farm raised meats, eating the fat, home grown fruits and veggies (or came from a local orchard), nuts and drinking water. I was never over weight as a child.

    Now by active, I mean you burned at least 500 calories by walking or things of that nature. I feel that 90% of americans just sit around and expect diet alone to save them.

    Everytime I go to Europe or the middle east, everybody is so much more active. Not very many people depend on a car to get around. I remember when I was Germany I had to walk about 1.5 miles to get to a bar to meet up with my friends. Sure we could of called a taxi but they were not lazy like that. When I was in Bahrain, I had to walk about 1 mile to get to work. Even here, if i'm not running, I still try to be active.

    There is a farmers market about 1 mile from where I live and a huge hill I got to get across. Unless it's raining, I still walk there. Pretty much anything else is an excuse.

    That's what i'm talking about when I say active.
  • lodro
    lodro Posts: 982 Member
    I hate to burst your bubble, but in Europe the obesity rate is rising too and we have more obese children too now as well. We may be slightly more active, but I believe your European experiences are largely anecdotal.

    http://www.heartstats.org.uk/topic.asp?id=4741
  • mrphil86
    mrphil86 Posts: 2,382 Member
    Yes because they are starting adopting our ways. I'm not saying they are perfect but when I go there, I never see as many obese people as I do here. Children are becoming more obese because parents let them sit around the TV.

    Seriously, you think being active has nothing to do with health?
  • lodro
    lodro Posts: 982 Member
    Yes because they are starting adopting our ways.

    Seriously, you think being active has nothing to do with health?

    It has, but its effect on weight are very limited: diet is much more important in that respect. "our ways" are a diet high in added sugar and hfcs, I presume. Fat consumption used to be higher in Europe, even in the 1950s.

    http://www.inra.fr/esr/publications/cahiers/pdf/petrovic.pdf

    link to a very interesting paper comparing food patterns across european countries.
  • freerange
    freerange Posts: 1,722 Member
    I don’t believe I said the food pyramid “caused” Americans to get fat. What I was intimating is the food pyramid is not helping, and people that point to it as “the way to go” and that it’s so much more healthy than a diet based on cutting out grains, sugars, vegetable oils, and processed foods, are IMO fooling themselves.

    Now to be clear, I do think the food pyramid is at least partially to blame by putting so much importance on grains. I don’t have the statistics to back this up, but I would bet the consumption of whole grain bread, pasta, chips, crackers, and what have you, has gone up 10 fold over the last 20 years. The FDA would have you believe that is a good thing. But is it? Where is the evidence, lower heart disease? Nope. Lower rates of diabetes? Nope. Lower rates of cancer? Nope. Thinner children, adults? Nope. Where is the evidence that grains, even whole grains should be the base of our diet pyramid?

    http://www.ajcn.org/content/70/3/307.short
    http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/5/848.short

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=608100

    Copy and past links is so cool, you put a lot of thought into that. At least copy and past a couple lines that you think are important.

    I've seen those studies,,,,,,,,, guess what they still don't know if the grains are helping or some other factor.

    And I ask again where is the evidence?

    The evidence is the same as yours. Thousand of success stories. More to the point there is no evidence that it doesn't work, just as there's no evidence that there's any thing really wrong with Paleo. They both work. Find what's right for you.

    As for your point of order - I think he meant it as "anything you put in your mouth" and not just in the restricted calorie sense. Proper diet and exercise should be followed by everyone. Those trying to lose weight, those trying to maintain, and those trying to gain. And a way of living where what you put in your mouth is "based," not necessarily follows to the absolute letter, on the food groups does work. Again there are personal variations, but the idea is to eat in moderation from all the food groups for optimal health.
    You have to concede that whole grain consumption is up by at least double over 20 years ago, has any health risk gone down in that time?
    Yes whole grain consumption is up. So is fast food consumption, total calorie consumption, processed food consumption, eating out, and we get less exercise than ever before. Why do whole grains, with doctors and studies saying that they're good for you, get the blame over all those other things, with no doctors or studies saying anything good about them?

    I don't understand why you're so defensive. Nobody's saying Paleo sucks don't do it. But you seem to be saying that people that don't follow Paleo are deluding themselves and attacking others for their choices. Maybe it's just an internet thing since it's so hard to communicate a tone via message board posts, but the tone that I'm getting from you is rather angry.

    And one last thing for the record - You're right you never did say that the food pyramid caused people to gain weight. I inferred it. Now I personally don't think it was a radically totally off base inference based on the things you'd written and continue to write, but you didn't "say" it, and I stand corrected.

    Don't understand why we're defensive ? Well I copied a few post from this thread, I assume you didn't read all of them, so here you go.
    yes that sounds fishy....lol..I wouldnt do that. It doesnt sound safe for your body.

    My biggest problem with this diet is that the basic logic of it is flawed.

    I wrote out a long frustrated rant, but then decided it was unnecessary to berate anybody for their illogical opinions.

    Some people are just too lazy to make the effort to do it right.

    The primal blueprint has no scientific backing.

    The Primitive humans weren't "healthy" at all

    The debate isn't to convince the people who believe the quacks, as they are usually too far gone down the anti-scientific path. The debate is to convince the people who might listen to the unsafe information given, such as a diet consisting of 70% fat.

    I have seen people on the paleo diet. I always see them dragging around. Sure, they have a burst of energy when they workout but after, I see them just slouching around.

    I still think it's just another unhealthy fad diet.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories