"Paleo diet" - 70% fat???

70% fat, 25% protein and 5% carbs

Ok, to bring this back to the original topic, what evidence is there to support this high fat diet? And sorry, lomg post here.

First off, if you believe in the paleo/primal diet and think that there is a Government/USDA/Monsanto conspiracy that wants us to be unhealthy, uninformed, etc., please stop reading. I don't want to offend you and we have no common base to have a discussion about diet, if you reject science based rational evidence. If it works for you go for it, but let's keep this a thread based on facts, scientific facts.

Secondly reading through some of these posts it strikes me there is a basic misunderstanding about what science can do and not do. First off science does not prove anything. Science is built around the concept that you propose a hypothesis, based on a framework of your understanding of a topic. Then you try to design an experiment to test this hypothesis and the results of the experiment either support or reject the hypothesis. Rejection is final, your framework of how you look at this issue is wrong and you need to change it. Support is not final, in your experiment and conditions your hypothesis is not rejected, but in other conditions or experiments it can be rejected, which means your framework at looking at this issue can still be wrong. This is a basic way science works and is, for instance, where the endless discussion that evolution is just a hypothesis comes from. Thus, this scientific way of making progress might be frustrating to many people, science does not provide final answers, science often changes its way of looking at issues as more evidence is available, and that's why bleeding is not the main medical treatment out there anymore. That’s why scientific recommendations change over time, like for the USDA food pyramid, food recommendations, etc. The beauty of this approach is that you get better at understanding your system/diet as you go along; you adjust to new data, and can improve your understanding of how things work. That's why there is no alternative to the scientific approach, that's the only way we can make progress. Note the average lifespan in the US is around 70 now, paleo it was 30 years. And for most of us, we live a better life than any of our ancestors, all because of science. In the last 200 years we have made more progress understanding the natural world than ever before, we have airplanes, cars, internet, cell phones, man on the moon, etc, all because we used a scientific approach to examine the natural word. If you reject this scientific approach, well go back to the Stone Age, and read the top couple of lines, we can't have a rational discussion if you reject science, so please stop reading this.

Thirdly, there are two lines of evidence that scientists use, correlational and experimental. Correlational is based on comparing natural patterns, like comparing health info and diet across countries. Obviously many other factors vary too across countries in addition to the factor that you are interested in and want to examine. But, many experiments, especially with humans, are not ethical, so this is often the only approach that you can use to examine patterns in nature and human health. Then the key is to have large sample sizes over long time periods, the more data you use, the better and solid the patterns are likely to be. This is obviously difficult and expensive, which limits the number of good studies. But the gold standard is experiments. In this you manipulate, ideally, just one factor, and examine what happens. Most human diet data that we have is observational, for good reasons, you can't ethically put humans on unhealthy diets. That's a problem, because this observational data might be biased, for instance, people who smoke tend to eat more junk food and be more sedentary, it is hard to separate these three, unless you have large sample sizes, which is rarely the case. Thus most experimental studies are animal studies or short-term human studies.
Fourth, any guru, or diet specialist, who gives you absolute answers about what the key diet or diet ingredient, is a quack. Lots of quacks out there, it is a lot easier to make a living making money of a cult/diet than any honest way. Read point three again, for better or worse, science does not have any absolute answers, anyone who provides you with absolute answers, well what can I say? I would avoid drinking the cool aid, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
So, fifth, what do we know based on data? Note this is my interpretation, there is a vast literature on any scientific topic including diets, and I only looked at some well cited and review articles. And I avoided the cult books / web sites, anyone can make anything up and post in on the internet these days.
1. There is overwhelming evidence that being overweight is not good for you. This is based on correlational data of humans and experimental data from fruit flies to mice and rats. Put animals or humans on a restricted diet and you live a lot longer and have less disease. This is the most important thing you can do for your health. And reading this thread, yes most Western people eat too many calories, be it carbohydrates or fat, and do not exercise enough, calories in versus calories eat. Eat more than you use and you will get fat, which is a big problem. Based on animal models and human data, being too fat seems to interfere with healthy insulin sensitivity and leads to many metabolic problems. Currently, in the US something like 20% of all people is obese and another 30% overweight. Predictions are that by 2020 50% of the US population will be diabetic; we have a major health crisis developing. Thus, my interpretation, bring your BMI down to the healthy range, and preferably to the low end of the healthy range. And as a country, we need to stop subsidizing and promoting calories and change our food system to less calories and a more healthy diet, but that's a separate political issue. Everyone has a free choice, you can change your diet and not be part of this problem and there is no point blaming the USDA/Monsanto/Government for what your health and weight is.
2. Secondly, exercising is good for your health too, based on both correlational and experimental data. Increasing your activity is good for you and, in addition, helps you also to lose weight.
3. Third, based on correlational studies, the Mediterranean diet, with low animal fat, high in unsaturated oils like olive oil, high in complex carbohydrates, high in fish, red wine, leafy green vegetables, cheese, and nuts seems to be healthier than other diets. However, this is correlational so it is hard to separate what specific factor is the key parameter. For the time being, until there is more data, a Mediterranean diet seems to have more benefits than other diets, so that's what I use mostly.
4. Fourth, there is lots of evidence that saturated animal fats are not good for you, both observational and in experimental animal studies. Thus, I think based on this, 70% fat, especially animal fat, is not a healthy diet. And, vegetarian is good, or keep meat low, and preferentially eat fish, and poultry. Also note most wild animals are low in fat and very lean, including range fed beef and bison.
5. There is increasingly correlational evidence that fish oil and fat is good for your health. Again, mainly correlational, but eating more fish seems best, based on the evidence currently available.
6. Similarly for nuts, eating more unsaturated fats is correlated with good health.
7. There is not a lot of evidence either way for saturated plant fats like coconut oil. There is nothing magically good about them in the scientific literature, but there are not a lot of good studies based on longer term data, showing it is bad for you either. So, for the time being, I would eat them in moderation, and keep your intake low, based on the evidence that we have that unsaturated oils are correlated with better health and saturated fats are not.
8. Fiber, there is increasingly, both observational and experimental evidence, that increased fiber, both soluble and insoluble is good for your colon and health. Thus eat whole grains whenever you can and increase your fiber intake to 30-40 grams per day. I think the USAD recommendation is too low.
9. Cholesterol, specifically LDL, high levels are correlated with high cardiovascular disease. Note again this is correlational. There is also strong experimental evidence that taking statins, when you have high LDL, lowers your LDL level and lowers your risk for cardiovascular disease. But the link between LDL and hearth disease is correlation, statins also lower inflammation, so there is no absolute proof. But, as Bill Clinton, found out, if your LDL is high, using statins and staying on them, is a good idea. I have seen statements that eating lots of fatty animal foods, high in cholesterol is good for your health. There is no evidence supporting this and lots of evidence contradicting this, and these posts are irresponsible at best. Again, whatever you read on any web site, remember to not drink the kool aid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
Read up on in reputable sources before you do anything or follow any advice.

So, to answer the question about the 70% fat diet. I would not do this nor advise this, especially if you get the majority of the fat from animals or sources like butter and coconut oil. There is much more evidence that unsaturated fats and a Mediterranean diet are better for your health. Secondly skip simple sugars and refined carbohydrates and stick to whole grains. But even more important bring your BMI down to a healthy range; this will help you the most. And exercise, this is good and will also help you bring your weight down

As always, that's my current view above, based on the evidence that I have seen so far. But show me credible studies and I will change my mind. But, please do not refer to blogs or books by quacks.

Wow, first let me say THANK YOU I have no idea what we poor fools would do without you telling us what scientific method is all about, again THAK YOU, (guy on knees bowing down goes here)

Your post is so condescending, it’s going to be hard but I’m going to show some rare restraint. I do want to point out a small scientific point, FISH ARE ANIMALS.

Wow, first let me say THANK YOU I have no idea what we poor fools would do without you telling us what scientific method is all about, again THAK YOU, (guy on knees bowing down goes here)

Your post is so condescending, it’s going to be hard but I’m going to show some rare restraint. I do want to point out a small scientific point, FISH ARE ANIMALS.

What a rather rude reply. Someone goes out of their way to post an educational message and you attack them. You really should be ashamed.

Right, ashamed? Go back and read his tripe, tell me how many times he posted KOOL-AID.

Longevity

S: When I talk to folks about trying to get back to our Stone Age roots in lifestyle, a common
answer is, “yeah, well they only lived to be 30,” meaning their life expectancy was short. Is
this a myth?

M: Yes, it is a myth. The average life expectancy was 35, but this was because half the population died
before the age of 5 and the other half lived to a much older age. There is clear evidence showing that
some people lived to be very old in the Stone Age.

S: So those people were able to live longer and pass on their genes?

M: Long life is another issue. We think that one of the keys to human longevity is when older men
had children with younger women it was much better for the tribe. This enabled them to pass on all
the traits that contributed to their longevity to the next generation.

Can someone ask a question about fat and carbs without it becoming the same argument between the same people all the time.
I am tired of both sides.
Why can't you just agree to disagree. Give the poster the simple facts to support your side and let them make their decision on their own.

It does not have to be a pi..... contest. EVERY TIME!!!!

Switching to Paleo/Primal was like Neo taking the red pill in the Matrix.

Do we think the mortality of humans was better or worse than today with this diet? I would stay away.

Wow, first let me say THANK YOU I have no idea what we poor fools would do without you telling us what scientific method is all about, again THAK YOU, (guy on knees bowing down goes here)

Your post is so condescending, it’s going to be hard but I’m going to show some rare restraint. I do want to point out a small scientific point, FISH ARE ANIMALS.

What a rather rude reply. Someone goes out of their way to post an educational message and you attack them. You really should be ashamed.

Right, ashamed? Go back and read his tripe, tell me how many times he posted KOOL-AID.

That is not what you were objecting to in your message. You were objecting to him posting a description of the scientific method. Then you bizarrely go off trying to discredit him by saying fish are animals when nothing in his message implied otherwise.

Maybe the good professor should post a lengthy post about how to read and comprehend what you read. Or maybe you just didn’t read his post but because I took offense to it you assumed it must be good.

Here since you didn’t read his post I will reprint the part I was talking about just for you.

3. Third, based on correlational studies, the Mediterranean diet, with low animal fat, high in unsaturated oils like olive oil, high in complex carbohydrates, high in fish, red wine, leafy green vegetables, cheese, and nuts seems to be healthier than other diets. However, this is correlational so it is hard to separate what specific factor is the key parameter. For the time being, until there is more data, a Mediterranean diet seems to have more benefits than other diets, so that's what I use mostly.

Notice how in the same paragraph he writes “low in animal fat” and “high in fish”. I know it’s picky, but for someone that felt it necessary to educate us uneducated kool-aid drinkers I figured I would correct his blatant, un-scientific contradiction.

There is absolutely no "un-scientific contradiction" in that. There are a lot of fish that are low in fat. To have a diet that includes fish and is low in animal fat you would simply choose the types of fish, such as cod, haddock, mahi mahi, sole and many others that are low in fat. What you are saying is like saying you can't have a low fat vegetarian diet because avocados have a lot of fat.

I'm an elite athlete (rower) on the national team and I have come down from heavyweight to lightweight using the Paleo Diet. It is hands down the most effective way of eating and thinking. High level athletes do have to tweak this diet a little, due to the need for carbs to fuel workouts often burning more then 600 a session (I do 3 sessions a day). I don't consume 70% fat, but the fat intake is high (good fats ofcourse; nuts, avocardo, olive oil) and my protein level is also high (more then 25%) through eating lean/game meats, seafood and eggs. The body is quite capable of running on fat and with the such a high level of incoming fat and a low level of carbs the stored fats are used because the body thinks it doesn't need to have a store any longer.