Paleo / Primal / hunter gatherer diet

In my opinion what it boils down to is using common sense, if you current diet makes you feel like crap then there is something wrong, different people need different things, that has been proven time and again, but I firmly believe that if we make our own meals and eat cleaner, meaning less processed, that we can all benefit from that. Yes we need to reduce the portions to shed fat, that is not in question, but any extreme in any diet is going to inevitably fail in the end, take your pick of name, atkins, paleo, etc. Make your own food and if you can not pronounce or understand what it is that is going into your body then do not eat it.

In 1 noncontrolled challenge study, 9 nonobese, sedentary, healthy volunteers consumed their usual diets for 3 days, then 3 “ramp-up” diets with increasing fiber and K+ intake for 7 days, and finally an HG-type diet of lean meat, fruits, vegetables, and nuts for 10 days, omitting cereal grains, dairy products, and legumes.64 Participants were monitored to ensure absence of weight loss. They experienced modest but significant reductions in BP with improved arterial distension; decreased insulin secretion (area under curve, AUC) in a 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), with a marked reduction in insulin/glucose ratio; and 16% and 22% reductions in total serum and LDL cholesterol, respectively.64 These outcomes seem remarkable for such a short-term intervention.

More interesting still are results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In the most persuasive study to date, 29 patients with ischemic heart disease and either glucose intolerance or T2DM were randomized to 12 weeks of a “Paleolithic” diet (n = 14) based on lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts or a Mediterranean-like “Consensus” diet (n = 15) based on whole grains, low-fat dairy products, vegetables, fruits, fish, oils, and margarines.49 In OGTTs, the Paleolithic group showed a 26% reduction in AUC glucose compared to a 7% reduction in the Consensus group. There was a greater decrease in waist circumference in the Paleolithic group (−5.6 cm) than in the Consensus group (−2.9 cm), but the glucose reduction was independent of that measure.

In a second randomized crossover pilot study, the starting point was 13 patients (3 women) with T2DM who were placed on a Paleolithic diet based on lean meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, root vegetables, eggs, and nuts, and a Diabetes diet according to the American Diabetes Association guidelines65 (evenly distributed meals with increased vegetables, root vegetables, fiber, whole-grain bread and other cereal products, fruits, and berries, but decreased TF, especially cholesterol-raising SF).48 Participants were on each diet for 3 months. Compared to the Diabetes diet, the Paleolithic diet produced lower mean levels of hemoglobin A1c, triacylglycerol, diastolic BP, weight, BMI, and waist circumference, and higher mean HDL.

Although these are small studies, it is very gratifying that the era of explicit experimental study of the discordance model has begun and that initial results are consistent with our original predictions. It is especially noteworthy that 2 of the studies were randomized trials that compared the HG diet to other recommended model diets rather than to a baseline or typical Western diet. We hope and trust that this work will continue.

Thanks for the journal link - usually when some one posts a new diet idea, especially a "let's eat like olden times" one I'm highly skeptical but this looks like actual nutrition science worth considering.

Looking over the numbers you posted it seems that you're right and that this is basically the food pyramid most of us grew up with - a foundation of healthy grains and veggies, some protein, not too much sugar. Sometimes science confirms we're doing it right.

A quarter century has passed since the first publication of the evolutionary discordance hypothesis, according to which departures from the nutrition and activity patterns of our hunter-gatherer ancestors have contributed greatly and in specifically definable ways to the endemic chronic diseases of modern civilization. Refinements of the model have changed it in some respects, but anthropological evidence continues to indicate that ancestral human diets prevalent during our evolution were characterized by much lower levels of refined carbohydrates and sodium, much higher levels of fiber and protein, and comparable levels of fat (primarily unsaturated fat) and cholesterol. Physical activity levels were also much higher than current levels, resulting in higher energy throughput. We said at the outset that such evidence could only suggest testable hypotheses and that recommendations must ultimately rest on more conventional epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory studies. Such studies have multiplied and have supported many aspects of our model, to the extent that in some respects, official recommendations today have targets closer to those prevalent among hunter-gatherers than did comparable recommendations 25 years ago. Furthermore, doubts have been raised about the necessity for very low levels of protein, fat, and cholesterol intake common in official recommendations. Most impressively, randomized controlled trials have begun to confirm the value of hunter-gatherer diets in some high-risk groups, even as compared with routinely recommended diets. Much more research needs to be done, but the past quarter century has proven the interest and heuristic value, if not yet the ultimate validity, of the model.

OMG! Really? posting that crap in the other thread wasn't enough for you??? If people would spend the time working out that they spent hating on everyone else's diet/lifestyle choices, there would be a lot more skinny people in this world! Do what works for you, and just do it! Everyone is different! What works for one, might not work for another! I mean really? let's hate on a group of people that eat only clean natural occuring foods!!! please no, don't eat lots of fruits and veggies and healthy meats!!! really?

ok, sorry, had to vent, so sick of seeing this crap.

I agree. I don't understand why people are so concerned in trying to prove other's diets to be wrong? Any diet can and may work great for some people, but not for others. Just because Paleo isn't ideal for you doesn't mean it isn't ideal for others. Some people just need to get off their high horses and get over it.

I've always gotten a big chuckle out of that diet as well. I'm a classically trained archaeologist, and my specialization was ancient human remains. Hunting wasn't uncommon but it wasn't a staple either. That much is clear in bone records. You can also surmise this simply by examining a modern human body: we haven't evolved lengthy enough digestive tracts or sharp enough teeth to have eaten much meat until more recently. Ancient people survived largely on things like grains and seeds, although their grains were MUCH different than ours are now...our wheat for example has much less fiber in it than it used to; heads were smaller, tougher, and much less starchy than they are today. We've bred our grains just like we've bred our feeding animals: to be meaty, disproportionate, and poorer in nutrients. :frown:

But the PB (and other content in the paleosphere) does not commit the naturalistic fallacy, which states that all that is natural is good, and all that is unnatural is bad. That’s far too simplistic, far too dogmatic. Life is made of gray, not stark black and white dualities. Context is everything. We may start with the “natural,” but we discard anything that isn’t also buttressed by science. It’s actually the most rational way to go about things,