Paleo Recipes my kids will eat
Options
Replies
-
edwasserman wrote: »Why is it better to stuff your kids full of processed junk food than feed them a quality diet of nutrient dense food?
My friends' kids eat nothing but mac & cheese and things that get squeezed from a packet or dumped out from a box. So when they get older and unhealthy, they'll be faced with the same challenges their parents now have and they'll be struggling to change their diet.
As far as kid friendly, I'm not sure. When I was a kid, I really like steak just like anyone else. And sea food. I wouldn't go crazy with the "paleo" versions of SAD. Why does a steak have to have a potato with it?
LOl and here comes the straw man ...who in this thread advocated for stuffing their kids full of processed junk food?????????????? Please find me the one person that said that; or is your claim that anyone that does not eat paleo is eating a diet of 100% processed junk food????????0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »hollydubs85 wrote: »I'm surprised at some of the responses. The OP didn't say she is trying to put her kids on a "diet", just that she is trying to get them to eat the meals she provides. So she's asking for meals that are kid friendly that fit her diet - diet as in foods one eats, not just attempt to lose weight.
First of all, if you don't have kids, don't even comment here. Cause you don't know what you're talking about.
If you DO, what do you feed them? Cause in our house, we feed our kids what we eat, 90% of the time. Every now and then we let the 3 year old pick his own dinner, and he picks crap. He would eat breakfast cereal and chicken nuggets for every meal if we let him. That is not a good diet for a child.
He doesn't have to eat what he's been given, but that's all there is. If he doesn't want to eat the healthy meal we have prepared, we're not going to get him something that's not healthy just so he will be happy about dinner. Sometimes, he also doesn't want to eat the NOT healthy foods - my kid will whine just as much about a cheese laden pizza as he will about a roasted broccoli. Actually I think it's easier to get him to eat the broccoli. Which makes me so happy because I don't want my kids to have the relationship with food I did. I don't want my kids growing up only liking 4 foods and eating massive amounts of calorie dense foods because they don't know what a vegetable tastes like or when they're full. We also don't want our kids thinking they can whine and cry about what they've been given and get away with it. Dinner has been served, and you will eat a reasonable amount and if you tried it and still hate it, then you can have something else that I chose. (which for our son is usually yogurt or a fruit)
I'm vegetarian, and most vegetarians I know let their kids decide if they want meat (which is the approach we have taken) - but there are parents who feel that it's their choice whether or not their kid is going to eat meat, and that's just as valid a parenting decision as deciding to prohibit them eat junk food or fast food or soda or sugar or dairy.
This is why I asked OP what she feeds her kids if they don't like the paleo dishes she makes. Paleo diet is largely marketed as a weight loss diet, and it is of course, unnecessary just like any other fad diet. It's not exactly comparable to becoming a vegetarian for ethical reasons. So people are commenting on it because quite simply, why would you choose a diet that is obviously making life more difficult for you by forcing your kids to eat it with you? Just eat less food of whatever everybody would normally eat otherwise. It seems like the simplest solution here.
The majority of people I know who do a "Paleo" diet are not doing so to lose weight, but because they think it is the "BEST" way to eat. I have always heard it touted as healthy, with weight loss as a side effect if you're overweight. The people I know who do it swear they just feel better when they don't eat dairy, and I'm sure they do. I think it's a load of crap that it's the "right" way to eat or that it's what our ancestors ate, but if someone has found a subset of food that they feel good eating, that's good for them.
I do agree that the silly rules on things like yogurt vs cheese or sweet potatoes vs potatoes is, well, a load of crap.
The simplest thing is to just stay the same.
In my experience, there is no "yogurt vs cheese." Either you're opposed to both or your opposed to neither (assuming here that we're talking about versions of both without a bunch of additives beyond what's required to make them), as both go through a fermenting process. Usually, that argument either leans toward "no dairy at all," or at least "no casein/whey/lactose" (allowing for ghee or butter), or toward "no dairy unless it's raw/fermented," or toward "some, in moderation, if it doesn't cause you adverse effects."
As for the potatoes vs sweet potatoes, there are two reasons for this:
1. White potatoes are nightshades, so any subset of paleo that avoids nightshades will avoid potatoes for this reason. Sweet potatoes are not nightshades, so they're okay in that regard (though my be restricted for other reasons).
2. White potatoes, particularly skins and the forms largely considered "healthy," contain a high amount of saponins that are toxic to humans in high concentrations. There's some disagreement on the validity of this as more research is done or found and more information is presented (such as the fact that most domesticated varieties don't contain that much, because the levels are monitored), but Cordain's views and recommendations are still the foundation of modern Paleo proper and therefore guide a lot of people's decisions.
Most of the people who suggest limiting potatoes on the basis of the carbohydrate content also suggest limiting sweet potatoes, and acknowledge that the glycemic load and nutrient density of sweet potatoes is on par with that of white potatoes and the differences on that front are marginal.
In these edge cases, the final verdict basically comes down to you and your family's needs and best judgement based on the information available to you at any given time.
And for people to act like this type of thing is unique to Paleo and that either "you're Paleo or you're not" boggles my mind. Veg*ns have similar decisions. Milk? Eggs? Honey? Fish? The biggest difference in that regard is that the Veg*n crowd has had the time to name the different subsets and make those names well known. If you eat any of those (even if only rarely), you lose your vegan card according to some, but you're still vegetarian (and if you only eat those things rarely, you may still consider yourself at least "mostly vegan"), or you're pescatarian if you eat fish. The modern Paleo way of eating doesn't have that yet. It's got some different names (Paleo -- which is generally Cordain based, Primal, AIP, recon paleolithic, Asprey's Bulletproof Diet), but most things beyond "Paleo" are not well known, so it's easier to just say you do Paleo than trying to explain that you follow one of the variations and then explain (for the umpteenth time) the differences on top of all the other questions you inevitably get.
Is it counterproductive to the perception of the larger Paleo movement as a whole? Perhaps. Most people who follow it prefer to use their own health and successes on it as the necessary evidence for getting the people they know to try it, though. The bickering on here is generally nitpicking over details about which the Paleo community has largely said, "these are the big names that say that's okay and why, these are the big names that say it's not okay and why. Pick a path for yourself and try it and see how it works for you." The "point" of Paleo is the foundation of the way of eating, the focus on quality, nutrient-dense food and avoiding the things considered objectively harmful, and being mindful of where your food comes from and how it gets to you.
That said, yes, most people who actually do Paleo do so for health reasons. Many books market weight loss as part of the hook, but that's marketing. Many vegetarian and vegan books have that as part of their marketing hook, too.
Do some people do either of these to lose weight? Certainly. The ones that start solely to lose weight, thinking of it as a fad diet, usually go in one of two directions -- 1. they're sorely disappointed and move on to something else, because when it comes to weight loss, Paleo/veg*n aren't magically faster than anything else, and can actually be quite a bit slower, since the focus is actually on health, not weight loss; 2. they realize they feel better -- even independent of weight loss -- and stay with it as a lifestyle change.
^ this is my point about "verbal gymnastics"
do you really think that paleolithich people walked around caring about what kind of potato or carb they found? Of course not, that is ridiculous. They were hunter/gathers, more than likely primarily gathers who ate plants, fruits, leaves, grubs, etc...and most of that was consumed raw...
the whole concept of paleo is ridiculous and not even based on how real paleolithic people ate...
Are you just arguing that you don't like the name? If you were to remove the word "paleo" from the diet along with the ancient-man philosophy, it's a pretty flexible dietary style that allows the gamut of low carb to high carb, vegetarian, etc. It ends up just focusing on whole foods and limiting starches and grains.
Doesn't seem too far out there for me if it was called something else.0 -
I asked you a question, would you be interested in not using running sneakers or Internet because they didn't have it?The Paleolithic period lasted over 2.6 million years, which is quite a long fad for the creatures and later humans that got swept up in eating Paleo. And shame on the parents that fed their kids Paleo during this era...
You know what else they didn't have? Running sneakers and Internet. Would you be interested in not using that? Since you know, they didn't and they were so great.
Settle down, bro, no need to go on the offensive, I'm not Paleo, just providing perspective
Settle down bro, not getting defensive, just teaching you logic.
I'll say it again - I don't do Paleo, so posing your question yet again is illogical and irrelevant. To save you a third time, no, I am not interested in a world without sneakers or internet.
Your reasoning behind why we should have our kids follow Paleo is just as illogical then.
Why wouldn't you want to to go without sneakers or internet? That's how they did it for millions of years and look how much they achieved.
Yes, because nothing was ever achieved in the world until sneakers and the internet were invented..actually you may have a point, these kinds of discussions make an internet-free world look more alluring.-1 -
I was gonna give you an insulting "your kids aren't on a diet you are" before reading that you are actually serving them real, balanced food. So I suggest just feeding them more of that. Make your own chicken nuggets with coconut breading and mango salsa.0
-
Dragonwolf wrote: »hollydubs85 wrote: »I'm surprised at some of the responses. The OP didn't say she is trying to put her kids on a "diet", just that she is trying to get them to eat the meals she provides. So she's asking for meals that are kid friendly that fit her diet - diet as in foods one eats, not just attempt to lose weight.
First of all, if you don't have kids, don't even comment here. Cause you don't know what you're talking about.
If you DO, what do you feed them? Cause in our house, we feed our kids what we eat, 90% of the time. Every now and then we let the 3 year old pick his own dinner, and he picks crap. He would eat breakfast cereal and chicken nuggets for every meal if we let him. That is not a good diet for a child.
He doesn't have to eat what he's been given, but that's all there is. If he doesn't want to eat the healthy meal we have prepared, we're not going to get him something that's not healthy just so he will be happy about dinner. Sometimes, he also doesn't want to eat the NOT healthy foods - my kid will whine just as much about a cheese laden pizza as he will about a roasted broccoli. Actually I think it's easier to get him to eat the broccoli. Which makes me so happy because I don't want my kids to have the relationship with food I did. I don't want my kids growing up only liking 4 foods and eating massive amounts of calorie dense foods because they don't know what a vegetable tastes like or when they're full. We also don't want our kids thinking they can whine and cry about what they've been given and get away with it. Dinner has been served, and you will eat a reasonable amount and if you tried it and still hate it, then you can have something else that I chose. (which for our son is usually yogurt or a fruit)
I'm vegetarian, and most vegetarians I know let their kids decide if they want meat (which is the approach we have taken) - but there are parents who feel that it's their choice whether or not their kid is going to eat meat, and that's just as valid a parenting decision as deciding to prohibit them eat junk food or fast food or soda or sugar or dairy.
This is why I asked OP what she feeds her kids if they don't like the paleo dishes she makes. Paleo diet is largely marketed as a weight loss diet, and it is of course, unnecessary just like any other fad diet. It's not exactly comparable to becoming a vegetarian for ethical reasons. So people are commenting on it because quite simply, why would you choose a diet that is obviously making life more difficult for you by forcing your kids to eat it with you? Just eat less food of whatever everybody would normally eat otherwise. It seems like the simplest solution here.
The majority of people I know who do a "Paleo" diet are not doing so to lose weight, but because they think it is the "BEST" way to eat. I have always heard it touted as healthy, with weight loss as a side effect if you're overweight. The people I know who do it swear they just feel better when they don't eat dairy, and I'm sure they do. I think it's a load of crap that it's the "right" way to eat or that it's what our ancestors ate, but if someone has found a subset of food that they feel good eating, that's good for them.
I do agree that the silly rules on things like yogurt vs cheese or sweet potatoes vs potatoes is, well, a load of crap.
The simplest thing is to just stay the same.
In my experience, there is no "yogurt vs cheese." Either you're opposed to both or your opposed to neither (assuming here that we're talking about versions of both without a bunch of additives beyond what's required to make them), as both go through a fermenting process. Usually, that argument either leans toward "no dairy at all," or at least "no casein/whey/lactose" (allowing for ghee or butter), or toward "no dairy unless it's raw/fermented," or toward "some, in moderation, if it doesn't cause you adverse effects."
As for the potatoes vs sweet potatoes, there are two reasons for this:
1. White potatoes are nightshades, so any subset of paleo that avoids nightshades will avoid potatoes for this reason. Sweet potatoes are not nightshades, so they're okay in that regard (though my be restricted for other reasons).
2. White potatoes, particularly skins and the forms largely considered "healthy," contain a high amount of saponins that are toxic to humans in high concentrations. There's some disagreement on the validity of this as more research is done or found and more information is presented (such as the fact that most domesticated varieties don't contain that much, because the levels are monitored), but Cordain's views and recommendations are still the foundation of modern Paleo proper and therefore guide a lot of people's decisions.
Most of the people who suggest limiting potatoes on the basis of the carbohydrate content also suggest limiting sweet potatoes, and acknowledge that the glycemic load and nutrient density of sweet potatoes is on par with that of white potatoes and the differences on that front are marginal.
In these edge cases, the final verdict basically comes down to you and your family's needs and best judgement based on the information available to you at any given time.
And for people to act like this type of thing is unique to Paleo and that either "you're Paleo or you're not" boggles my mind. Veg*ns have similar decisions. Milk? Eggs? Honey? Fish? The biggest difference in that regard is that the Veg*n crowd has had the time to name the different subsets and make those names well known. If you eat any of those (even if only rarely), you lose your vegan card according to some, but you're still vegetarian (and if you only eat those things rarely, you may still consider yourself at least "mostly vegan"), or you're pescatarian if you eat fish. The modern Paleo way of eating doesn't have that yet. It's got some different names (Paleo -- which is generally Cordain based, Primal, AIP, recon paleolithic, Asprey's Bulletproof Diet), but most things beyond "Paleo" are not well known, so it's easier to just say you do Paleo than trying to explain that you follow one of the variations and then explain (for the umpteenth time) the differences on top of all the other questions you inevitably get.
Is it counterproductive to the perception of the larger Paleo movement as a whole? Perhaps. Most people who follow it prefer to use their own health and successes on it as the necessary evidence for getting the people they know to try it, though. The bickering on here is generally nitpicking over details about which the Paleo community has largely said, "these are the big names that say that's okay and why, these are the big names that say it's not okay and why. Pick a path for yourself and try it and see how it works for you." The "point" of Paleo is the foundation of the way of eating, the focus on quality, nutrient-dense food and avoiding the things considered objectively harmful, and being mindful of where your food comes from and how it gets to you.
That said, yes, most people who actually do Paleo do so for health reasons. Many books market weight loss as part of the hook, but that's marketing. Many vegetarian and vegan books have that as part of their marketing hook, too.
Do some people do either of these to lose weight? Certainly. The ones that start solely to lose weight, thinking of it as a fad diet, usually go in one of two directions -- 1. they're sorely disappointed and move on to something else, because when it comes to weight loss, Paleo/veg*n aren't magically faster than anything else, and can actually be quite a bit slower, since the focus is actually on health, not weight loss; 2. they realize they feel better -- even independent of weight loss -- and stay with it as a lifestyle change.
^ this is my point about "verbal gymnastics"
do you really think that paleolithich people walked around caring about what kind of potato or carb they found? Of course not, that is ridiculous. They were hunter/gathers, more than likely primarily gathers who ate plants, fruits, leaves, grubs, etc...and most of that was consumed raw...
the whole concept of paleo is ridiculous and not even based on how real paleolithic people ate...
Are you just arguing that you don't like the name? If you were to remove the word "paleo" from the diet along with the ancient-man philosophy, it's a pretty flexible dietary style that allows the gamut of low carb to high carb, vegetarian, etc. It ends up just focusing on whole foods and limiting starches and grains.
Doesn't seem too far out there for me if it was called something else.
Two reasons it is ridiculous;
1. It has absolutely nothing to do with how paleolithic people ate.
2. Everybody has their own version of it. person X cant eat bread, but they can eat sweet potatoes; however, person A can't eat dairy, but person B eats greek yogurt...so basically if Jupiter and Mars are aligned eat X way, but if earth and the sun are in equinox then eat Y way ...0 -
edwasserman wrote: »Why is it better to stuff your kids full of processed junk food than feed them a quality diet of nutrient dense food?
My friends' kids eat nothing but mac & cheese and things that get squeezed from a packet or dumped out from a box. So when they get older and unhealthy, they'll be faced with the same challenges their parents now have and they'll be struggling to change their diet.
As far as kid friendly, I'm not sure. When I was a kid, I really like steak just like anyone else. And sea food. I wouldn't go crazy with the "paleo" versions of SAD. Why does a steak have to have a potato with it?
Strawman argument, FTW!0 -
Are you just arguing that you don't like the name? If you were to remove the word "paleo" from the diet along with the ancient-man philosophy, it's a pretty flexible dietary style that allows the gamut of low carb to high carb, vegetarian, etc. It ends up just focusing on whole foods and limiting starches and grains.
Doesn't seem too far out there for me if it was called something else.
Two reasons it is ridiculous;
1. It has absolutely nothing to do with how paleolithic people ate.
So, the answer is "yes, it's the name that bothers me"?2. Everybody has their own version of it. person X cant eat bread, but they can eat sweet potatoes; however, person A can't eat dairy, but person B eats greek yogurt...so basically if Jupiter and Mars are aligned eat X way, but if earth and the sun are in equinox then eat Y way ...
So what?
0 -
Are you just arguing that you don't like the name? If you were to remove the word "paleo" from the diet along with the ancient-man philosophy, it's a pretty flexible dietary style that allows the gamut of low carb to high carb, vegetarian, etc. It ends up just focusing on whole foods and limiting starches and grains.
Doesn't seem too far out there for me if it was called something else.
Two reasons it is ridiculous;
1. It has absolutely nothing to do with how paleolithic people ate.
So, the answer is "yes, it's the name that bothers me"?2. Everybody has their own version of it. person X cant eat bread, but they can eat sweet potatoes; however, person A can't eat dairy, but person B eats greek yogurt...so basically if Jupiter and Mars are aligned eat X way, but if earth and the sun are in equinox then eat Y way ...
So what?
because it is a Joke.
if it is not based on how Paleolithich people ate why call it that? Oh, I know because it is a catch phrase that will sell books and make people money.
The "so what" is that people actually think they are somehow going to be healthier by eating how paleo people ate, so that is the so what...0 -
so stop critiquing a mom who is trying to do her best to help her kids.
helping your kids is explaining why/how she cooks at home and what macros are.
Helping your kids is making sure you are cooking a variety of food and explaining about moderation.
Helping your kids is explaining why 3 * 3 is the same as 3+3+3 and why a triangle has 3 sides and one side isn't always 90*
Adhering to an admittedly unscientific and completely arbitrary way of eating and just expecting them to eat it because it's what YOU WANT isn't "helping her kids"
PS- don't have kids- have had to feed kids because I was a paid caretaker for almost 3 years.
just you know- to validate myself in your eyes.
Helping kids is also teaching them about nutrition and eating nutritious meals.
Helping kids is also teaching them about how food affects their bodies and minds and about eating food that doesn't make them feel sick or bad in other subtle ways (note -- the OP has never said why she and her family eats Paleo. For all anyone here knows, the kids have Celiac or have recently been told by their doctor to cut out a number of foods and Paleo is a suitable framework to make doing that easier).
Helping kids is also teaching them that a lunch of meat, vegetables, and a side of fruit (mostly "slow burning" fuels, with numerous vitamins and minerals) will fuel their football practice and day of playing better than a lunch of peanut butter and jelly on white bread with a side of fruit (mostly "fast burning" fuels, with fewer vitamins and minerals).
Helping kids is also teaching them how to read nutrition labels and ingredient lists, and teaching them to look beyond the marketing on the front of the container and determine the quality of the contents based on what's in the item in question.
Helping kids is also instilling in them the desire to reach for the whole foods over the refined ones in most cases.
Helping kids is teaching them about weighing the pros and cons of something they want to eat and determining if the pros outweigh the cons at that time (in other words, about making conscious decisions about eating, instead of mindlessly just eating whatever).
All ways of eating are "arbitrary and unscientific." All parents feed their kids something and expect them to at least try it, because it's what the parents want. The parents who feel a sense of responsibility for building good habits in their kids (because there are parents out there who just don't care and will let their kid eat Bon-Bons all day) will do it with foods they consider healthy, based on the knowledge they have.0 -
justcat206 wrote: »we are paleo-ish in our house (we seem to digest better on a low-grain, no dairy diet) and my kids love things like meat and veggie stir-fries, salmon with veggies, meatloaf, cheeseless quiches, chili, giant salads with chicken and eggs, pot roast, etc. Basically pick a protein then add lots of fruits and/or veggies. we do lots of bento meals for lunches the same way. Oh and they like spaghetti squash with homemade meat sauce. That said, my kids have always been raised on atypical foods like tofu and Indian spices and the like, so they never got into the mac'n'cheese habit. And I've found that the less we try to simulate grain-heavy foods with weird paleo substitutes and just look for other types of meals to make, the less my kids complain - they don't even realize we're eating differently.
Disclaimer: we also allow them to eat school lunches, whatever Grandma cooks at her house, pizza at birthday parties, etc and consider it a compromise for their emotional well-being.
Paleo - ish?
Why even label it then?
It's not a term we actually use. I suppose I just meant that we frequently eat meals that could qualify as "paleo" should one wish to label them.0 -
Children have different nutritional needs than adults. They are still growing (and I mean growing UP, not out, as many of us have.
) Feed them carbs. There is no reason for your children to be on a low carb diet. 0 -
Are you just arguing that you don't like the name? If you were to remove the word "paleo" from the diet along with the ancient-man philosophy, it's a pretty flexible dietary style that allows the gamut of low carb to high carb, vegetarian, etc. It ends up just focusing on whole foods and limiting starches and grains.
Doesn't seem too far out there for me if it was called something else.
Two reasons it is ridiculous;
1. It has absolutely nothing to do with how paleolithic people ate.
So, the answer is "yes, it's the name that bothers me"?2. Everybody has their own version of it. person X cant eat bread, but they can eat sweet potatoes; however, person A can't eat dairy, but person B eats greek yogurt...so basically if Jupiter and Mars are aligned eat X way, but if earth and the sun are in equinox then eat Y way ...
So what?
because it is a Joke.
if it is not based on how Paleolithich people ate why call it that? Oh, I know because it is a catch phrase that will sell books and make people money.
The "so what" is that people actually think they are somehow going to be healthier by eating how paleo people ate, so that is the so what...
To my knowledge, the paleolithic thing came primarily like so:
The original "Paleo" diet, written about in the 1960s-1980s was an attempt to reconstruct the types of food paleolithic man ate as best as possible from modern sources. They were based on studies of the time of prehistoric man and the similarities to modern man and whatnot.
Loren Cordain, who specializes in nutrition and has also researched paleolithic nutrition, branded "The Paleo Diet" and popularized the idea. His information was based on a mix of what he'd found in his research that was along the lines of his predecessors, and what he'd been taught in his nutrition education.
Some people, like those behind Weston A Price Foundation, had come up with similar dietary guidelines at the same time, though still quite a bit different, based on a different path of research (WAPF-based dietary frameworks are based more on our more recent history and agrarian ancestors).
Others, like Mark Sisson, Chris Kresser, and Dave Asprey, have taken the combined research of the divergent branches, and used them as a base for further research in order to get the benefits of both while minimizing the perceived risks of the foods that are excluded. At this point, it's become less about just what paleolithic man ate (and reconstructing that), and more about using that as a base and combining that foundation with modern research that shows pros/cons of various other foods and ways of eating to determine what is generally best for our health, then using self-experimentation to handle the things that don't currently have much research (or the research is hazy) to back a decision either way.
As a result, there are four distinct major "branches" of what generally gets lumped under Paleo:
paleolithic recon -- those who follow the pre-Cordain version and reconstruct as best as possible what we currently understand as a paleolithic diet. Yes, may include insects and other such "weird" foods. Consider these kind of like the raw vegans of the Paleo side of the spectrum.
Cordain Paleo -- those who follow Cordain's guidelines. Lean meats, fruits, vegetables. No dairy, legumes, or grains at all. Macros don't matter too much here for most people, though Cordain's stance on saturated fats falls more on the USDA/AHA side of the fence. Consider these the standard vegans.
Primal -- those who follow Mark Sisson's guidelines. This is more low-carb, high-fat leaning. Fatty meats aren't shunned. Milk is allowed on a "if you can tolerate it after an elimination trial, raw is ideal if you can get it, favor grass fed" basis. No legumes or grains. Consider these the lacto-ovo-vegetarians.
WAPF -- those who follow the Weston A. Price Foundation guidelines. Grains and legumes only if they're soaked, sprouted, and/or fermented. Dairy only if it's raw. Consider these the pescatarians (like the pescatarians, they don't technically fall under the umbrella term, but they're usually lumped together under a slightly more broad umbrella term).
And for the record, I'm not a fan of the name "Paleo," in part because it does start arguments like this about whether it's a completely accurate name, which detracts from the spirit of the way of eating and builds a popular strawman. Unfortunately, I don't have a better name that makes a good, memorable sound byte and end up with a mouthful like "whole foods based, low-carb, high-fat, moderate protein, grain-free dietary framework." So, arguing over the validity of the name with me is moot.0 -
just tagging so i can giggle later.
oh and is the whole "if you don't have kids, don't respond" thing on the bingo cards? if not, it should be. this isn't the first thread that dopey statement has been made in.0 -
I asked you a question, would you be interested in not using running sneakers or Internet because they didn't have it?The Paleolithic period lasted over 2.6 million years, which is quite a long fad for the creatures and later humans that got swept up in eating Paleo. And shame on the parents that fed their kids Paleo during this era...
You know what else they didn't have? Running sneakers and Internet. Would you be interested in not using that? Since you know, they didn't and they were so great.
Settle down, bro, no need to go on the offensive, I'm not Paleo, just providing perspective
Settle down bro, not getting defensive, just teaching you logic.
I'll say it again - I don't do Paleo, so posing your question yet again is illogical and irrelevant. To save you a third time, no, I am not interested in a world without sneakers or internet.
Your reasoning behind why we should have our kids follow Paleo is just as illogical then.
Why wouldn't you want to to go without sneakers or internet? That's how they did it for millions of years and look how much they achieved.
Yes, because nothing was ever achieved in the world until sneakers and the internet were invented..actually you may have a point, these kinds of discussions make an internet-free world look more alluring.
Before you quit the internet look up Debating 101. You missed that class.
I imagine that would be a good suggestion for people who didn't go to law school
0 -
They eat paleo guidelines for dinner, school lunches/breakfasts. They get adequate carbs, calcium, vitamins, and other nutrition. No need to pick apart our lifestyles. I say paleo-ish, because they eat store bought bread on weekends at home. And Pizza Hut.0
-
Dragonwolf wrote: »Are you just arguing that you don't like the name? If you were to remove the word "paleo" from the diet along with the ancient-man philosophy, it's a pretty flexible dietary style that allows the gamut of low carb to high carb, vegetarian, etc. It ends up just focusing on whole foods and limiting starches and grains.
Doesn't seem too far out there for me if it was called something else.
Two reasons it is ridiculous;
1. It has absolutely nothing to do with how paleolithic people ate.
So, the answer is "yes, it's the name that bothers me"?2. Everybody has their own version of it. person X cant eat bread, but they can eat sweet potatoes; however, person A can't eat dairy, but person B eats greek yogurt...so basically if Jupiter and Mars are aligned eat X way, but if earth and the sun are in equinox then eat Y way ...
So what?
because it is a Joke.
if it is not based on how Paleolithich people ate why call it that? Oh, I know because it is a catch phrase that will sell books and make people money.
The "so what" is that people actually think they are somehow going to be healthier by eating how paleo people ate, so that is the so what...
To my knowledge, the paleolithic thing came primarily like so:
The original "Paleo" diet, written about in the 1960s-1980s was an attempt to reconstruct the types of food paleolithic man ate as best as possible from modern sources. They were based on studies of the time of prehistoric man and the similarities to modern man and whatnot.
Loren Cordain, who specializes in nutrition and has also researched paleolithic nutrition, branded "The Paleo Diet" and popularized the idea. His information was based on a mix of what he'd found in his research that was along the lines of his predecessors, and what he'd been taught in his nutrition education.
Some people, like those behind Weston A Price Foundation, had come up with similar dietary guidelines at the same time, though still quite a bit different, based on a different path of research (WAPF-based dietary frameworks are based more on our more recent history and agrarian ancestors).
Others, like Mark Sisson, Chris Kresser, and Dave Asprey, have taken the combined research of the divergent branches, and used them as a base for further research in order to get the benefits of both while minimizing the perceived risks of the foods that are excluded. At this point, it's become less about just what paleolithic man ate (and reconstructing that), and more about using that as a base and combining that foundation with modern research that shows pros/cons of various other foods and ways of eating to determine what is generally best for our health, then using self-experimentation to handle the things that don't currently have much research (or the research is hazy) to back a decision either way.
As a result, there are four distinct major "branches" of what generally gets lumped under Paleo:
paleolithic recon -- those who follow the pre-Cordain version and reconstruct as best as possible what we currently understand as a paleolithic diet. Yes, may include insects and other such "weird" foods. Consider these kind of like the raw vegans of the Paleo side of the spectrum.
Cordain Paleo -- those who follow Cordain's guidelines. Lean meats, fruits, vegetables. No dairy, legumes, or grains at all. Macros don't matter too much here for most people, though Cordain's stance on saturated fats falls more on the USDA/AHA side of the fence. Consider these the standard vegans.
Primal -- those who follow Mark Sisson's guidelines. This is more low-carb, high-fat leaning. Fatty meats aren't shunned. Milk is allowed on a "if you can tolerate it after an elimination trial, raw is ideal if you can get it, favor grass fed" basis. No legumes or grains. Consider these the lacto-ovo-vegetarians.
WAPF -- those who follow the Weston A. Price Foundation guidelines. Grains and legumes only if they're soaked, sprouted, and/or fermented. Dairy only if it's raw. Consider these the pescatarians (like the pescatarians, they don't technically fall under the umbrella term, but they're usually lumped together under a slightly more broad umbrella term).
And for the record, I'm not a fan of the name "Paleo," in part because it does start arguments like this about whether it's a completely accurate name, which detracts from the spirit of the way of eating and builds a popular strawman. Unfortunately, I don't have a better name that makes a good, memorable sound byte and end up with a mouthful like "whole foods based, low-carb, high-fat, moderate protein, grain-free dietary framework." So, arguing over the validity of the name with me is moot.
thank you for the breakdown that is interesting..
how about we just call it "the restrict these food groups, because X people have deemed them bad"...???
ETA - In all seriousness, it just sounds gimmicky to me. If you do not have some kind of medical condition or serious food allergies, you can eat all the foods that Paleo restricts, lose weight, and be healthy.
A person that does Paleo is not going to lose fat and be healthier, as opposed to someone doing IIFYM and vice versa....
I just don't understand the demonization of whole food groups...0 -
You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.-2
-
buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
lol please..
you can do that without whichever variant of "paleo" you are on ...
0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »Are you just arguing that you don't like the name? If you were to remove the word "paleo" from the diet along with the ancient-man philosophy, it's a pretty flexible dietary style that allows the gamut of low carb to high carb, vegetarian, etc. It ends up just focusing on whole foods and limiting starches and grains.
Doesn't seem too far out there for me if it was called something else.
Two reasons it is ridiculous;
1. It has absolutely nothing to do with how paleolithic people ate.
So, the answer is "yes, it's the name that bothers me"?2. Everybody has their own version of it. person X cant eat bread, but they can eat sweet potatoes; however, person A can't eat dairy, but person B eats greek yogurt...so basically if Jupiter and Mars are aligned eat X way, but if earth and the sun are in equinox then eat Y way ...
So what?
because it is a Joke.
if it is not based on how Paleolithich people ate why call it that? Oh, I know because it is a catch phrase that will sell books and make people money.
The "so what" is that people actually think they are somehow going to be healthier by eating how paleo people ate, so that is the so what...
To my knowledge, the paleolithic thing came primarily like so:
The original "Paleo" diet, written about in the 1960s-1980s was an attempt to reconstruct the types of food paleolithic man ate as best as possible from modern sources. They were based on studies of the time of prehistoric man and the similarities to modern man and whatnot.
Loren Cordain, who specializes in nutrition and has also researched paleolithic nutrition, branded "The Paleo Diet" and popularized the idea. His information was based on a mix of what he'd found in his research that was along the lines of his predecessors, and what he'd been taught in his nutrition education.
Some people, like those behind Weston A Price Foundation, had come up with similar dietary guidelines at the same time, though still quite a bit different, based on a different path of research (WAPF-based dietary frameworks are based more on our more recent history and agrarian ancestors).
Others, like Mark Sisson, Chris Kresser, and Dave Asprey, have taken the combined research of the divergent branches, and used them as a base for further research in order to get the benefits of both while minimizing the perceived risks of the foods that are excluded. At this point, it's become less about just what paleolithic man ate (and reconstructing that), and more about using that as a base and combining that foundation with modern research that shows pros/cons of various other foods and ways of eating to determine what is generally best for our health, then using self-experimentation to handle the things that don't currently have much research (or the research is hazy) to back a decision either way.
As a result, there are four distinct major "branches" of what generally gets lumped under Paleo:
paleolithic recon -- those who follow the pre-Cordain version and reconstruct as best as possible what we currently understand as a paleolithic diet. Yes, may include insects and other such "weird" foods. Consider these kind of like the raw vegans of the Paleo side of the spectrum.
Cordain Paleo -- those who follow Cordain's guidelines. Lean meats, fruits, vegetables. No dairy, legumes, or grains at all. Macros don't matter too much here for most people, though Cordain's stance on saturated fats falls more on the USDA/AHA side of the fence. Consider these the standard vegans.
Primal -- those who follow Mark Sisson's guidelines. This is more low-carb, high-fat leaning. Fatty meats aren't shunned. Milk is allowed on a "if you can tolerate it after an elimination trial, raw is ideal if you can get it, favor grass fed" basis. No legumes or grains. Consider these the lacto-ovo-vegetarians.
WAPF -- those who follow the Weston A. Price Foundation guidelines. Grains and legumes only if they're soaked, sprouted, and/or fermented. Dairy only if it's raw. Consider these the pescatarians (like the pescatarians, they don't technically fall under the umbrella term, but they're usually lumped together under a slightly more broad umbrella term).
And for the record, I'm not a fan of the name "Paleo," in part because it does start arguments like this about whether it's a completely accurate name, which detracts from the spirit of the way of eating and builds a popular strawman. Unfortunately, I don't have a better name that makes a good, memorable sound byte and end up with a mouthful like "whole foods based, low-carb, high-fat, moderate protein, grain-free dietary framework." So, arguing over the validity of the name with me is moot.
Primal is great for the meat lovers (carnivores thrive on this diet). Also legumes are welcome - in moderation though!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 929 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions