Paleo Recipes my kids will eat

ndj1979 wrote: »

SezxyStef wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

SezxyStef wrote: »

how about this for a compromise...leave in the pasta and switch the ground beef in the sauce for ground deer meat...I have some if you need it...now that's paleo...nom nom.

so paleolithic people ate pasta?? really??

I have no idea...I have to assume not...but the ground deer meat sure fits the paleo thing...and that's what I meant by "now that's paleo"

paleo people ground up dear meat....hmmm interesting..

I believe they ate it raw after tracking said deer down..

given that early paleolithic people probably did not have advanced hunting tools, they probably found already dead deer and ate that...I doubt there was any grinding up of deer meat involved..

mrmagee3 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

Dragonwolf wrote: »

jmauerhan wrote: »

hollydubs85 wrote: »

jmauerhan 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.