Thoughts on paleo?

draznyth wrote: »

strictly from the perspective of fat loss, since that was OP's question...

no

CICO is the only thing that affects weight loss or gain, barring medical issues

if you eat less calories because you get on paleo then I guess you could answer in the affirmative, but paleo would be indirectly responsible, at best

This comment is the answer you are looking for.

Good post, UltimateRBF.

Also, this.

mamapeach910 wrote: »

Well now, wait. If no one here was there ... how do we know ANY food was paleo or not?

No food that exists today is Paleo. The stuff we eat today is so different from what they ate and didn't exist back then.

Which is part of why the whole thing is just silly.

tedboosalis7 wrote: »

Lean meats, seafood, non-starchy veggies, fruit, eggs, nuts, seeds - that's the basis to Paleo. Ditch the grains, you don't need them. Veggies have awesome nutritional value, especially Kale, Broccoli, and Spinach. Fruit serves as a great energy source especially for working out. Meat and eggs provide the protein, seeds and nuts provide essential fats, vitamins, minerals, and fiber. Satiety is promoted with Paleo - if you are serious about it, please visit this site for more information: http://thepaleodiet.com/ - this guy is awesome.

You don't *need* any particular food because there are always others ways to get the nutrients. The issue is not what we need, but what we *want*. A successful diet is any diet that has you eating at a deficit but does not cause a lot of grief and stress. Someone who does not mind not having grains may do well on Paleo, but someone whose intake is predominantly grains will feel greater deprivation which will ultimately mean failure.

There is more to satiety than simply not being hungry. For example, even if I eat a lot of chicken I would still feel hungry because it feels lacking to me without potatoes or rice. It does not feel like a complete meal so I'm left wanting even though my stomach is full, not to mention meat in general is at the bottom of my list of things I can tolerate the taste of. I can tolerate it, and I may even like it in pasta or kebab sandwiches, but the mere idea of giving up more than half of what I currently eat and thoroughly enjoy just to follow some random money grabbers' checklist of things that have an acceptable taste (to me) at best makes me chuckle. I have achieved a nutrient rich diet without having to give up anything I like, so why should I start now?

OP, to repeat what others said. If you like it do it, if you don't like it don't. There is nothing special or magical about this diet.

amusedmonkey wrote: »

tedboosalis7 wrote: »

Lean meats, seafood, non-starchy veggies, fruit, eggs, nuts, seeds - that's the basis to Paleo. Ditch the grains, you don't need them. Veggies have awesome nutritional value, especially Kale, Broccoli, and Spinach. Fruit serves as a great energy source especially for working out. Meat and eggs provide the protein, seeds and nuts provide essential fats, vitamins, minerals, and fiber. Satiety is promoted with Paleo - if you are serious about it, please visit this site for more information: http://thepaleodiet.com/ - this guy is awesome.

You don't *need* any particular food because there are always others ways to get the nutrients. The issue is not what we need, but what we *want*. A successful diet is any diet that has you eating at a deficit but does not cause a lot of grief and stress. Someone who does not mind not having grains may do well on Paleo, but someone whose intake is predominantly grains will feel greater deprivation which will ultimately mean failure.

There is more to satiety than simply not being hungry. For example, even if I eat a lot of chicken I would still feel hungry because it feels lacking to me without potatoes or rice. It does not feel like a complete meal so I'm left wanting even though my stomach is full, not to mention meat in general is at the bottom of my list of things I can tolerate the taste of. I can tolerate it, and I may even like it in pasta or kebab sandwiches, but the mere idea of giving up more than half of what I currently eat and thoroughly enjoy just to follow some random money grabbers' checklist of things that have an acceptable taste (to me) at best makes me chuckle. I have achieved a nutrient rich diet without having to give up anything I like, so why should I start now?

OP, to repeat what others said. If you like it do it, if you don't like it don't. There is nothing special or magical about this diet.

The part above is what gets me about all of these special "diets". If they are comprised of foods you love and what you're giving up isn't really that big a deal to you... then great. You've found a sustainable way of eating.

But too many times, scratch a paleo person, and they all have a story when they went somewhere and ate some french fries or fast food or had cookies. Same for a low carber. All of them? No. A fair portion of them? Yup.

Now, I will say, when I ate either paleo or low carb, I NEVER cheated except to... this is shocking... I put carrots in my chicken soup when I was sick. I considered that a "cheat". I'm just going by my years of hearing other people talk about eating either paleo or low carb.

I might possibly be projecting here, but to me, it just seems logical that it's easier to find a way of eating that includes all of the foods you like and want, fit them within your nutrition and calorie goals and move on with life.

It might not have a fancy label. You might not get to feel superior doing it, but it's freeing.