Paleo Restart
kozinskey
Posts: 176 Member
Has anyone bought this program? What are your thoughts on it? I'm having trouble finding a review online that isn't sponsored by these guys.
More info: I'm really tempted by it because I do like the PaleoLeap recipes and I could use some short-term accountability, but I'm not willing to go 100% paleo. I'm good friends with dairy and oat bran. Is there room for flexibility in the program? Also, do they really mean it when they say it's a one-time fee?
More info: I'm really tempted by it because I do like the PaleoLeap recipes and I could use some short-term accountability, but I'm not willing to go 100% paleo. I'm good friends with dairy and oat bran. Is there room for flexibility in the program? Also, do they really mean it when they say it's a one-time fee?
0
Replies
-
-
complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate1
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
-
0
-
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
So it's ok to say your doing paleo bc it's closer to paleo than someone that has zero desire to do paleo??? That's your argument????
0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
And? Closer doesn't equal the same. Those things in your first paragraph are also closer to what pre-Industrial Revolution people ate. Why aren't we calling it the pre-industrial diet?
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things in your second paragraph within the context of a well-balanced diet.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
The paelofantasy is strong you.YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Yeah! And if that caveman was here with us right now, he would also get to enjoy our buffet of diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, autoimmune disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and a host of neurological disease.
"Closely examining one group of modern hunter–gatherers—the Hiwi—reveals how much variation exists within the diet of a single small foraging society and deflates the notion that hunter–gatherers have impeccable health. Such examination also makes obvious the immense gap between a genuine community of foragers and Paleo dieters living in modern cities, selectively shopping at farmers' markets and making sure the dressing on their house salad is gluten, sugar and dairy free."
--snip--
The Hiwi gather and hunt a diverse group of plants and animals from the savannas, forests, rivers and swamps. Their main sources of meat are capybara, collared peccary, deer, anteater, armadillo, and feral cattle, numerous species of fish, and at least some turtle species.
--snip--
The Hiwi are not particularly healthy. Compared to the Ache, a hunter–gatherer tribe in Paraguay, the Hiwi are shorter, thinner, more lethargic and less well nourished. Hiwi men and women of all ages constantly complain of hunger. Many Hiwi are heavily infected with parasitic hookworms, which burrow into the small intestine and feed on blood. And only 50 percent of Hiwi children survive beyond the age of 15.
--snip--
Drop Grok into the Hiwi's midst—or indeed among any modern or ancient hunter–gather society—and he would be a complete aberration. Grok cannot teach us how to live or eat; he never existed. Living off the land or restricting oneself to foods available before agriculture and industry does not guarantee good health"0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Those foods in the second paragraph were never on the list of a balanced diet in the pre-industrial revolution, ghengis khan's empire, middle ages, roman empire, greek empire, ancient egypt, neolithic revolution, and the revolution of 5 guys named grok, smok, bok, lok, and oshbegok against 5 other guys with the same name around some bonfire 20,000 years ago.
So you're right, all those foods can be part of any balanced diet. It's the actual definition of a balanced diet that is a freakshow in light of everything that's come before us.
The foods on your list aren't the distinction between a paleo diet and the balance of a normal healthy diet. The difference between paleo and mainstream current nutritional advice is, of course, legumes, grains, and dairy. Paleo says those foods are bad for us and should not be part of a good balanced diet, whereas mainstream nutritional advice is that legumes and whole-grains are generally good for us and correlated with positive health outcomes, whereas eating a high percentage of meat is not, and dairy is more neutral (but generally fine for those who aren't lactose intolerant, which most people with ancestry from certain geographic areas are not).
One problem with the "paleo" label is that it's not really true that paleo people uniformly did not eat grains or legumes (there's a reason they started cultivating them, after all), and while they would have done so less pre agriculture, as they obviously soon became staple crops (and plenty of traditional diets based on these staple crops seem to be quite healthy), agriculture led over time to major changes in a huge number of the other crops we eat.
So to single out legumes and grains and dairy as bad for us seems to be based on weak evidence.
IMO, there are problems with the SAD, but it's not the presence of grains, legumes, and dairy, and it's also not the macro ratios (although there's no reason paleo should be low carb anyway--that's just a common claim on MFP).1 -
nakedraygun wrote: »
The paelofantasy is strong you.YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Yeah! And if that caveman was here with us right now, he would also get to enjoy our buffet of diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, autoimmune disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and a host of neurological disease.
"Closely examining one group of modern hunter–gatherers—the Hiwi—reveals how much variation exists within the diet of a single small foraging society and deflates the notion that hunter–gatherers have impeccable health. Such examination also makes obvious the immense gap between a genuine community of foragers and Paleo dieters living in modern cities, selectively shopping at farmers' markets and making sure the dressing on their house salad is gluten, sugar and dairy free."
--snip--
The Hiwi gather and hunt a diverse group of plants and animals from the savannas, forests, rivers and swamps. Their main sources of meat are capybara, collared peccary, deer, anteater, armadillo, and feral cattle, numerous species of fish, and at least some turtle species.
--snip--
The Hiwi are not particularly healthy. Compared to the Ache, a hunter–gatherer tribe in Paraguay, the Hiwi are shorter, thinner, more lethargic and less well nourished. Hiwi men and women of all ages constantly complain of hunger. Many Hiwi are heavily infected with parasitic hookworms, which burrow into the small intestine and feed on blood. And only 50 percent of Hiwi children survive beyond the age of 15.
--snip--
Drop Grok into the Hiwi's midst—or indeed among any modern or ancient hunter–gather society—and he would be a complete aberration. Grok cannot teach us how to live or eat; he never existed. Living off the land or restricting oneself to foods available before agriculture and industry does not guarantee good health"
I don't think that the poster was saying that there isn't a variety in hunter gatherer diets. But the commonality between them all (despite widely varying foods and macro ratios) is whole single ingredient real food. That's the point.
Yes, hunter gatherers have other problems, but not diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, autoimmune disease etc as described above.
Those hunter gatherer societies of today die by infection and trauma, same as paleolithic man. Not by a chronic disease of this side of the world. Real food doesn't cause trauma and infection for the most part. Other things caused death back then, like scraping your knee and not having antibiotics to treat the infection, a tiger biting one's head off, falling off cliffs, freezing to death, and of course, infant mortality.
The point of the paleolithic diet, or derivatives thereof, is to try to get the best of both worlds - the diet that is in line with a time when there weren't the chronic diseases of today (real food is accessible today), and the amenities of today that protect from tigers and lions and acute infections and water systems with parasites.
With respect to starvation, I'm not surprised. The ecosystem of today does not support the same amount of wildlife (aka food) that it did at a time when climate changes, pollution etc were not brought about by man.1 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »
Yeah! And if that caveman was here with us right now, he would also get to enjoy our buffet of diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, autoimmune disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and a host of neurological disease.
that may be the most ridiculous statement I have seen on here in a while.
why is modern mans life span almost three times that of our paleolithic brethren if we are dining from a buffet of diabetes, cancer, etc?????
1 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
And? Closer doesn't equal the same. Those things in your first paragraph are also closer to what pre-Industrial Revolution people ate. Why aren't we calling it the pre-industrial diet?
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things in your second paragraph within the context of a well-balanced diet.
I'm cool with pre-industrial revolution diet. Minus grains of course. I don't really care what the label is called.
A well-balance diet is labelled as such in the context of what people consider normal at the time. What is considered normal and well balanced now is defined by what is available and heavily includes what people can't get enough of.
Those foods in the second paragraph were never on the list of a balanced diet in the pre-industrial revolution, ghengis khan's empire, middle ages, roman empire, greek empire, ancient egypt, neolithic revolution, and the revolution of 5 guys named grok, smok, bok, lok, and oshbegok against 5 other guys with the same name around some bonfire 20,000 years ago.
So you're right, all those foods can be part of any balanced diet. It's the actual definition of a balanced diet that is a freakshow in light of everything that's come before us.
balanced diet = hitting macros and micros and making sure that one is getting majority of foods from nutrient dense sources…
You are saying that is a freakshow?
oh look a poster with an empty diary that doesn't care for anyone else to see what exactly his "superior paleo" diet consists of ….
0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Asher_Ethan wrote: »
Yeah! And if that caveman was here with us right now, he would also get to enjoy our buffet of diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer's, autoimmune disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease and a host of neurological disease.
that may be the most ridiculous statement I have seen on here in a while.
why is modern mans life span almost three times that of our paleolithic brethren if we are dining from a buffet of diabetes, cancer, etc?????
Because that's not what killed paleolithic man.
Infant mortality, infection, trauma from predators tend to kill you sooner than the above conditions. Especially infant mortality no? Those are what killed paleolithic man. We are kind of protected from those things to a larger degree this day and age.
And the lack of those chronic diseases above isn't limited to the paleolithic era... They were all rare as hens teeth prior to the 1900s. They existed, but were very isolated case reports compared to today.
And the argument that we live longer to get these diseases today does not explain the 40 year olds with heart attacks, autoimmune disease affecting any age, higher incidence of cancer in 30 year olds, diabetes in teenagers (type II, not type I), and obese infants. Not to mention neurodegenerative diseases.
the other thing, is that paleolithic death causes were nice and quick. The other causes, aside from that monster heart attack, all take their sweet time.
from what I understand about the paleo diet, it isn't about preventing death, but more about preventing suffering.
Now, you could make an argument that life without deep and delicious cakes or McDonald's or whatever is also suffering. That would be a valid point. But you turn back the clock even no more than a hundred years, and those modern foods didn't exist. And many people seemed to be quite happy despite those things not being in their lives.2 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »I don't think that the poster was saying that there isn't a variety in hunter gatherer diets. But the commonality between them all (despite widely varying foods and macro ratios) is whole single ingredient real food.
That's not actually what defines the paleo diet. The whole foods thing is also of course true for the wide variety of traditional (not paleo) diets that existed post agriculture (as well as how many non paleo people choose to eat for the most part). Remember it's the staples that came about post-agriculture that paleo is saying are the problem: grains, legumes, and dairy. That's why it claims to be "paleo" and NOT pre industrial.
Also, I have no idea what you mean by "single ingredient," but paleo doesn't require people to eat based on single ingredients (luckily, or it would be much more unpleasant and restrictive than it is--as it is I think it can be a quite pleasant way of eating, depending on your preferences).
As I've said before, I have nothing at all against the paleo diet. I enjoyed it when I did it and think it can be an easy way for some people to eat in a healthful way. But the basic health claims (re the bad effects of agriculture on humans in general), as well as the specific claims about how paleo people ate are not accurate.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »BrownTown14 wrote: »I don't think that the poster was saying that there isn't a variety in hunter gatherer diets. But the commonality between them all (despite widely varying foods and macro ratios) is whole single ingredient real food.
That's not actually what defines the paleo diet. The whole foods thing is also of course true for the wide variety of traditional (not paleo) diets that existed post agriculture (as well as how many non paleo people choose to eat for the most part). Remember it's the staples that came about post-agriculture that paleo is saying are the problem: grains, legumes, and dairy. That's why it claims to be "paleo" and NOT pre industrial.
Also, I have no idea what you mean by "single ingredient," but paleo doesn't require people to eat based on single ingredients (luckily, or it would be much more unpleasant and restrictive than it is--as it is I think it can be a quite pleasant way of eating, depending on your preferences).
I myself am not arguing for the actual paleo diet, just that the premises are certainly better than the SAD.
With respect to legumes, dairy (esp full fat dairy from grass fed animals) and grains.....
Thoughts actually vary on this. The poster (not OP) was referring to primal, which is more permissive in this regard. However, omission of these foods is most relevant from an autoimmune standpoint. Things do become quite strict in that regard and paleo seemed to want to encompass that in it's diet dogma.
And when in comes to grains, that's a bit of a slippery slope as well. There was a bit of a decrease in health at the neolithic revolution, but grains were not the majority of the diet composition even back then, so they couldn't cause as much damage as they do now. The different story started in the mid 1900s. Grains really took front and center stage (and stage left and stage right) starting in the 70s, which is when hospital bills really started to take off as well.
When it comes to studies citing the benefits of whole grains, it should be pointed out that the control group is always those who ate the refined grains/junk food etc. Really, all they say is that Less Bad is better than good. The studies that show whole grain diets compared to no grain diets do have small number of participants, but all unanimously show better health markers (and weight loss) with no grains.
0 -
OP, if you are set on paleo, the groups are the best option. I tried paleo but I couldn't stick with it. It restricted too many foods that I enjoyed and there isn't much solid science or reason to why they restrict certain foods (like nuts). I much prefer focusing my efforts on nutrient dense foods and making smarter choices 80-90% of the time.0
-
If grains, legumes, dairy, etc. are so bad, please explain why the healthiest populations in the world regularly consume them.
Dietary Habits of the World’s Healthiest Populations
The Blue Zones are populations with the longest life expectancies,
highest centenarian rates, and lowest rates of chronic & degenerative
disease [51]. Five “longevity hot spots” have been identified and
studied by research teams led by explorer Dan Buettner.
The Blue Zones
• Ikaria, Greece: A variation of the Mediterranean diet, rich in
olive oil, fruits, vegetables (wild greens), whole grains, fruit and
a little fish. Goat milk and wine (about 2 glasses per day) are also
traditional. Coffee and tea are consumed regularly.
• Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda, California: Vegetarian diet
rich in beans & nuts, low EPA/DHA intake, high intake of the
plant-derived omega-6 fatty acid, no alcoholic beverage
consumption.
• Nicoya, Costa Rica: Black beans, white rice, corn tortillas, squash, eggs
(mostly fried), and fruit are staples. More meat (mainly chicken & pork)
and fruit is consumed compared to other blue zones. The water is very
high in minerals, especially calcium due to the regions limestone
bedrock. Coffee is drank daily, sweetened with raw sugar cane.
• Sardinia, Italy: Plant-dominant diet, large quantities of dark red wine,
fava beans, and barley are consumed. Goat milk & goat cheese are
staples. Meat intake (lamb, lean pork, oily fish, and shellfish) is modest
& infrequent. Coffee is drank daily.
• Okinawa, Japan: Plant-dominant diet, large amounts of various types
of seaweed are consumed. Staples include sweet potatoes, soy beans
& soy products such as tofu & miso, white rice, and tea. Raw sugar is
eaten with snacks. Minor consumption of fish & pork. The diet is very
high-carb, very low-fat. Virtually no eggs or dairy.
Dietary Commonalities Among the Blue Zones
• Largely plant-based.
• No over-eating.
• Foods are locally or home-grown & home-prepared.
• Carbohydrate (largely from starch) is the predominant
macronutrient.
• Beans, including fava, black, soy and lentils, are the
cornerstone of most centenarian diets.
• 3 of the 5 zones are regular coffee consumers.
• 4 of the 5 zones are regular alcohol consumers.
• All 5 zones are regular consumers of grains & legumes.
• None of the zones follow a Paleo-type diet.
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf1 -
Do you already eat paleo style? If so, that's a good group. If you're considering paleo and want other paleo people's experiences with the "restart" that's a good group. If you're wondering if paleo is worthwhile and want very varied opinions, ask here.0 -
YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
And? Closer doesn't equal the same. Those things in your first paragraph are also closer to what pre-Industrial Revolution people ate. Why aren't we calling it the pre-industrial diet?
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things in your second paragraph within the context of a well-balanced diet.
I'm cool with pre-industrial revolution diet. Minus grains of course. I don't really care what the label is called.
A well-balance diet is labelled as such in the context of what people consider normal at the time. What is considered normal and well balanced now is defined by what is available and heavily includes what people can't get enough of.
Those foods in the second paragraph were never on the list of a balanced diet in the pre-industrial revolution, ghengis khan's empire, middle ages, roman empire, greek empire, ancient egypt, neolithic revolution, and the revolution of 5 guys named grok, smok, bok, lok, and oshbegok against 5 other guys with the same name around some bonfire 20,000 years ago.
So you're right, all those foods can be part of any balanced diet. It's the actual definition of a balanced diet that is a freakshow in light of everything that's come before us.
balanced diet = hitting macros and micros and making sure that one is getting majority of foods from nutrient dense sources…
You are saying that is a freakshow?
oh look a poster with an empty diary that doesn't care for anyone else to see what exactly his "superior paleo" diet consists of ….
Change majority to all. I am just kidding - but it's good to read that you do endorse eating nutrient-dense foods. I was more skeptical but understand that you do like to include other foods so long as it fits into your macro and daily/weekly caloric intake.
I eat Paleo minus dairy - which consists of Kerrywood Irish Butter (if I haven't turned it into ghee), whole milk yogurt, and now the tuber (Idaho Potato - baked for the carbs). I am eating white rice (for the extra carb load for weight training) - staying away from brown rice due to its anti-nutrient properties that stop the absorption of certain vitamins and minerals.
No grains (other than rice) - just not worth it in my estimation. I can get my fiber from fruit, veggies, nuts/seeds. There's really not a good reason to eat them - there's more risk than reward. The nutritional properties of grains are far exceeded by veggies/fruits - so why bother. Not only that, I love the taste of veggies and fruit - so I would rather eat them over a grain - and it's helluva a lot easier - since I don't have to bake my own bread to do so (as an example). It's easy cheesy to eat fruits/veggies with a Vitamix (as another example).
Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make. This will help facilitate a healthy life. I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part). Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Hence why the calorie is composed of a multitude of things, macros and micros, and some are more highly qualified than others. You cannot outrun a bad diet. I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
It's not meant to be equated with "this is what they ate in Paleolithic times" it's meant as equivalency. It's about deriving the nature of the food to understand whether that food could've existed during the time period. It's not meant to be a 1:1 comparison - even the founder of Paleo approaches the subject-matter that way.1 -
Those blue zone folks sure eat healthfully!FunkyTobias wrote: »If grains, legumes, dairy, etc. are so bad, please explain why the healthiest populations in the world regularly consume them.
Dietary Habits of the World’s Healthiest Populations
The Blue Zones are populations with the longest life expectancies,
highest centenarian rates, and lowest rates of chronic & degenerative
disease [51]. Five “longevity hot spots” have been identified and
studied by research teams led by explorer Dan Buettner.
The Blue Zones
• Ikaria, Greece: A variation of the Mediterranean diet, rich in
olive oil, fruits, vegetables (wild greens), whole grains, fruit and
a little fish. Goat milk and wine (about 2 glasses per day) are also
traditional. Coffee and tea are consumed regularly.
• Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda, California: Vegetarian diet
rich in beans & nuts, low EPA/DHA intake, high intake of the
plant-derived omega-6 fatty acid, no alcoholic beverage
consumption.
• Nicoya, Costa Rica: Black beans, white rice, corn tortillas, squash, eggs
(mostly fried), and fruit are staples. More meat (mainly chicken & pork)
and fruit is consumed compared to other blue zones. The water is very
high in minerals, especially calcium due to the regions limestone
bedrock. Coffee is drank daily, sweetened with raw sugar cane.
• Sardinia, Italy: Plant-dominant diet, large quantities of dark red wine,
fava beans, and barley are consumed. Goat milk & goat cheese are
staples. Meat intake (lamb, lean pork, oily fish, and shellfish) is modest
& infrequent. Coffee is drank daily.
• Okinawa, Japan: Plant-dominant diet, large amounts of various types
of seaweed are consumed. Staples include sweet potatoes, soy beans
& soy products such as tofu & miso, white rice, and tea. Raw sugar is
eaten with snacks. Minor consumption of fish & pork. The diet is very
high-carb, very low-fat. Virtually no eggs or dairy.
Dietary Commonalities Among the Blue Zones
• Largely plant-based.
• No over-eating.
• Foods are locally or home-grown & home-prepared.
• Carbohydrate (largely from starch) is the predominant
macronutrient.
• Beans, including fava, black, soy and lentils, are the
cornerstone of most centenarian diets.
• 3 of the 5 zones are regular coffee consumers.
• 4 of the 5 zones are regular alcohol consumers.
• All 5 zones are regular consumers of grains & legumes.
• None of the zones follow a Paleo-type diet.
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf
0 -
I was not making an argument based upon variety, but illustrating the belief that by merely eating "paleo" (whatever that that actually is since there is no coherent definition even amongst its adherents which you even acknowledge) does not guarantee "health eating."BrownTown14 wrote: »I don't think that the poster was saying that there isn't a variety in hunter gatherer diets. But the commonality between them all (despite widely varying foods and macro ratios) is whole single ingredient real food. That's the point.
Yes, hunter gatherers have other problems, but not diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, autoimmune disease etc as described above.
Those hunter gatherer societies of today die by infection and trauma, same as paleolithic man. Not by a chronic disease of this side of the world. Real food doesn't cause trauma and infection for the most part. Other things caused death back then, like scraping your knee and not having antibiotics to treat the infection, a tiger biting one's head off, falling off cliffs, freezing to death, and of course, infant mortality.
What I did, in fact, was demonstrate that "eating paleo" has its own pitfalls, primarily malnutrition, and higher incidents of child mortality.
And please, define "real food." If your definition of "real food" is predicated upon an argument from incredulity -- try again -- until you can supply a definition that does not rely on "yucky."
Magical thinking. Next.BrownTown14 wrote: »The point of the paleolithic diet, or derivatives thereof, is to try to get the best of both worlds - the diet that is in line with a time when there weren't the chronic diseases of today (real food is accessible today), and the amenities of today that protect from tigers and lions and acute infections and water systems with parasites.
You mean to tell me that starvation did not exist when tribes of paleo foragers and hunters primarily existed?BrownTown14 wrote: »With respect to starvation, I'm not surprised. The ecosystem of today does not support the same amount of wildlife (aka food) that it did at a time when climate changes, pollution etc were not brought about by man.
Thanks, I learn new something everyday.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »It's about deriving the nature of the food to understand whether that food could've existed during the time period.
Why do you think this matters?
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Those blue zone folks sure eat healthfully!FunkyTobias wrote: »If grains, legumes, dairy, etc. are so bad, please explain why the healthiest populations in the world regularly consume them.
Dietary Habits of the World’s Healthiest Populations
The Blue Zones are populations with the longest life expectancies,
highest centenarian rates, and lowest rates of chronic & degenerative
disease [51]. Five “longevity hot spots” have been identified and
studied by research teams led by explorer Dan Buettner.
The Blue Zones
• Ikaria, Greece: A variation of the Mediterranean diet, rich in
olive oil, fruits, vegetables (wild greens), whole grains, fruit and
a little fish. Goat milk and wine (about 2 glasses per day) are also
traditional. Coffee and tea are consumed regularly.
• Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda, California: Vegetarian diet
rich in beans & nuts, low EPA/DHA intake, high intake of the
plant-derived omega-6 fatty acid, no alcoholic beverage
consumption.
• Nicoya, Costa Rica: Black beans, white rice, corn tortillas, squash, eggs
(mostly fried), and fruit are staples. More meat (mainly chicken & pork)
and fruit is consumed compared to other blue zones. The water is very
high in minerals, especially calcium due to the regions limestone
bedrock. Coffee is drank daily, sweetened with raw sugar cane.
• Sardinia, Italy: Plant-dominant diet, large quantities of dark red wine,
fava beans, and barley are consumed. Goat milk & goat cheese are
staples. Meat intake (lamb, lean pork, oily fish, and shellfish) is modest
& infrequent. Coffee is drank daily.
• Okinawa, Japan: Plant-dominant diet, large amounts of various types
of seaweed are consumed. Staples include sweet potatoes, soy beans
& soy products such as tofu & miso, white rice, and tea. Raw sugar is
eaten with snacks. Minor consumption of fish & pork. The diet is very
high-carb, very low-fat. Virtually no eggs or dairy.
Dietary Commonalities Among the Blue Zones
• Largely plant-based.
• No over-eating.
• Foods are locally or home-grown & home-prepared.
• Carbohydrate (largely from starch) is the predominant
macronutrient.
• Beans, including fava, black, soy and lentils, are the
cornerstone of most centenarian diets.
• 3 of the 5 zones are regular coffee consumers.
• 4 of the 5 zones are regular alcohol consumers.
• All 5 zones are regular consumers of grains & legumes.
• None of the zones follow a Paleo-type diet.
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf
I am Greek. Any Greek would stipulate that grains actually aren't necessarily a staple part of the diet. It's really just freshly baked bread - which in my estimation is much better quality than American bread anyway (if you haven't had it, you are truly missing out. It is quite honestly the best bread I've ever eaten). However, beyond that, grains are not eaten by Greeks. Lentils are - I can stipulate to that but NOT to the degree probably explained here - it's used during Lent and virtually only Lent as a substitute for meat - but not grains. Grains are heavily imported in Greece. Greeks derive much of their food from veggies/fruit, goat milk - things they grow there. I have been there 4 times - since my ancestry is Greek.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »If grains, legumes, dairy, etc. are so bad, please explain why the healthiest populations in the world regularly consume them.
Dietary Habits of the World’s Healthiest Populations
The Blue Zones are populations with the longest life expectancies,
highest centenarian rates, and lowest rates of chronic & degenerative
disease [51]. Five “longevity hot spots” have been identified and
studied by research teams led by explorer Dan Buettner.
The Blue Zones
• Ikaria, Greece: A variation of the Mediterranean diet, rich in
olive oil, fruits, vegetables (wild greens), whole grains, fruit and
a little fish. Goat milk and wine (about 2 glasses per day) are also
traditional. Coffee and tea are consumed regularly.
• Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda, California: Vegetarian diet
rich in beans & nuts, low EPA/DHA intake, high intake of the
plant-derived omega-6 fatty acid, no alcoholic beverage
consumption.
• Nicoya, Costa Rica: Black beans, white rice, corn tortillas, squash, eggs
(mostly fried), and fruit are staples. More meat (mainly chicken & pork)
and fruit is consumed compared to other blue zones. The water is very
high in minerals, especially calcium due to the regions limestone
bedrock. Coffee is drank daily, sweetened with raw sugar cane.
• Sardinia, Italy: Plant-dominant diet, large quantities of dark red wine,
fava beans, and barley are consumed. Goat milk & goat cheese are
staples. Meat intake (lamb, lean pork, oily fish, and shellfish) is modest
& infrequent. Coffee is drank daily.
• Okinawa, Japan: Plant-dominant diet, large amounts of various types
of seaweed are consumed. Staples include sweet potatoes, soy beans
& soy products such as tofu & miso, white rice, and tea. Raw sugar is
eaten with snacks. Minor consumption of fish & pork. The diet is very
high-carb, very low-fat. Virtually no eggs or dairy.
Dietary Commonalities Among the Blue Zones
• Largely plant-based.
• No over-eating.
• Foods are locally or home-grown & home-prepared.
• Carbohydrate (largely from starch) is the predominant
macronutrient.
• Beans, including fava, black, soy and lentils, are the
cornerstone of most centenarian diets.
• 3 of the 5 zones are regular coffee consumers.
• 4 of the 5 zones are regular alcohol consumers.
• All 5 zones are regular consumers of grains & legumes.
• None of the zones follow a Paleo-type diet.
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf
Agreed with your post. No qualms with it.
But again, I don't think anybody was saying the rules of the Paleo diet are the ones to live by. Not all grains are the same, no doubt. Legumes affect different people differently. Same with dairy, and dairy varies widely on quality and source. So it's hard to be too dogmatic about those. I agree.
What a few of us ARE saying is that those Blue Zones sure don't look like a SAD with moderation.
And just throwing this out there, if more and more of the world is adopting the SAD (which they are), it's kind of easy to be healthy by comparison. It's getting easier to be a Blue Zone. Just don't do what North America is doing.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »YayFoodYayFood wrote: »complete waste of money as I am guessing this is going to be nothing like how real Paleolithic people ate
As a primal diet/exercise guy, I actually agree with your statement. Things like grass-fed grass-finished lamb, grass-fed grass-finished beef, and the modern organic versions of fruits and vegetables are probably not what real paleolithic people ate.
But I am very very very certain that the those foods are much closer to what paleolithic people ate in comparison to pop tarts, donuts, pizza, candy bars, frozen dinners, McDonalds, twinkies, cupcakes, bread, mystery meat, glow in the dark crackers, coca cola, lucky charms, count chocula, muffins, croissants, and french fries that will stay mould free until the year 2089.
And? Closer doesn't equal the same. Those things in your first paragraph are also closer to what pre-Industrial Revolution people ate. Why aren't we calling it the pre-industrial diet?
Also, there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those things in your second paragraph within the context of a well-balanced diet.
I'm cool with pre-industrial revolution diet. Minus grains of course. I don't really care what the label is called.
A well-balance diet is labelled as such in the context of what people consider normal at the time. What is considered normal and well balanced now is defined by what is available and heavily includes what people can't get enough of.
Those foods in the second paragraph were never on the list of a balanced diet in the pre-industrial revolution, ghengis khan's empire, middle ages, roman empire, greek empire, ancient egypt, neolithic revolution, and the revolution of 5 guys named grok, smok, bok, lok, and oshbegok against 5 other guys with the same name around some bonfire 20,000 years ago.
So you're right, all those foods can be part of any balanced diet. It's the actual definition of a balanced diet that is a freakshow in light of everything that's come before us.
balanced diet = hitting macros and micros and making sure that one is getting majority of foods from nutrient dense sources…
You are saying that is a freakshow?
oh look a poster with an empty diary that doesn't care for anyone else to see what exactly his "superior paleo" diet consists of ….
Change majority to all. I am just kidding - but it's good to read that you do endorse eating nutrient-dense foods. I was more skeptical but understand that you do like to include other foods so long as it fits into your macro and daily/weekly caloric intake.
I eat Paleo minus dairy - which consists of Kerrywood Irish Butter (if I haven't turned it into ghee), whole milk yogurt, and now the tuber (Idaho Potato - baked for the carbs). I am eating white rice (for the extra carb load for weight training) - staying away from brown rice due to its anti-nutrient properties that stop the absorption of certain vitamins and minerals.
No grains (other than rice) - just not worth it in my estimation. I can get my fiber from fruit, veggies, nuts/seeds. There's really not a good reason to eat them - there's more risk than reward. The nutritional properties of grains are far exceeded by veggies/fruits - so why bother. Not only that, I love the taste of veggies and fruit - so I would rather eat them over a grain - and it's helluva a lot easier - since I don't have to bake my own bread to do so (as an example). It's easy cheesy to eat fruits/veggies with a Vitamix (as another example).
Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make. This will help facilitate a healthy life. I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part). Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Hence why the calorie is composed of a multitude of things, macros and micros, and some are more highly qualified than others. You cannot outrun a bad diet. I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
It's not meant to be equated with "this is what they ate in Paleolithic times" it's meant as equivalency. It's about deriving the nature of the food to understand whether that food could've existed during the time period. It's not meant to be a 1:1 comparison - even the founder of Paleo approaches the subject-matter that way.
Yeah, I agree, it's not about the dogma, but the overall approach. And glad you brought up CICO - I don't think eating less amount of food is a bad idea.
Those who preach paleo dogma seemed to have really rubbed some of you guys the wrong way, and I see why. That dogmatic stuff is stupid and myopic.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »If grains, legumes, dairy, etc. are so bad, please explain why the healthiest populations in the world regularly consume them.
Dietary Habits of the World’s Healthiest Populations
The Blue Zones are populations with the longest life expectancies,
highest centenarian rates, and lowest rates of chronic & degenerative
disease [51]. Five “longevity hot spots” have been identified and
studied by research teams led by explorer Dan Buettner.
The Blue Zones
• Ikaria, Greece: A variation of the Mediterranean diet, rich in
olive oil, fruits, vegetables (wild greens), whole grains, fruit and
a little fish. Goat milk and wine (about 2 glasses per day) are also
traditional. Coffee and tea are consumed regularly.
• Seventh Day Adventists in Loma Linda, California: Vegetarian diet
rich in beans & nuts, low EPA/DHA intake, high intake of the
plant-derived omega-6 fatty acid, no alcoholic beverage
consumption.
• Nicoya, Costa Rica: Black beans, white rice, corn tortillas, squash, eggs
(mostly fried), and fruit are staples. More meat (mainly chicken & pork)
and fruit is consumed compared to other blue zones. The water is very
high in minerals, especially calcium due to the regions limestone
bedrock. Coffee is drank daily, sweetened with raw sugar cane.
• Sardinia, Italy: Plant-dominant diet, large quantities of dark red wine,
fava beans, and barley are consumed. Goat milk & goat cheese are
staples. Meat intake (lamb, lean pork, oily fish, and shellfish) is modest
& infrequent. Coffee is drank daily.
• Okinawa, Japan: Plant-dominant diet, large amounts of various types
of seaweed are consumed. Staples include sweet potatoes, soy beans
& soy products such as tofu & miso, white rice, and tea. Raw sugar is
eaten with snacks. Minor consumption of fish & pork. The diet is very
high-carb, very low-fat. Virtually no eggs or dairy.
Dietary Commonalities Among the Blue Zones
• Largely plant-based.
• No over-eating.
• Foods are locally or home-grown & home-prepared.
• Carbohydrate (largely from starch) is the predominant
macronutrient.
• Beans, including fava, black, soy and lentils, are the
cornerstone of most centenarian diets.
• 3 of the 5 zones are regular coffee consumers.
• 4 of the 5 zones are regular alcohol consumers.
• All 5 zones are regular consumers of grains & legumes.
• None of the zones follow a Paleo-type diet.
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf
Interesting to see the common ties, as well as the ones that they don't share, thanks for posting!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions