Paleo or no Paleo there lies the question.
Options
Replies
-
mattyc772014 wrote: »My personal friends that are eating Paleo diet always go back to stuffing their faces with bread, grain etc....Just an observation. I find it funny when we go out to dinner and they hog the bread basket. To each their own. I think a little bit of all foods makes it easier.
Easier is such a personal thing. Easier for you does not necessarily mean easier to someone else.0 -
mattyc772014 wrote: »My personal friends that are eating Paleo diet always go back to stuffing their faces with bread, grain etc....Just an observation. I find it funny when we go out to dinner and they hog the bread basket. To each their own. I think a little bit of all foods makes it easier.
Yup. I've experienced this to some extent myself - didn't follow any particular diet, ate very balanced, just had a lot less bread for 18 months... now I'm craving grains
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »mattyc772014 wrote: »My personal friends that are eating Paleo diet always go back to stuffing their faces with bread, grain etc....Just an observation. I find it funny when we go out to dinner and they hog the bread basket. To each their own. I think a little bit of all foods makes it easier.
Easier is such a personal thing. Easier for you does not necessarily mean easier to someone else.
True....Hence why I said I think. You really need to find your own path in all aspects of life.0 -
Right, because the uncertainties over #1 isn't an ongoing debate even among those who support paleo. If you're under the mistaken belief that there is a "the" paleo that's going to give a single answer to that question, you should branch out in your nerd reading, because it simply isn't true.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
As if.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.
excellent answer, as always.
0 -
I think names for ways of eating are not always very helpful. I try to eat low carb high fat as I feel better that way. I also try not to eat refined foods and that principle is loosely Paleo. I also think that make one change at a time and rather than being extreme. It is making drastic changes too quickly that can make people feel unwell and give 'diets' a bad name I think.0
-
BeccaColliesBurton wrote: »I think names for ways of eating are not always very helpful. I try to eat low carb high fat as I feel better that way. I also try not to eat refined foods and that principle is loosely Paleo. I also think that make one change at a time and rather than being extreme. It is making drastic changes too quickly that can make people feel unwell and give 'diets' a bad name I think.
Not every diet is for everyone, which is why if someone tells you 'i cut this out and lost weight', you take it with a grain of salt. (unless that's what you're cutting out XD). Everyone has to work out the best eating plan for themselves, and changing a few things at a time or slowly easing onto a diet plan is a good way to see if it will work well for you.0 -
I have a few of my friends that want to start to do paleo, but they said that a lot of people are telling them that Paleo is bad for your health and bad to lose weight as well.
What do you guys think:
If it appeals to them, there's nothing unhealthy about it (it can be done in an unhealthy way, but that's like everything else). If you keep a calorie deficit while doing it, it's a perfectly good way to lose weight.
However, it has no health benefits or weight loss benefits over just eating a healthy diet with a calorie deficit. And as others have mentioned, the "paleo" rationale isn't convincing and it excludes foods which many find to be quite healthful or helpful, like legumes and dairy, whole grains.0 -
I tried it and found it too restrictive. I didn't lose weight any better either. Some people love it, but you can't be a lover of variety and do it long term IMO.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
As if.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.
Anyone else immediately think of clueless?0 -
Finally.DeguelloTex wrote: »
As if.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.
Anyone else immediately think of clueless?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
As if.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.
Anyone else immediately think of clueless?
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
Well, no, to point 1 regarding which paleolithic people's approach should be followed, "the" paleo approach doesn't address anything.
The problem is that there is no single paleo approach. Which one supposedly mimics which group of of paleo people? The one which allows grains or doesn't? The one which allows tubers or doesn't? The one which allows dairy or doesn't?
0 -
A not so restrictive version of paleo, and for weight loss while following primal blueprint, the advocate behind primal blueprint recommends counting calories.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/#axzz3oS08z5wI0 -
I did paleo for 5 years and my cholesterol went way up (from all the meat, eggs and fat) and I struggled with energy levels, motivation for exercise and weight management. I stopped it this year. Now I'm back to eating forbidden foods like potatoes, grains, beans, sweet fruits and straight up sugar in my tea and coffee. And I've cut way back of fats and even excluded eggs and meat. My cholesterol has finally dropped to normal and my digestion is great. Food is now fun and effortless and normal without the obsessive restrictions. And in just a few short months, I'm down to 124 lbs, my lowest weight in years.
Paleo was a complete ripoff for me and just a complete waste of time. Cravings became unmanageable. I couldn't even eat bread without feeling guilty. And beans! How did I get suckered into believing beans were bad for me? I was an idiot.0 -
hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.
1. My roots are northeastern European. Big game and less edible plant options (than down south) would have been common. It's working for me.
2. What foods would have caused cancer back then?
3. I read that agriculture didn't really hit northern Europe until the Romans tried coming north. That would be roughly 2000 years ago. I could be wrong.
4. You are probably right.
Someone mentioned celiac disease. Funnily enough it is most common in those of northern European decent.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
Well, no, to point 1 regarding which paleolithic people's approach should be followed, "the" paleo approach doesn't address anything.
The problem is that there is no single paleo approach. Which one supposedly mimics which group of of paleo people? The one which allows grains or doesn't? The one which allows tubers or doesn't? The one which allows dairy or doesn't?
This is kind of pointless as far as the diet goes though, don't you think? It's like when people diss the Mediterranean Diet because when they were in <insert Mediterranean country> that's not how they saw people eat.0 -
tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »A not so restrictive version of paleo, and for weight loss while following primal blueprint, the advocate behind primal blueprint recommends counting calories.
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/#axzz3oS08z5wI
No, that's where I learned all the BS. They say if you eat more than 150g of carbs, you will have 'insidious weight gain'. Well, I now eat nearly 300g and I've lost all the weight I needed to. They say don't eat beans and limit fruits to one or two, especially sweet ones. Now I eat all the mangoes and bananas and grapes I want. Lots of BS on that site.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
All of this, of course, is somewhat moot, as the paleo approach to eating defines each.hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
Well, no, to point 1 regarding which paleolithic people's approach should be followed, "the" paleo approach doesn't address anything.
The problem is that there is no single paleo approach. Which one supposedly mimics which group of of paleo people? The one which allows grains or doesn't? The one which allows tubers or doesn't? The one which allows dairy or doesn't?
This is kind of pointless as far as the diet goes though, don't you think? It's like when people diss the Mediterranean Diet because when they were in <insert Mediterranean country> that's not how they saw people eat.
The diet doesn't use Mediterranean people as some ideal form instead of real people. The Mediterranean diet is based on actual evidence based dietary guidelines and uses the region as what most closely corresponds with it. Also because of climate, there are a huge number of similarities in diet and available food to Mediterranean people. For paleolithic people, pretty much every where on Earth but Antarctica.
Paleo is actually trying to claim it somehow mimics the diets of paleolithic man. It tries to act as if it has a scientific basis, but is really wrapped up in an appeal to nature fallacy.0 -
hamlet1222 wrote: »What I don't like about paleo is the basic principle that it's based on, in that what paleolithic man ate must be our ideal diet. I see multiple problems with this.
1. Exactly which paleolithic peoples are we supposed to follow? Humans were spread out across most of the planet, eating what they could find in their area - and this would differ a lot from region to region. There would have been some regions where starchy roots/tubers were a staple food.
2. Paleolithic people weren't concerned about age related illnesses, they just needed to get the energy to survive each day at a time, if something they ate was going to give them cancer in 30 years so what?
3. The agricultural revolution happened around 10,000 years ago, that has given us hundreds of generations since where people who couldn't digest cereals would have died out (I wonder if gluten intolerant people are the last remnants of this?).
4. Paleolithic humans would have been far more active than the average office worker. If you're going to match the diet, why not the activity level too?
Still, if you like the menu and works for you then fine, to each their own.
1. My roots are northeastern European. Big game and less edible plant options (than down south) would have been common. It's working for me.
2. What foods would have caused cancer back then?
3. I read that agriculture didn't really hit northern Europe until the Romans tried coming north. That would be roughly 2000 years ago. I could be wrong.
4. You are probably right.
Someone mentioned celiac disease. Funnily enough it is most common in those of northern European decent.
1. People tend to assume their ancestry - genetic tests often end up a surprise for many.
2. The point is who would know? Few people lived long enough to get to an age where cancer was likely to happen.
3. People have eaten sedges for 4 million years. Also, odd that Northern Europeans have some of the highest rates of lactase persistence if they didn't have agriculture (at least herding style) until very, very recently.0 -
I tried Paleo and got fatter! Clueless back then, it was all the fat I was eating! Nothing wrong fat but I was going way over what my body needed. CICO is so much easier to stick with and makes sense.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 398 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 977 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions