Paleo or no Paleo there lies the question.
Replies
-
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
-
I'm doing primal for health reasons. It can be very helpful for auto immune diseases. Also there is zero wrong with cutting put processed foods!! And eating organic and grass fed/free range/no hormones and antibiotics. I've had stomach trouble my whole life and I feel loads better and am losing weight steadily. But once again different things work for different people. I would just work towards eating healthier whole foods. If grains don't bother you by all means eat them! They do.sadly bother me
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'll start off with the disclaimer - I do agree with the posts about how this isn't a true "paleo" diet. But putting the title aside.
My husband wanted to try it. I was totally against it but he has gone along with my hair brained schemes so I went along with his. We followed the Whole 30. I did not measure food although the Whole 30 suggests portions, a palmful of meat, handful of eggs, thumb size version of fat and lots and lots of veggies, few fruit. It also encourages you to focus on consuming carbs if you are active. They also suggest adjusting portion sizes.
What I found -
While I'm normally a 6 small meal a person day, I did fine on the 3 meals plus a snack (when exercising) when I built my meals on their guidelines. I ate far more veggies than I ever would have. I never went hungry. I didn't crave foods. I enjoyed a lot of the food and a lot of their recipes (they recommend not making paleo versions of normal food). I also lost weight.
I also found it was very restrictive and I had to always be prepared. I'm not the always prepared type. I struggled with finding something to eat after work when I was too tired to cook and finding meals that I could prepare ahead of time. Eating out was hard but we were lucky because there was a restaurant that offered a paleo friendly meal. It can be expensive.
In the end, it was just not sustainable for us. I still make some of the meals. I still build my meals in a similar fashion, portion of protein, some fat, lots of veggies but I don't restrict foods.
If you approach it in a balanced way, it isn't an unhealthy diet even with the restricting foods. If you plan to eat just protein and fats, probably not so great.0 -
It won't kill you.
It's not magic either.
It's just a diet like any other, if it lets you create a calorie deficit, you can lose weight with it.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »It won't kill you.
It's not magic either.
It's just a diet like any other, if it lets you create a calorie deficit, you can lose weight with it.
Can we just add this as the TL'DR to my post?
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.
It's not pointless, it goes directly to the point which wasthe paleo approach to eating defines each.
I'm not "dissing" Paleo for having lots of definitions. I'm challenging a claim someone else made that it only has one.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:
It has proven to be healthy:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26269362
(with the warning that the paleo tested in the RCTs is not the HFLC approach of popular authors/bloggers, but the "academic" paleo that is moderate in macros)
0 -
It all depends on how it's defined and how you do it. Like most things.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.
As far back as paleo times? Given population migrations, I suspect none of us really know. I suppose you can do one of those deep DNA test things, but it's still going to be extremely incomplete, and chances are we are all mixes.
Also, chances are the foods currently available to us bear no real resemblance.
My ancestry is pretty much northwestern European, to my knowledge (which is incomplete, again) and that seems to correctly predict that I do well with dairy--which the paleo folks would have me dismiss.
Any diet that suggests that plant foods like fruits and veg are unhealthy because some climates made them difficult to get much of the year (hmm, much like the climate I currently live in) is, IMO, not very well supported or thought-out. However, most definitions of paleo I've seen -- and why I do think it's usually reasonably healthy -- are very pro such foods, suggesting that you should start by getting at least half of your plate from vegetables, for example.
Not authentic to the name, given food choices, but not a bad way to eat.0 -
"Paleo" saved my life. I don't call it that or primal, but adopting the principals turned my overall health and well-being around. Haters gonna hate.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.
2. What foods would have caused cancer back then?
I believe that grilling meat has been linked to cancer. Presumably this link also would have existed in paleolithic times.
0 -
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.
"This suggests the Neolithic people had relatively little plant food in their diet and instead were consuming large amounts of meat. It could also mean they were eating a lot of animal by-products, like milk and cheese, as these are indistinguishable from meat itself using stable isotopes. " - England. http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba12/BA12FEAT.HTML0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »I'll start off with the disclaimer - I do agree with the posts about how this isn't a true "paleo" diet. But putting the title aside.
My husband wanted to try it. I was totally against it but he has gone along with my hair brained schemes so I went along with his. We followed the Whole 30. I did not measure food although the Whole 30 suggests portions, a palmful of meat, handful of eggs, thumb size version of fat and lots and lots of veggies, few fruit. It also encourages you to focus on consuming carbs if you are active. They also suggest adjusting portion sizes.
What I found -
While I'm normally a 6 small meal a person day, I did fine on the 3 meals plus a snack (when exercising) when I built my meals on their guidelines. I ate far more veggies than I ever would have. I never went hungry. I didn't crave foods. I enjoyed a lot of the food and a lot of their recipes (they recommend not making paleo versions of normal food). I also lost weight.
I also found it was very restrictive and I had to always be prepared. I'm not the always prepared type. I struggled with finding something to eat after work when I was too tired to cook and finding meals that I could prepare ahead of time. Eating out was hard but we were lucky because there was a restaurant that offered a paleo friendly meal. It can be expensive.
In the end, it was just not sustainable for us. I still make some of the meals. I still build my meals in a similar fashion, portion of protein, some fat, lots of veggies but I don't restrict foods.
If you approach it in a balanced way, it isn't an unhealthy diet even with the restricting foods. If you plan to eat just protein and fats, probably not so great.
And this illustrates my point. You tried it, it worked for you but you found it unsustainable. However, you learned from it and can take what you learned and apply it to a diet that you can sustain.
Not every diet is for everyone, but if one appeals to you, it's fine to try it. Even if you discover you can't sustain it long term, you will have learned something from that will help you plan your own diet down the road. So if you want to try some form of Paleo, go for it. If you're unhappy with it and are not looking forward to making it a permanent change, then stop. If there are parts that helped you, apply them to your diet in your own way.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
2. What foods would have caused cancer back then?
I believe that grilling meat has been linked to cancer. Presumably this link also would have existed in paleolithic times.
raising the incidence rate of cancer becomes irrelevant when they are the very calories keeping you alive. That's why food being "toxic" is a laughable concept.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
2. What foods would have caused cancer back then?
I believe that grilling meat has been linked to cancer. Presumably this link also would have existed in paleolithic times.
raising the incidence rate of cancer becomes irrelevant when they are the very calories keeping you alive. That's why food being "toxic" is a laughable concept.
I think there is a level of toxicity or contribution to cancer (or other illnesses) that can reasonably inspire a switch to alternate calorie sources (for those who are able to make the switch). I am not arguing that grilled meat falls in this category -- I have no idea how strong the association is.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?
What do balls flying at one's face have to do with Paleo?0 -
I think tea is allow on the Paleo diet.0
-
Tried it for 9 months and the only thing I learned is that when I restrict foods, I tend to crave them more. I really don't like plans with a lot of rules. I rather just focus on getting 80-90% of my calories from whole sources (fruits, veggies, meats, fish, dairy, whole grains) and throw in some treats.
Besides, Paleo restricts a lot of good nutrient dense foods which is mind blowing like beans and nuts.
This. I really missed black beans, and I really couldn't figure out why I shouldn't be eating them if they cause me no digestive issues.
It's not unhealthy, but not necessary for weight loss; just eat at a calorie deficit, and it's easier to stay satiated for most people to focus on nutrient dense foods.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Are you going to stick to this for a lifetime? My advice is never give up anything for a diet that you can't or won't give up forever.
Losing weight is actually the easier part. Keeping it off is harder. You need to build up good habits now or you'll regain when the diet ends.
That is definitely true. It is hard as hell to keep it down.0 -
Thanks a lot to all of you guys. It definitely show my buddies some new points of view, and I sure as hell learned something new as well.
I lost a lot of weight excersicing a lot and eating Paleo but once I left Paleo I gained it all back and the. Some. That is why now I am looking for something that works for me for the long run, so that I can make it a habit and a way to live.
I really appreciate all the help.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions