Paleo Restart
Replies
-
tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »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).
We have some differences here: I don't think there's "risk" with whole grains or that you have to bake your own bread to eat them (you yourself eat grains as you mentioned--rice--and the main source of grain in my diet probably is oats (although it varies). I am also always meaning to eat more grains such as barley and buckwheat, etc. Also, there are good sources of whole grain bread and other products, including pasta, depending on what your concern is. That said, I kind of like baking bread and wanting to get back to it some day is one reason I could never really be paleo. Well, and I enjoy making pie too.
Also, frankly, I don't enjoy eating fruits and veggies in smoothie form nearly as much as I enjoy them--especially greens--in a more whole form, not all blended up. I don't think there's anything wrong with blending them up, but it makes them less satisfying to me and dilutes their flavors.
That said, I actually do agree that grains are likely somewhat overrated as to their likely nutritional benefits (but there is a correlation so I think it's foolish to assume we know everything possible) and that for the most part veggies and (maybe) fruits are better IF you had to choose between them, but of course you don't. More significantly, I too like veggies and fruits better--to me a meal isn't a meal without veggies, but you don't need a starchy carb, although it can be nice to have one. That's one reason why I was attracted to paleo. But upon doing it for a bit and further reflection I realized that if I was happy cutting these foods because I wasn't that into them (but for certain exceptions that I eat in moderation) it seemed silly to inconvenience myself by avoiding them. If a convenient lunch place by my office makes delicious and healthy sandwiches on whole grain bread, why exclude it as an option? Similarly, why not be able to have lentil stew or the like?Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make.
I happen to agree with you on this. I don't think it's actually the debate when we are discussing the benefits of paleo. Many whole-foods-based, nutrient-dense diets will include grains, legumes, and dairy. Also, to bring in a separate discussion, one can certainly eat such a diet and have other foods included from time to time.I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part).
CICO is just a statement of fact, not a diet.
If you are asking whether we think a good diet should be based on good nutrition, of course. At least, speaking for myself.Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Yes, of course. I don't think anyone argues with this.I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
If you define something being done properly as considering principles of good nutrition (as I assume you do, and so do I), this is a truism. Any diet "done properly" would then be a healthy way to eat.
The question is whether all else equal cutting out grains, legumes, and dairy makes a diet MORE healthy. I don't believe it does.
CICO encompasses having a diet. You can't take Calories-In without having a diet (food). That requires a nutritional profile of the foods you are eating. You can't escape it.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Everyone has a diet. A diet is simply a less woo/trendy way of saying "way of eating."
CICO means that weight will depend on the overall balance of calories in and calories out, which is simply a statement of fact. It is not, itself, a diet.0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »
Yes, sorry, I slipped up on bread. When I put that in there I was referencing paleolithic times in my mind, not what came after the neolithic revolution.
I am not arguing that the chronic diseases (including cancer) of today didn't exist throughout history. I am arguing that the prevalence of these conditions was astronomically smaller per capita before the current era.
Virtually all acquired diseases of adulthood or late childhood do have a genetic basis, but expression is determined by a multitude of factors, much of which is environmental. Diet is a massive constant environmental exposure. Even over the last 100 years, the composition of diet has drastically changed, away from the types of foods (note I did not say the EXACT foods, just the types) that have been traditionally consumed. True, the impact is not accurately quantified to this date, but to write it off as having zero impact??
The literature is littered with data on the effects of so many components of diet and different diseases. So many that posting one or two studies just reduces the impact of the point.
Effect of diet is absolutely not limited to type II DM. All of the aforementioned chronic diseases have literature support when it comes to diet. Even Type I DM. It is an autoimmune disease. And the literature is in line with other autoimmune diseases and potential exposure triggers.
If that is indeed the case - that the common belief is that you just "get" diseases based on your genes.... well, then I can see why some people aren't worried about what food they eat and instead focus on how much.
There are tons of reasons for why disease is greater these days; exponential growth of population, genetics, poor nutrition, and antibotics all come into play. To believe that following one specific diet will automatically make you immune to disease is quite obtuse.
Nobody said one specific diet needs to be followed. All of the factors you stated are important. But diet is one of the factors under our control, and an option to mitigate overall risk.0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »BrownTown14 wrote: »Yes, hunter gatherers have other problems, but not diabetes, Alzheimer's, cancer, autoimmune disease etc as described above.
Half of them are dead by age 15.
I'll take late-life alzheimers over that, 10 times out of 10.
Perfectly fair!!! That's why I don't believe in evangelizing paleo (or anything). Choosing the enjoyment of modern uhm...."created" ... foods over diseases that you could potentially acquire later in life is a perfectly valid choice to make!!!!!
I continue to find it bizarre that grains (i.e., longtime staple foods like rice and bread), legumes, and dairy are being referred to as "modern" and "created" foods. Pretty loose definition, under which the vast majority of what all of us eat (again, including people who claim to eat paleo) could be so categorized.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »BrownTown14 wrote: »BrownTown14 wrote: »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.
So people in the Paleolithic era were disease free, really?
Please provide back up for your claim that diseases were rare before the 1900's. Perhaps, people believed they were rare because they could not diagnose them as accurately...
So all people dying post paleolithic are suffering, really?
you really just need to stop with the ridiculousness....
Hey man, no need to get angry, I wasn't looking for a fight, just stating a viewpoint.
Paleolithic people were not disease free. I didn't say that. They just didn't have the same diseases. The chronic diseases in question were not even close to the main causes of death before 1900. Or even 1950.
Yes, we can diagnose them more accurately now pre-death. But autopsies have been around for quite a while, it was the main method of learning for doctors for thousands of years. And the clinical manifestations of these chronic diseases are dead easy to diagnose in their advanced stages, lending themselves quite easily to description. Pens (quills) and paper have been around for a while.
Of course, there were single cases here and there of diabetes (can be easily diagnosed back in the day as Dr.s tasted the urine for sweetness, gangrene of the limbs would have been seen, along with DKA and the smell of ketones on the breath, and kidney atrophy would have been seen at autopsy), autoimmune disease (the subluxations deformities and nodules of RA can be diagnosed by a blind man, discoid lupus is dead easy to spot, along with a malar rash, scleroderma, ankylosing spondylitis you can see from a mile away in its advanced stages, same with psoriasis), coronary artery disease (a 5 year old can spot this on autopsy), and cancers (in their advances stages would hit the autopsy guy in the face - they would actually have a hard time separating normal anatomy from tumor because the metastasis is often so widespread at the end). Alzheimer's would have been a bit tougher to diagnose back in the day because there were many reasons people would not be "all there", but again, in its advanced stages, distinct preferential parietal and temporal lobe atrophy is often seen at autopsy that would stick out to anyone.
So why were these not described with hourly frequency back in the 1900s??? There was no treatment for any of these things, so the florid advanced stages of the diseases should have been readily apparent, instead of the more subtle early partially treated findings we see today.
The stats of today are that these will affect virtually everyone. That's a far cry from the scant case reports prior to 1900. There should be millions of case reports of these diseases if today's statistics apply to the past.
And all that isn't doesn't even include obesity itself, which school children diagnose on the playground every day in the form of bullying, so I'm sure doctors wouldn't have had a problem. Sure, you could say that food is more abundant now, but then, wouldn't all the rich people in history have been fat??? A few were, but not even close to all the people who were rich throughout history (who had more access to food than you or I).
You make it sound like everyone was getting autopsied as a matter of course to determine cause of death. I don't think that's how things worked.
You're right. They didn't work that way. But if the frequency of these diseases back then was anything like it is now, they would have showed up on most autopsies that were performed.
And I wasn't limiting diagnosis to autopsies. Several of the findings that I listed (and didn't list) can easily be observed clinically.0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »MarziPanda95 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.
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.
Untrue. You listed bread. Bread is one of the oldest foods out there, along with cheese. It has been made pretty much as long as there have been civilizations - so yes, people ate grains and dairy in the pre-industrial era, in Ghengis Khan's empire, in the middle ages, in the Roman Empire, in the Greek Empire, in Ancient Egypt etc.
Humans have also always suffered from cancer. Some of the ancient skeletons we have found have been riddled with cancer. Even recently an Egyptian mummy was examined and she was found to have had breast cancer.
It is thought that several millions of years ago, a gene entered our evolutionary line that allowed us to communicate and talk in the complicated way that we do, that no other animal can do. This gene is thought to have also brought us cancer. Animals also get cancer, and many of them also get the other diseases that have been mentioned. Most of them are not about diet, they are about genes - only type 2 diabetes, out of those listed, is diet related. Type 1 is not.
I don't have an opinion on the Paleo diet/'pre industrial diet' either way, I'm just a historian who wasn't happy with the misinformation here.
Yes, sorry, I slipped up on bread. When I put that in there I was referencing paleolithic times in my mind, not what came after the neolithic revolution.
I am not arguing that the chronic diseases (including cancer) of today didn't exist throughout history. I am arguing that the prevalence of these conditions was astronomically smaller per capita before the current era.
Virtually all acquired diseases of adulthood or late childhood do have a genetic basis, but expression is determined by a multitude of factors, much of which is environmental. Diet is a massive constant environmental exposure. Even over the last 100 years, the composition of diet has drastically changed, away from the types of foods (note I did not say the EXACT foods, just the types) that have been traditionally consumed. True, the impact is not accurately quantified to this date, but to write it off as having zero impact??
The literature is littered with data on the effects of so many components of diet and different diseases. So many that posting one or two studies just reduces the impact of the point.
Effect of diet is absolutely not limited to type II DM. All of the aforementioned chronic diseases have literature support when it comes to diet. Even Type I DM. It is an autoimmune disease. And the literature is in line with other autoimmune diseases and potential exposure triggers.
If that is indeed the case - that the common belief is that you just "get" diseases based on your genes.... well, then I can see why some people aren't worried about what food they eat and instead focus on how much.
It's likely that the prevalence of those conditions were not smaller per capita before the current era, actually, especially when it comes to cancers not exacerbated by obesity. The amount of ancient human bones found to contain cancer are about at the same ratio that we currently get cancer in - other than lung cancer, which is mostly caused by smoking (though actually in many ancient dwellings there were no chimneys so smoke from indoor fires probably did cause many cases of lung cancer and other lung related illnesses.) If we have more cases of cancer it is because there are too many overweight people - and that's not what you eat, it's how much. You don't get cancer from being obese because 'MODERN FOOD HAS TOXINZ OMG' you get it because there is simply more of you with the potential to mutate into cancer. So theoretically you could eat an ancient diet, get too many calories, be overweight, and be at a far greater risk for cancer than someone who eats modern food but is not overweight.
The evidence to support diet as a cause of most autoimmune diseases is thin at best. I am part of a support group for people with these kinds of diseases and we all have very varied diets - including those who eat paeleo. I had a 'clean' healthy diet when I got my first autoimmune disease, alopecia areata, at age 7. I had also been eating that way for several months before, this time last year, I got another autoimmune disease, ITP. My immune system was not attacking my blood platelets because of my diet. In a lot of cases of ITP (mine possibly included as I had a bad cold beforehand) and indeed some other autoimmune diseases it happens because you have contracted a virus and then your immune system mistakes other parts of your body for that virus. Ask any haemotologist or dermatologist and they will tell you that my autoimmune problems are genetics. All the cancer in my family has also been genetic, from skin cancer to breast cancer. All the heart problems in my family have been genetic, my aunt was born with a defect and died when she was 7. All the people who have died in my family and in many families would have died of the same thing in ancient times - other than those who were treated with modern medicine and then died of something else. Many of my family would also not be with me in ancient times because ancient diets were so poor that they were deficient in a lot of things. My prematurely born sister wouldn't have had enough of the right kinds of foods to thrive. She needed foods with more calcium, sugar and fat in them (especially fat) than would be found in an ancient diet.
There is a genetic testing website that can tell you what diseased you are predisposed to and the list is hundreds of illnesses long.
1 -
MarziPanda95 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.
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.
Untrue. You listed bread. Bread is one of the oldest foods out there, along with cheese. It has been made pretty much as long as there have been civilizations - so yes, people ate grains and dairy in the pre-industrial era, in Ghengis Khan's empire, in the middle ages, in the Roman Empire, in the Greek Empire, in Ancient Egypt etc.
Humans have also always suffered from cancer. Some of the ancient skeletons we have found have been riddled with cancer. Even recently an Egyptian mummy was examined and she was found to have had breast cancer.
It is thought that several millions of years ago, a gene entered our evolutionary line that allowed us to communicate and talk in the complicated way that we do, that no other animal can do. This gene is thought to have also brought us cancer. Animals also get cancer, and many of them also get the other diseases that have been mentioned. Most of them are not about diet, they are about genes - only type 2 diabetes, out of those listed, is diet related. Type 1 is not.
I don't have an opinion on the Paleo diet/'pre industrial diet' either way, I'm just a historian who wasn't happy with the misinformation here.
I love how people have this assumption that everyone was just happy and disease free from 1000 BC to 1900, and all of sudden from 1901 forward we became disease riddled, obese, grumpy, people....
Again. That is not the assumption. Again.
Back then, we had diseases and a host of other problems. Many of which we can prevent/eliminate now.
Now, we have different diseases that completely dominate the spectrum.
The whole point is to get the benefit of getting rid of the bad old stuff (which today's society accomplishes), while also getting rid of the bad new stuff (which we don't seem to want to accomplish).
The point is NOT to leave our current problems in exchange for re-acquiring our past problems.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »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).
We have some differences here: I don't think there's "risk" with whole grains or that you have to bake your own bread to eat them (you yourself eat grains as you mentioned--rice--and the main source of grain in my diet probably is oats (although it varies). I am also always meaning to eat more grains such as barley and buckwheat, etc. Also, there are good sources of whole grain bread and other products, including pasta, depending on what your concern is. That said, I kind of like baking bread and wanting to get back to it some day is one reason I could never really be paleo. Well, and I enjoy making pie too.
Also, frankly, I don't enjoy eating fruits and veggies in smoothie form nearly as much as I enjoy them--especially greens--in a more whole form, not all blended up. I don't think there's anything wrong with blending them up, but it makes them less satisfying to me and dilutes their flavors.
That said, I actually do agree that grains are likely somewhat overrated as to their likely nutritional benefits (but there is a correlation so I think it's foolish to assume we know everything possible) and that for the most part veggies and (maybe) fruits are better IF you had to choose between them, but of course you don't. More significantly, I too like veggies and fruits better--to me a meal isn't a meal without veggies, but you don't need a starchy carb, although it can be nice to have one. That's one reason why I was attracted to paleo. But upon doing it for a bit and further reflection I realized that if I was happy cutting these foods because I wasn't that into them (but for certain exceptions that I eat in moderation) it seemed silly to inconvenience myself by avoiding them. If a convenient lunch place by my office makes delicious and healthy sandwiches on whole grain bread, why exclude it as an option? Similarly, why not be able to have lentil stew or the like?Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make.
I happen to agree with you on this. I don't think it's actually the debate when we are discussing the benefits of paleo. Many whole-foods-based, nutrient-dense diets will include grains, legumes, and dairy. Also, to bring in a separate discussion, one can certainly eat such a diet and have other foods included from time to time.I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part).
CICO is just a statement of fact, not a diet.
If you are asking whether we think a good diet should be based on good nutrition, of course. At least, speaking for myself.Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Yes, of course. I don't think anyone argues with this.I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
If you define something being done properly as considering principles of good nutrition (as I assume you do, and so do I), this is a truism. Any diet "done properly" would then be a healthy way to eat.
The question is whether all else equal cutting out grains, legumes, and dairy makes a diet MORE healthy. I don't believe it does.
CICO encompasses having a diet. You can't take Calories-In without having a diet (food). That requires a nutritional profile of the foods you are eating. You can't escape it.
LOLWUT?
CICO refers simply to energy balance, period.
CI>CO => Gain weight.
CI=CO => Maintain.
CI<CO => Lose weight.
Nutritional profile is a completely separate issue.
Except both CI and CO are affected by nutritional profile.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »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).
We have some differences here: I don't think there's "risk" with whole grains or that you have to bake your own bread to eat them (you yourself eat grains as you mentioned--rice--and the main source of grain in my diet probably is oats (although it varies). I am also always meaning to eat more grains such as barley and buckwheat, etc. Also, there are good sources of whole grain bread and other products, including pasta, depending on what your concern is. That said, I kind of like baking bread and wanting to get back to it some day is one reason I could never really be paleo. Well, and I enjoy making pie too.
Also, frankly, I don't enjoy eating fruits and veggies in smoothie form nearly as much as I enjoy them--especially greens--in a more whole form, not all blended up. I don't think there's anything wrong with blending them up, but it makes them less satisfying to me and dilutes their flavors.
That said, I actually do agree that grains are likely somewhat overrated as to their likely nutritional benefits (but there is a correlation so I think it's foolish to assume we know everything possible) and that for the most part veggies and (maybe) fruits are better IF you had to choose between them, but of course you don't. More significantly, I too like veggies and fruits better--to me a meal isn't a meal without veggies, but you don't need a starchy carb, although it can be nice to have one. That's one reason why I was attracted to paleo. But upon doing it for a bit and further reflection I realized that if I was happy cutting these foods because I wasn't that into them (but for certain exceptions that I eat in moderation) it seemed silly to inconvenience myself by avoiding them. If a convenient lunch place by my office makes delicious and healthy sandwiches on whole grain bread, why exclude it as an option? Similarly, why not be able to have lentil stew or the like?Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make.
I happen to agree with you on this. I don't think it's actually the debate when we are discussing the benefits of paleo. Many whole-foods-based, nutrient-dense diets will include grains, legumes, and dairy. Also, to bring in a separate discussion, one can certainly eat such a diet and have other foods included from time to time.I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part).
CICO is just a statement of fact, not a diet.
If you are asking whether we think a good diet should be based on good nutrition, of course. At least, speaking for myself.Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Yes, of course. I don't think anyone argues with this.I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
If you define something being done properly as considering principles of good nutrition (as I assume you do, and so do I), this is a truism. Any diet "done properly" would then be a healthy way to eat.
The question is whether all else equal cutting out grains, legumes, and dairy makes a diet MORE healthy. I don't believe it does.
CICO encompasses having a diet. You can't take Calories-In without having a diet (food). That requires a nutritional profile of the foods you are eating. You can't escape it.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Everyone has a diet. A diet is simply a less woo/trendy way of saying "way of eating."
CICO means that weight will depend on the overall balance of calories in and calories out, which is simply a statement of fact. It is not, itself, a diet.
If you are choosing your foods based on CICO, then yes, it is fair to refer to a CICO diet.
It's not very helpful in terms of providing details, though.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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
Yes, they do. I think considering those diets is a sensible thing to do, and it's both something I take into account in thinking about my own diet and part of why the paleo claims aren't convincing to me.
The particular claims in this thread leaning towards disease prevention are quite disturbing and woo-like, if you ask me.
Ok. That was the most powerful statement I've seen/read on this subject. Ever. I didn't expect to hear that. Is this the consensus?? That "The particular claims in this thread leaning towards disease prevention are quite disturbing and woo-like"????
0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »MarziPanda95 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.
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.
Untrue. You listed bread. Bread is one of the oldest foods out there, along with cheese. It has been made pretty much as long as there have been civilizations - so yes, people ate grains and dairy in the pre-industrial era, in Ghengis Khan's empire, in the middle ages, in the Roman Empire, in the Greek Empire, in Ancient Egypt etc.
Humans have also always suffered from cancer. Some of the ancient skeletons we have found have been riddled with cancer. Even recently an Egyptian mummy was examined and she was found to have had breast cancer.
It is thought that several millions of years ago, a gene entered our evolutionary line that allowed us to communicate and talk in the complicated way that we do, that no other animal can do. This gene is thought to have also brought us cancer. Animals also get cancer, and many of them also get the other diseases that have been mentioned. Most of them are not about diet, they are about genes - only type 2 diabetes, out of those listed, is diet related. Type 1 is not.
I don't have an opinion on the Paleo diet/'pre industrial diet' either way, I'm just a historian who wasn't happy with the misinformation here.
I love how people have this assumption that everyone was just happy and disease free from 1000 BC to 1900, and all of sudden from 1901 forward we became disease riddled, obese, grumpy, people....
Again. That is not the assumption. Again.
Back then, we had diseases and a host of other problems. Many of which we can prevent/eliminate now.
Now, we have different diseases that completely dominate the spectrum.
The whole point is to get the benefit of getting rid of the bad old stuff (which today's society accomplishes), while also getting rid of the bad new stuff (which we don't seem to want to accomplish).
The point is NOT to leave our current problems in exchange for re-acquiring our past problems.
The diseases we have are not new. They merely "dominate the spectrum" because the diseases of the past have been reduced or eliminated. This does not mean they are any more prevalent than the used to be, or if they are it's because we are living longer (i.e. Alzheimer's).
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »BrownTown14 wrote: »MarziPanda95 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.
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.
Untrue. You listed bread. Bread is one of the oldest foods out there, along with cheese. It has been made pretty much as long as there have been civilizations - so yes, people ate grains and dairy in the pre-industrial era, in Ghengis Khan's empire, in the middle ages, in the Roman Empire, in the Greek Empire, in Ancient Egypt etc.
Humans have also always suffered from cancer. Some of the ancient skeletons we have found have been riddled with cancer. Even recently an Egyptian mummy was examined and she was found to have had breast cancer.
It is thought that several millions of years ago, a gene entered our evolutionary line that allowed us to communicate and talk in the complicated way that we do, that no other animal can do. This gene is thought to have also brought us cancer. Animals also get cancer, and many of them also get the other diseases that have been mentioned. Most of them are not about diet, they are about genes - only type 2 diabetes, out of those listed, is diet related. Type 1 is not.
I don't have an opinion on the Paleo diet/'pre industrial diet' either way, I'm just a historian who wasn't happy with the misinformation here.
I love how people have this assumption that everyone was just happy and disease free from 1000 BC to 1900, and all of sudden from 1901 forward we became disease riddled, obese, grumpy, people....
Again. That is not the assumption. Again.
Back then, we had diseases and a host of other problems. Many of which we can prevent/eliminate now.
Now, we have different diseases that completely dominate the spectrum.
The whole point is to get the benefit of getting rid of the bad old stuff (which today's society accomplishes), while also getting rid of the bad new stuff (which we don't seem to want to accomplish).
The point is NOT to leave our current problems in exchange for re-acquiring our past problems.
The diseases we have are not new. They merely "dominate the spectrum" because the diseases of the past have been reduced or eliminated. This does not mean they are any more prevalent than the used to be, or if they are it's because we are living longer (i.e. Alzheimer's).
Sorry, to be clear, you just said that the diseases of today are not more prevalent than they used to be. And that's why they dominate the spectrum, because we are living longer. I just want to be clear that that is what you said.0 -
BrownTown14 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »BrownTown14 wrote: »MarziPanda95 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.
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.
Untrue. You listed bread. Bread is one of the oldest foods out there, along with cheese. It has been made pretty much as long as there have been civilizations - so yes, people ate grains and dairy in the pre-industrial era, in Ghengis Khan's empire, in the middle ages, in the Roman Empire, in the Greek Empire, in Ancient Egypt etc.
Humans have also always suffered from cancer. Some of the ancient skeletons we have found have been riddled with cancer. Even recently an Egyptian mummy was examined and she was found to have had breast cancer.
It is thought that several millions of years ago, a gene entered our evolutionary line that allowed us to communicate and talk in the complicated way that we do, that no other animal can do. This gene is thought to have also brought us cancer. Animals also get cancer, and many of them also get the other diseases that have been mentioned. Most of them are not about diet, they are about genes - only type 2 diabetes, out of those listed, is diet related. Type 1 is not.
I don't have an opinion on the Paleo diet/'pre industrial diet' either way, I'm just a historian who wasn't happy with the misinformation here.
I love how people have this assumption that everyone was just happy and disease free from 1000 BC to 1900, and all of sudden from 1901 forward we became disease riddled, obese, grumpy, people....
Again. That is not the assumption. Again.
Back then, we had diseases and a host of other problems. Many of which we can prevent/eliminate now.
Now, we have different diseases that completely dominate the spectrum.
The whole point is to get the benefit of getting rid of the bad old stuff (which today's society accomplishes), while also getting rid of the bad new stuff (which we don't seem to want to accomplish).
The point is NOT to leave our current problems in exchange for re-acquiring our past problems.
The diseases we have are not new. They merely "dominate the spectrum" because the diseases of the past have been reduced or eliminated. This does not mean they are any more prevalent than the used to be, or if they are it's because we are living longer (i.e. Alzheimer's).
Sorry, to be clear, you just said that the diseases of today are not more prevalent than they used to be. And that's why they dominate the spectrum, because we are living longer. I just want to be clear that that is what you said.
FunkyTobias' and Mamapeach's statements explain everything on this subject.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »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).
We have some differences here: I don't think there's "risk" with whole grains or that you have to bake your own bread to eat them (you yourself eat grains as you mentioned--rice--and the main source of grain in my diet probably is oats (although it varies). I am also always meaning to eat more grains such as barley and buckwheat, etc. Also, there are good sources of whole grain bread and other products, including pasta, depending on what your concern is. That said, I kind of like baking bread and wanting to get back to it some day is one reason I could never really be paleo. Well, and I enjoy making pie too.
Also, frankly, I don't enjoy eating fruits and veggies in smoothie form nearly as much as I enjoy them--especially greens--in a more whole form, not all blended up. I don't think there's anything wrong with blending them up, but it makes them less satisfying to me and dilutes their flavors.
That said, I actually do agree that grains are likely somewhat overrated as to their likely nutritional benefits (but there is a correlation so I think it's foolish to assume we know everything possible) and that for the most part veggies and (maybe) fruits are better IF you had to choose between them, but of course you don't. More significantly, I too like veggies and fruits better--to me a meal isn't a meal without veggies, but you don't need a starchy carb, although it can be nice to have one. That's one reason why I was attracted to paleo. But upon doing it for a bit and further reflection I realized that if I was happy cutting these foods because I wasn't that into them (but for certain exceptions that I eat in moderation) it seemed silly to inconvenience myself by avoiding them. If a convenient lunch place by my office makes delicious and healthy sandwiches on whole grain bread, why exclude it as an option? Similarly, why not be able to have lentil stew or the like?Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make.
I happen to agree with you on this. I don't think it's actually the debate when we are discussing the benefits of paleo. Many whole-foods-based, nutrient-dense diets will include grains, legumes, and dairy. Also, to bring in a separate discussion, one can certainly eat such a diet and have other foods included from time to time.I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part).
CICO is just a statement of fact, not a diet.
If you are asking whether we think a good diet should be based on good nutrition, of course. At least, speaking for myself.Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Yes, of course. I don't think anyone argues with this.I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
If you define something being done properly as considering principles of good nutrition (as I assume you do, and so do I), this is a truism. Any diet "done properly" would then be a healthy way to eat.
The question is whether all else equal cutting out grains, legumes, and dairy makes a diet MORE healthy. I don't believe it does.
CICO encompasses having a diet. You can't take Calories-In without having a diet (food). That requires a nutritional profile of the foods you are eating. You can't escape it.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Everyone has a diet. A diet is simply a less woo/trendy way of saying "way of eating."
CICO means that weight will depend on the overall balance of calories in and calories out, which is simply a statement of fact. It is not, itself, a diet.
If you are choosing your foods based on CICO, then yes, it is fair to refer to a CICO diet.
It's not very helpful in terms of providing details, though.
I'm not sure that's what Ted was saying, though. His initial post didn't reference a "CICO diet," but just "CICO," which usually doesn't refer to any particular diet.
But sure, let's create yet another label. In fact, why not still another: a "CICO diet" can also be referred to as "if it fits your calories" or "IIFYC." Cool.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »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).
We have some differences here: I don't think there's "risk" with whole grains or that you have to bake your own bread to eat them (you yourself eat grains as you mentioned--rice--and the main source of grain in my diet probably is oats (although it varies). I am also always meaning to eat more grains such as barley and buckwheat, etc. Also, there are good sources of whole grain bread and other products, including pasta, depending on what your concern is. That said, I kind of like baking bread and wanting to get back to it some day is one reason I could never really be paleo. Well, and I enjoy making pie too.
Also, frankly, I don't enjoy eating fruits and veggies in smoothie form nearly as much as I enjoy them--especially greens--in a more whole form, not all blended up. I don't think there's anything wrong with blending them up, but it makes them less satisfying to me and dilutes their flavors.
That said, I actually do agree that grains are likely somewhat overrated as to their likely nutritional benefits (but there is a correlation so I think it's foolish to assume we know everything possible) and that for the most part veggies and (maybe) fruits are better IF you had to choose between them, but of course you don't. More significantly, I too like veggies and fruits better--to me a meal isn't a meal without veggies, but you don't need a starchy carb, although it can be nice to have one. That's one reason why I was attracted to paleo. But upon doing it for a bit and further reflection I realized that if I was happy cutting these foods because I wasn't that into them (but for certain exceptions that I eat in moderation) it seemed silly to inconvenience myself by avoiding them. If a convenient lunch place by my office makes delicious and healthy sandwiches on whole grain bread, why exclude it as an option? Similarly, why not be able to have lentil stew or the like?Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make.
I happen to agree with you on this. I don't think it's actually the debate when we are discussing the benefits of paleo. Many whole-foods-based, nutrient-dense diets will include grains, legumes, and dairy. Also, to bring in a separate discussion, one can certainly eat such a diet and have other foods included from time to time.I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part).
CICO is just a statement of fact, not a diet.
If you are asking whether we think a good diet should be based on good nutrition, of course. At least, speaking for myself.Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Yes, of course. I don't think anyone argues with this.I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
If you define something being done properly as considering principles of good nutrition (as I assume you do, and so do I), this is a truism. Any diet "done properly" would then be a healthy way to eat.
The question is whether all else equal cutting out grains, legumes, and dairy makes a diet MORE healthy. I don't believe it does.
CICO encompasses having a diet. You can't take Calories-In without having a diet (food). That requires a nutritional profile of the foods you are eating. You can't escape it.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Everyone has a diet. A diet is simply a less woo/trendy way of saying "way of eating."
CICO means that weight will depend on the overall balance of calories in and calories out, which is simply a statement of fact. It is not, itself, a diet.
If you are choosing your foods based on CICO, then yes, it is fair to refer to a CICO diet.
It's not very helpful in terms of providing details, though.
I'm not sure that's what Ted was saying, though. His initial post didn't reference a "CICO diet," but just "CICO," which usually doesn't refer to any particular diet.
But sure, let's create yet another label. In fact, why not still another: a "CICO diet" can also be referred to as "if it fits your calories" or "IIFYC." Cool.
Realistically...most people are more concerned with "fitting their calories". I have no documentation to back up my opinion but I would almost bet my life that the majority of people that are trying to lose weight don't worry about "fitting their macros". I never even heard of that phrase until joining MFP.
Right now I am concentrating on the "ELMM" Diet.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »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).
We have some differences here: I don't think there's "risk" with whole grains or that you have to bake your own bread to eat them (you yourself eat grains as you mentioned--rice--and the main source of grain in my diet probably is oats (although it varies). I am also always meaning to eat more grains such as barley and buckwheat, etc. Also, there are good sources of whole grain bread and other products, including pasta, depending on what your concern is. That said, I kind of like baking bread and wanting to get back to it some day is one reason I could never really be paleo. Well, and I enjoy making pie too.
Also, frankly, I don't enjoy eating fruits and veggies in smoothie form nearly as much as I enjoy them--especially greens--in a more whole form, not all blended up. I don't think there's anything wrong with blending them up, but it makes them less satisfying to me and dilutes their flavors.
That said, I actually do agree that grains are likely somewhat overrated as to their likely nutritional benefits (but there is a correlation so I think it's foolish to assume we know everything possible) and that for the most part veggies and (maybe) fruits are better IF you had to choose between them, but of course you don't. More significantly, I too like veggies and fruits better--to me a meal isn't a meal without veggies, but you don't need a starchy carb, although it can be nice to have one. That's one reason why I was attracted to paleo. But upon doing it for a bit and further reflection I realized that if I was happy cutting these foods because I wasn't that into them (but for certain exceptions that I eat in moderation) it seemed silly to inconvenience myself by avoiding them. If a convenient lunch place by my office makes delicious and healthy sandwiches on whole grain bread, why exclude it as an option? Similarly, why not be able to have lentil stew or the like?Beyond that - eating a whole foods, nutrient-dense source of is the wisest decision anyone can make.
I happen to agree with you on this. I don't think it's actually the debate when we are discussing the benefits of paleo. Many whole-foods-based, nutrient-dense diets will include grains, legumes, and dairy. Also, to bring in a separate discussion, one can certainly eat such a diet and have other foods included from time to time.I think the fair question to ask is whether CICO should also apply a principle of good nutrition (calories-in part).
CICO is just a statement of fact, not a diet.
If you are asking whether we think a good diet should be based on good nutrition, of course. At least, speaking for myself.Not all foods provide it. Some are more nutrient-dense than others.
Yes, of course. I don't think anyone argues with this.I believe Paleo, if done properly, is one of the healthiest ways to eat.
If you define something being done properly as considering principles of good nutrition (as I assume you do, and so do I), this is a truism. Any diet "done properly" would then be a healthy way to eat.
The question is whether all else equal cutting out grains, legumes, and dairy makes a diet MORE healthy. I don't believe it does.
CICO encompasses having a diet. You can't take Calories-In without having a diet (food). That requires a nutritional profile of the foods you are eating. You can't escape it.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Everyone has a diet. A diet is simply a less woo/trendy way of saying "way of eating."
CICO means that weight will depend on the overall balance of calories in and calories out, which is simply a statement of fact. It is not, itself, a diet.
If you are choosing your foods based on CICO, then yes, it is fair to refer to a CICO diet.
It's not very helpful in terms of providing details, though.
I'm not sure that's what Ted was saying, though. His initial post didn't reference a "CICO diet," but just "CICO," which usually doesn't refer to any particular diet.
But sure, let's create yet another label. In fact, why not still another: a "CICO diet" can also be referred to as "if it fits your calories" or "IIFYC." Cool.
Realistically...most people are more concerned with "fitting their calories". I have no documentation to back up my opinion but I would almost bet my life that the majority of people that are trying to lose weight don't worry about "fitting their macros". I never even heard of that phrase until joining MFP.
Right now I am concentrating on the "ELMM" Diet.
ELMM is my plan too, such as it is!
Yeah, I never heard of IIFYM before MFP either. I do find it helpful to think about macros, though. Before I started MFP I naturally structured my meals in terms of eating a "balanced meal" which involved a source of protein (typically with some fat), veggies (typically cooked in a little fat), and a starch (more optional) or fruit or dairy (generally with a little fat), which I realized when starting to log basically had the same effect for me as specifically focusing on macros. So I've played around with protein and carb level, but don't worry too much about it beyond how it helps me eat a healthy diet and meet my calories and feel good while staying active.
Rather than calling eating based on calories the CICO diet, I think I've always just thought of it as calorie counting. So I'm not sure why the new label is being created, if that's what Ted meant. So confused! ;-)0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Lol...did anyone answer the original question?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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