How does the Paleo diet work?

Ah I see what you are saying. Well at one point someone suggested I try eating more (as they felt I was eating too little) that was a bad experiment let me tell you.

I do not think that its just sugars and simple starches that are the problem for everyone. You will notice I did say I didn't agree with all of it. However if you have some nice sound science, I science, I would love to read it. The best part of being a good scientist is the ability to be wrong. I do think it is MY issue, which is why low carb (which paleo is) works well for me. Here I am eating the same calories a day and loosing weight. You can disagree all you want, or think I am lying what have you. It still doesn't change that it has been a life changing discovery for me.

all diets work exactly the same, caloric restriction

Yes - but WHAT you eat matters in regards to feeling full and satisfied. If you're making poor food choices, you won't be able to feel full and thus may struggle to maintain a calorie deficit. If you're selecting better food choices you're more likely to be successful and sticking to your calorie deficit. I also would feel like total crap if I ate my calories in junk, and wouldn't have the nutrients and energy to do what I needed to do.

I've found that once I fixed WHAT I ate (and conquered the whole eat when hungry stop when full) that my calories took care of themselves 95%ish of the time. (Ever tried to go over your calories in broccoli?)

So I agree it's about a calorie deficit, but in terms of being successful and from a pragmatic viewpoint, fixing what you eat is more likely to lead to success. Just my thoughts and what has worked for me

Hi there the Paleo certainly is a good diet to be on. I've lost 170lbs on a diet that is very similar to the Paleo although I actually increased the amount of a fat in it coz I needed to lose weight fast. Trust me, it works and it certainly is very healthy. I never felt hungry or had much cravings during the whole process.If you are interested in what I've done please visit my site Zdiets.net

Ryan

I've been eating clean, paleo foods since January and have never felt better.
Back to my high school weight and full of energy.
Why don't you give it a go? It's the best way to find out.
Give it 30 days and do it properly, you'll see.

Some good explanations why Taubes has it completely wrong:

http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/search/label/Gary Taubes Fact Check

http://weightology.net/?p=251

http://weightology.net/?p=265

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

I didn't get to the last one as I was mightily disappointed. Do you have any primary research that disproves him? I am not talking opinion pieces. And as I said I don't believe everything he said, but at least he went though and cited real research. I disregarded all the analogies and all the anecdotal evidence (the only anecdotal evidence that matters to me, is my personal experience)

Ones that show the primary literature was wrong. Ones that show hormones don't matter in weight loss and gain. Things like stress have been shown to matter (and stress releases a cocktail of things into your body)

I only took exception to the post

"all diets work the same way, calorie restriction"

If the poster had said most diets work this way, or the majority of diets work this way. Or even that if you eat less calories you will loose weight" All these things are true. However by tossing the all in the poster is close minded and ignores the data that says its not always that simple. Anyone who has studied any amount of biochemistry should know we are very complex, and that everything is interrelated. This reminds me of arguments about s/n dogs. Lots of research shows that early spaying and neutering can be quite harmful, but its not popular so the general public ignores it. (those who do dog sports do not) Hormones are interesting things and affect a lot more than people expect. There is still lots of research going on today looking into what hormones do. There is a lot we don't know, yet this poster seems to have it all figured out. This is why I pointed out that I think its a hormonal issue with SOME people, vs Taubs ALL people.

I am more than willing to be proved wrong and go look for a another reason why I am loosing weight on ~the same calorie intake. But many here seem to go "Low carb, wrong" and simply have their minds made up. Which is fine, but if you are going to use that as an argument with people who HAVE done their research, please use better sources or you just end up looking uninformed.

FWIW I have kept horses for years. Anyone who has owned livestock will know that some are 'air ferns' and stay fat on next to no food. One winter I had two ponies, they both had about the same exercise. Neither was restless or doing more moving in their stall (easy to tell if you are the one to muck it) We had a kid who wanted to take the fat pony out showing that season so we put him on a diet. Poor fellow already got less than his naturally thin pony. Yet we reduced his food. He DID loose weight. But you have to wonder WHY two ponies of about the same size, age and activity level needed to eat such different amounts to be in optimal condition. This happens all the time, and in reverse. In the last decade its become significant as to WHAT you feed these sorts of animals, more than how much you feed.

Yet people are just told its simple eat less. And while for many that is true, its not true for all (unless they eat stupid less). So something else must be in play. Now at least people like Taubs have a theory that is backed up by primary lit. Now you can dis him all you like, but the man has more science creds than many researchers I know, and more than anyone who's opinion pieces you linked too. Why do I care what some random person has to rant on about? People when faced with science are often weird. (just look at how many people like shows like the Dog Whisperer... despite all the actual behaviourists saying what he does does more harm than good... people defend him like mad.)

LOL rambling a bit. BUT I am sick of the people who assume they have all the answers yet have no backing other than opinion. I am totally open to the same sort of counter as I am proof. As a scientist I am going to be critical. You say what is working for me is impossible, yet it works for many people. Is there a confounding element? I dunno, but you sure aren't pointing to one.

lol and a bit more

as to the

"
I only took exception to the post

"all diets work the same way, calorie restriction" "

We are talking a paleo diet here. Why it works is not just a question of weight, but a question of health. Personally I want to eat more primitively but I will go to a time when we were making cheese as I happily am evolved to produce lactase

How paleo works is by not eating processed foods, trying to eat as many organic, grown in soil that isn't stripped of nutrients (you can't get some nutrients in the plant if they weren't in the soil) zero empty carbs etc. This is how it works. Many people have felt healthier, some people run marathons and do other highly physical things on paleo diets. It works for them. While its not my thing, I do think eating less processed foods and empty calories is a likely a good thing and makes sense scientifically. To me it has nothing to do with carrying a spear, around here hunters carry bows or guns and none wear loin clothes. But one doesnt' need to wear traditional puritanical period clothing to enjoy a thanksgiving dinner.

I'm not on paleo and certainly do not plan to cut down my grain intake anytime soon since I have like 5lbs of oatmeal left.
Anyway, just a quick question.

Where do you get your calcium from if dairy is not allowed? I hate taking calcium pills. It makes me feel like a sick person when I am not. So I started taking cheese, yogurt, and lately even milk.

Let me know. I'm intrigued.

I know you can get some calcium from plants. But when asking where did primitive people who did not have dairy animals get their calcium I was told that soups and stews made by boiling bones (particularly if the broth was a bit acidic) as well as eating small bones of birds and fish.

I eat dairy too (OMG cheese! lol) But that was a question I had long wondered so went looking for the answer. The Native cultures around here never had dairy before we came a long.. so what did they do?

(oh and what are BB.com miscers? I am new here)

And you don't get the last one? What about it don't you get? Taubes blames insulin for everything, and his underlying understanding of insulin is inaccurate.

Can you point to a single claim of his that is "backed by science" as you say?

Please re read my post. I said I didn't get to it. If you have such issues reading what I say perhaps that is part of the problem?

My bad, haven't had my coffee yet.

Also please re read my posts and see that I clearly posted numerous times that I do not believe all that he has written particularly what you are trying to disprove. Its hard to argue science with someone who has issues reading my posts. Are they that poorly written?

Then let's be clear on what he's written that you DO believe.

As for providing links... sure. If I post them do you have access through a library or school to get them?

for ones that I think anyone can read

http://annals.ba0.biz/content/140/10/769.short

Short term, not calorically matched, and supplements were given to the low-carb group but not the low fat group. Why?

here you go a recent one by John Hopkins medicine
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/low_carb_higher_fat_diets_add_no_arterial_health_risks_to_obese_people_seeking_to_lose_weight

Not seeing how this one is at all relevant to the conversation. I don't recall anyone here claiming that low carb was unhealthy.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022207

This is a good one, since it's one of the few long term studies out there. Pay special attention to the conclusions.

"The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year."

As to the idea he cherry picks, sure he does and that annoys me. However the 'other side' cherry picks even worse. As in bad like we learnt about bad in bioethics courses. Just because his moments of bad science aren't as bad as the other sides bad science doesn't make his ok. But it still doesn't make the other side 'right'.

Edited to fix formating

What "other side"? His cherry picking and misrepresenting his sources is enough to invalidate is conclusions. Period.