Let's talk about...the Paleo Diet
Replies
-
That is exactly what makes paleo/low carb superior...the idea that they can instinctively eat just the right enough food to create a caloric deficit without even thinking about their calorie intake. I don't know why this is un-important to so many people.
Funny, then, how I know so many low-carbers who are STILL having a hard time losing weight.
I am willing to bet that the majority of those "low carbers" are eating shakes, protein bars and such with artifiical ingredients and hidden sugars and are consuming far more carbs than they "perceive" they are.
People that are sticking to the basics of fat, protein and vegetables (in that order) do not have any issues with losing weight and cutting fat at all.
If they are TRULY sticking to the basics and having an issue with losing weight, then they need to make an appointment with a Dr and get a full blood panel done to see what is going on with their adrenal glands, thyroid, etc.
Hold protein and cals constant and it doesn't matter if you high fat or low fat, fat loss will be the same
Not according to some studies.0 -
I don't believe in counting calories though. If your eating plan is fat, protein and vegetables, there is really no need to count calories.
You need to go to a Brazilian rodizio, I can hit 10,000 calories in one sitting on just fat and protein.
There are 790 calories in 1 pound of 90/10 ground beef, sooooooo 10000cal would be what over 12lb of beef. but you would only need a little less than 7 pounds of french fries to = 10000cals, so it's pretty clear it's much easier to over eat on a high carb diet than a low carb diet. Thus endeth the lesson for the day, carry on children.
Annnnnnnd the low carb idiocy begins
The idiocy began when you posted this Paleo hit job of a thread. It's clear you have an ax to grind, so why don't you stick to your FDA approved diet and leave everyone else alone?0 -
A. 25Q. How many pounds of boiled potatoes would you have to eat to reach 10,000 calories?0 -
I've had my blood work done, all normal, and I can still overeat on this diet. As I said, Brazilian rodizios. All you can eat meat buffet. I ate there regularly when I was in Sao Paulo on business, and gained 30 lbs in 3 months (by the way...it was TOTALLY worth it). There are plenty of scenarios like that. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it works for everybody.
So what did you have for breakfast, lunch, and what did you eat with your meat for dinner? I'm telling you right her and now, without even knowing your diet at the time, IT WAS NOT THE MEAT YOU ATE THAT MADE YOU GAIN 30 pounds, period.0 -
That is exactly what makes paleo/low carb superior...the idea that they can instinctively eat just the right enough food to create a caloric deficit without even thinking about their calorie intake. I don't know why this is un-important to so many people.
Funny, then, how I know so many low-carbers who are STILL having a hard time losing weight.
I am willing to bet that the majority of those "low carbers" are eating shakes, protein bars and such with artifiical ingredients and hidden sugars and are consuming far more carbs than they "perceive" they are.
People that are sticking to the basics of fat, protein and vegetables (in that order) do not have any issues with losing weight and cutting fat at all.
If they are TRULY sticking to the basics and having an issue with losing weight, then they need to make an appointment with a Dr and get a full blood panel done to see what is going on with their adrenal glands, thyroid, etc.
Hold protein and cals constant and it doesn't matter if you high fat or low fat, fat loss will be the same
Sorry, but the only things I flip flopped when I changed my eating was fat and carbs. I gain weight when eating high carb and low fat, where as I easily lose weight when low carb and high fat.
So no, fat loss is not the same when I am in deed gaining FAT when eating high carb, despite eating either less calories or the same calories.
I eat higher calories now than I have ever eaten and I am losing fat just fine.0 -
Do you have these studies for us to look at, because I haven't found any. All the studies I've seen that show an advantage for low carb were either very short term (12 weeks or less) which can be explained by water weight loss due to glycogen restriction, or had higher protein levels for the low carb diet, which then leads to the obvious confounder of was it lower carbs or higher protein that led to the advantage? All studies I've read that lasted a year and controlled for protein and total calories have shown no advantage for either type of diet. And, other than the studies that have used diabetic test subjects, none of the studies I've read have shown any health advantages for lower carb diets, either. So if you have studies that prove otherwise, I'd love to see them.That is exactly what makes paleo/low carb superior...the idea that they can instinctively eat just the right enough food to create a caloric deficit without even thinking about their calorie intake. I don't know why this is un-important to so many people.
Funny, then, how I know so many low-carbers who are STILL having a hard time losing weight.
I am willing to bet that the majority of those "low carbers" are eating shakes, protein bars and such with artifiical ingredients and hidden sugars and are consuming far more carbs than they "perceive" they are.
People that are sticking to the basics of fat, protein and vegetables (in that order) do not have any issues with losing weight and cutting fat at all.
If they are TRULY sticking to the basics and having an issue with losing weight, then they need to make an appointment with a Dr and get a full blood panel done to see what is going on with their adrenal glands, thyroid, etc.
Hold protein and cals constant and it doesn't matter if you high fat or low fat, fat loss will be the same
Not according to some studies.0 -
But how many pounds of boiled potatoes would you have to eat to reach 10,000 calories? :bigsmile:
I got 25, how many people do you know that eat boiled potatoes without anything on them?0 -
I don't know about other people, but I eat them with just salt and pepper.But how many pounds of boiled potatoes would you have to eat to reach 10,000 calories? :bigsmile:
I got 25, how many people do you know that eat boiled potatoes without anything on them?0 -
Do you have these studies for us to look at, because I haven't found any. All the studies I've seen that show an advantage for low carb were either very short term (12 weeks or less) which can be explained by water weight loss due to glycogen restriction, or had higher protein levels for the low carb diet, which then leads to the obvious confounder of was it lower carbs or higher protein that led to the advantage? All studies I've read that lasted a year and controlled for protein and total calories have shown no advantage for either type of diet. And, other than the studies that have used diabetic test subjects, none of the studies I've read have shown any health advantages for lower carb diets, either. So if you have studies that prove otherwise, I'd love to see them.
So you ask me to do your homework, BUT put restrictions on what "studies" you will accept. Sorry I have played this game before. No one is so blind as one that will not see.0 -
10000? Really? I would like to see that,,,,,, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you are "bending" the truth here.
It's a 2 - 4 hour meal.
http://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/nutrition-calories/food/generic/picanha/
And that's on the lean side compared to some of the other meats (it's my favorite cut though, so it's what I order the most of). I can put down 3 kilos of meat if it's that delicious. I eat a LOT.
Ok so that's about 1000 per pound, still that's ten pounds, I would go out on a limb again and be willing to bet a sizable sum you cannot eat 10 pounds of meat in one 2 hour meal.
It's 1179.34 per pound, assuming that estimate is right. That means 8.48 lbs (the precision means I'm smart and not that I copied the calculator output). That's important cause I figured 10,000 calories would be approximately 3 kilos of meat (it's very clear at this point that I did these calculations ahead of time to know exactly what I had, and not that I picked a number that I thought was a reasonably close calorie estimate given a quantity of food I know I've eaten there, I know because I'm friends with one of the waiters at Fogo de Chao, and he was teasing me about making the restaurant lose money). Given JUST picanha, which as I mentioned is on the lean side compared to some of the other meats that are offered, I'd have to eat about 3.85 kilos. So I know I've eaten 3 kilos worth of meat (in much closer to 4 hours than 2 by the way), and it wasn't just picanha. For argument's sake lets say that it was just picanha though. That comes out to 7800 calories. Since you're being so anal about numbers though, I also had alcohol while I was there, which EASILY pushes me over 10,000 calories (http://www.cocktailcalories.com/cocktail_description/2267/caipirinha.html and I like alcohol). Now I know that doesn't satisfy the Paleo diet, but then again my only point was that it's possible (and for me relatively easy) to find scenarios where a Paleo diet wouldn't just be intuitive. I like food, lots of it, I recognize a lot of it is psychological, but I need to control myself or I'll overeat. That holds true whatever diet I'm on. If I had known you were going to get on my case about what amounted to a very slight exaggeration, I would've said 6000 calories and STILL had a valid point.0 -
So what did you have for breakfast, lunch, and what did you eat with your meat for dinner? I'm telling you right her and now, without even knowing your diet at the time, IT WAS NOT THE MEAT YOU ATE THAT MADE YOU GAIN 30 pounds, period.
If I actually cared what you thought, I would prove my point by eating enough meat that I gained weight, which I can definitely do. Meat isn't the only thing that contributed to my weight gain, yes, but it was one component. Overeating is what made me gain weight, and I can do that on a Paleo diet too, regardless of what you might think.0 -
So you ask me to do your homework, BUT put restrictions on what "studies" you will accept. Sorry I have played this game before. No one is so blind as one that will not see.
The restriction that it be long term? I lost weight yesterday eating just ice cream.0 -
Thank you for posting this. I am just starting to research the Paleo Diet. My boss and his wife have been doing it for about a month and they feel fabulous and have noticed a considerable difference in their digestive tracts as well as their energy levels. I am seriously thinking about giving it a try. What the heck it's not like it's going to hurt me.0
-
I don't believe in counting calories though. If your eating plan is fat, protein and vegetables, there is really no need to count calories.
You need to go to a Brazilian rodizio, I can hit 10,000 calories in one sitting on just fat and protein.
There are 790 calories in 1 pound of 90/10 ground beef, sooooooo 10000cal would be what over 12lb of beef. but you would only need a little less than 7 pounds of french fries to = 10000cals, so it's pretty clear it's much easier to over eat on a high carb diet than a low carb diet. Thus endeth the lesson for the day, carry on children.
Annnnnnnd the low carb idiocy begins
The idiocy began when you posted this Paleo hit job of a thread. It's clear you have an ax to grind, so why don't you stick to your FDA approved diet and leave everyone else alone?
Do tell how this was a hit job, I took no opinion either way. And stated the I agreed with the basic premise of eating mostly whole nutrient dense foods. Read the OP again0 -
That is exactly what makes paleo/low carb superior...the idea that they can instinctively eat just the right enough food to create a caloric deficit without even thinking about their calorie intake. I don't know why this is un-important to so many people.
Funny, then, how I know so many low-carbers who are STILL having a hard time losing weight.
I am willing to bet that the majority of those "low carbers" are eating shakes, protein bars and such with artifiical ingredients and hidden sugars and are consuming far more carbs than they "perceive" they are.
People that are sticking to the basics of fat, protein and vegetables (in that order) do not have any issues with losing weight and cutting fat at all.
If they are TRULY sticking to the basics and having an issue with losing weight, then they need to make an appointment with a Dr and get a full blood panel done to see what is going on with their adrenal glands, thyroid, etc.
Hold protein and cals constant and it doesn't matter if you high fat or low fat, fat loss will be the same
Not according to some studies.
And if you did the research, about 50% of ad lib studies do show greater fat loss on low carb diets, but 50% do not. Then take a look at calories being tightly controlled and the vast majority show no difference in fat loss. So in your opinion what does the current body of evidence point towards that there is a metabolic advantage or there is not?0 -
But how many pounds of boiled potatoes would you have to eat to reach 10,000 calories? :bigsmile:
I got 25, how many people do you know that eat boiled potatoes without anything on them?
I'll raise my hand I like them with a little salt, but that doesn't add any calories.0 -
The advantage isn't from a caloric stand point, it's from a satiety stand point. Which does result in a lower caloric consumption.
The original question was about the nutritional benefits, not how full one diet or the other makes you. If it's just about fullness, 'whatever works best for you' is just fine advice and there is no intrinsic benefit to Paleo (assuming comparable nutrient intake) over non-Paleo.0 -
And if you did the research, about 50% of ad lib studies do show greater fat loss on low carb diets, but 50% do not. Then take a look at calories being tightly controlled and the vast majority show no difference in fat loss. So in your opinion what does the current body of evidence point towards that there is a metabolic advantage or there is not?
The advantage isn't from a caloric stand point, it's from a satiety stand point. Which does result in a lower caloric consumption.
The bolded portion clearly shows that this is not necessarily the case.0 -
I recently decided to give Paleo a try for the month of March. Just for the heck of it. I'd say my approach to Paleo is much like most people's approach religion. I pick and choose what paleo commandments I want to keep so long as it doesn’t greatly curtail my lifestyle and how I have fun. I had an adulterous fling with ice-cream and brownies this weekend, but prayed to Grok and I think we're cool now. At least I am. I don't know about him. That large over-pronounced brow of his makes it hard to read his expressions... He always looks kinda mad.
I've tried Paleo for two weeks now, adhering strictly for breakfast and lunch and eating "regular" healthy, but not necessarily paleo-approved stuff for dinner so that my wife doesn't have to deal with the severe amount of baggage that comes with this lifestyle. It benefits me while I'm at work because I don't get hungry in between meals, nor do I have the mid-afternoon drowsiness. I think that the increased intake in protein and healthy fat largely to credit for that. As far as weight goes, I've lost diddly-squat. I think I'm down about 0.3lbs. And that is with 1800-1900 calories a day and exercise six times a week.
I've been reading a lot about it, but not drinking the Kool-Aid. I'm working my way through "Good Calories, Bad Calories". I get Mark's daily apple emails and after I read them I go "Hm.." and delete them. I understand the "science" behind some of the founding beliefs of Paleo (insulin resistance) . But like the OP, I'd really be interested in seeing some real, hard science backing up the claims made by proponents of Paleo. In my research, however, I've gotten the vibe that there's a "conspiracy" by the government to keep society as whole on the high-carb/low-fat mentality, so studies of any real merit would not be forthcoming due to lack of funding from the Man.
Your thoughts?0 -
I think this is why it works better for some than others. I have no doubt that eating more fat makes some people feel more satisfied. However, that is not the effect it has on me. I feel better and fuller if I get more food in my belly, regardless of the fat content. When I eat a high-fat diet, it makes me feel sick to my stomach. Hence, a 50/25/25 ratio is a superior way of eating for ME. No matter how many times someone tells me eating more fat will make me feel more satiated, it still doesn't make it true.The advantage isn't from a caloric stand point, it's from a satiety stand point. Which does result in a lower caloric consumption.0 -
I agree. I think the idea of it makes sense (for the most part)...but I know that I cannot personally give up total food groups. As soon as I tell myself I can't have something, I instantly start to crave it!0
-
And if you did the research, about 50% of ad lib studies do show greater fat loss on low carb diets, but 50% do not. Then take a look at calories being tightly controlled and the vast majority show no difference in fat loss. So in your opinion what does the current body of evidence point towards that there is a metabolic advantage or there is not?
The advantage isn't from a caloric stand point, it's from a satiety stand point. Which does result in a lower caloric consumption.
The bolded portion clearly shows that this is not necessarily the case.
I am saying sure they can consume the same calories, but how full are they? Are any of them force feeding themselves to meet the caloric limit? In the studies that don't have tightly controlled calorie limits, are probably just eating until they are satisfied. In the tightly controlled calorie limits, they might be force feeding themselves to reach the calorie limit.
Come on PU, reading comprehension. Read the part about ad lib studies again0 -
I think this is why it works better for some than others. I have no doubt that eating more fat makes some people feel more satisfied. However, that is not the effect it has on me. I feel better and fuller if I get more food in my belly, regardless of the fat content. When I eat a high-fat diet, it makes me feel sick to my stomach. Hence, a 50/25/25 ratio is a superior way of eating for ME. No matter how many times someone tells me eating more fat will make me feel more satiated, it still doesn't make it true.The advantage isn't from a caloric stand point, it's from a satiety stand point. Which does result in a lower caloric consumption.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It works for me, I like it. I work with a woman who has lost 80 pounds on the Ornish Diet (vegetarian, ultra-low-fat). She felt gross everytime she ate meat - I friggin love it. Everyone's body is going to respond differently. No use arguing though guys
0 -
I'm guessing some people don't know what "ad lib study" means. I didn't without looking it up:Ad lib: Abbreviation for the Latin "ad libitum" meaning "at pleasure" and "at one's pleasure, as much as one desires, to the full extent of one's wishes." Sometimes seen on a prescription or doctor's order. For example, during an overnight fast when the patient is not to eat any food but can have water, the doctor's order might read: "Water ad lib" (water as desired).
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=69840 -
Somebody has to protect the little frail grass eaters. I guess I'm a caveman.0
-
HDL, Triglycerides, LDL, Total cholesterol, Blood Glucose ... has this been talked about. Doesn't the Paleo lifestyle improve the numbers almost always? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of this. At least enough for it to be considered.
There is more to health than what you see in the mirror when you are 25 years old.0 -
HDL, Triglycerides, LDL, Total cholesterol, Blood Glucose ... has this been talked about. Doesn't the Paleo lifestyle improve the numbers almost always? There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of this. At least enough for it to be considered.
There is more to health than what you see in the mirror when you are 25 years old.
Doesn't losing weight tend to show improvements in blood markers of health? This was actual a question I posed in the OP, are there are studies or at least what do you think the outcome would be on blood markers of health on two calorie and macro matched diets, but one only contained Paleo foods and the other did not?0 -
I think this is why it works better for some than others. I have no doubt that eating more fat makes some people feel more satisfied. However, that is not the effect it has on me. I feel better and fuller if I get more food in my belly, regardless of the fat content. When I eat a high-fat diet, it makes me feel sick to my stomach. Hence, a 50/25/25 ratio is a superior way of eating for ME. No matter how many times someone tells me eating more fat will make me feel more satiated, it still doesn't make it true.The advantage isn't from a caloric stand point, it's from a satiety stand point. Which does result in a lower caloric consumption.
Fat also has a little effect on me in terms of satiety. I just feel fuller eating more protein, the leaner it is the less calories it has.So he more volume I can consume.
Fat has a high satiety factor with me. I can consume coffee with a tablespoon of coconut milk and a tablespoon of coconut oil and be fine until around 1 or 2 pm. And I drink my coffee with my husband at 5:30 in the morning.
I am usually forcing myself to eat lunch around 11:30 or 12:00 so that I will want supper later in the evening.0 -
I don't know about other people, but I eat them with just salt and pepper.But how many pounds of boiled potatoes would you have to eat to reach 10,000 calories? :bigsmile:
I got 25, how many people do you know that eat boiled potatoes without anything on them?
Same here....boiled in chicken stock.0 -
Remember this isn't to unnecessarily bash or praise the Paleo diet but to have an objective discussion about it
But, why pick the Paleolithic era? If the reason is to lose weight and avoid the diseases of civilization, why not emulate a Roman peasant? They sure weren't running around with diabetes, AND they got to eat a lot of bread.
How about a serf in the Middle Ages? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7148534.stm
Perhaps a modern, naan eating Afghan? http://m.npr.org/news/Health/132745785
People say, "well, we didn't evolve to eat [wheat/dairy/whatever]." It doesn't seem like an adequate argument. Paleolithic era people hadn't evolved at that point to read, either, and yet no one is giving that up.
A lot of the antinutrients in grains that people are so alarmed about are actually antioxidants that have beneficial effects, including possible cancer prevention. One example is phytic acid. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142(19850815)56:4<717::AID-CNCR2820560402>3.0.CO;2-4/abstract
I'm not convinced at all that avoiding legumes and grains is unhealthful at all.
Man, this is my favorite thing that is.0
This discussion has been closed.
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