Let's talk about...the Paleo Diet

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=6984

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Paleo diets haven’t yet drawn the attention of many researchers, so to demand statistics and studies is pointless. We have anecdotal evidence (people making a change in their diet and seeing results), we have theory, we have books. So, unless you are willing to consider those the conversation is pointless.

What if the thread were on cell phones causing cancer. Or better yet, increasing the risk for cancer. I bet we could fill up pages upon pages of opinions and links and pasted "data". Yet, the The National Cancer Institute;s own website states "Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck. More research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly." So, the jury is still out on something very popular to debate like cell phones and their dangers.

Paleo diets haven’t yet drawn the attention of many researchers, so to demand statistics and studies is pointless. We have anecdotal evidence (people making a change in their diet and seeing results), we have theory, we have books. So, unless you are willing to consider those the conversation is pointless.

What if the thread were on cell phones causing cancer. Or better yet, increasing the risk for cancer. I bet we could fill up pages upon pages of opinions and links and pasted "data". Yet, the The National Cancer Institute;s own website states "Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck. More research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly." So, the jury is still out on something very popular to debate like cell phones and their dangers.

That's a fair point, but I think the intent behind this post is different than you may be interpreting.

It's not "prove to me that your diet works"
But rather "I would be willing to consider this diet if I could see more definitive research on the matter. I haven't been able to find any that convince me and I'm wondering if anyone else has information that they'd be willing to share"

At least that's the way I think Acg meant it. And since I'm clearly Acg I can totally talk for him.

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.

In other words, since I won't let you just cherry pick the studies that agree with your point of view, you don't actually have any studies to show anybody, just the mysterious phantom "some studies" phrase, but you don't actually have any real evidence. Gotcha.

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.

Have you read about the Twinkie Diet? A professor of nutrition ate a diet that consisted of 1800 calories per day. He ate one can of vegetables, drank one protein shake, took a multivitamin, and the rest of the diet was filled with Twinkies, cupcakes, sugary cereals, and other convenience store junk food. His HDL, LDL, blood pressure, Triglycerides all improved, and he dropped 27 pounds in 10 weeks. All of those things are improved just by the act of losing weight, the specifics of the diet don't matter as much.

Every study I've read that has compared different diets, and controlled for calories, has shown no statistically significant difference in health markers from one type of diet to another.