richardheath Member

OK, so the paleolithic era is now anything over 50 years ago. Got it. Further, the paleo diet is based on a "theory" in the sense of a wild *kitten*-guess, not scientific evidence. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up!

1. The "modifications" done to wheat were not "genetic modifications" in the sense of GMOs, it was simply done with breeding. In fact, from wiki " As of 2013, no GM wheat is grown commercially, but many field tests have been conducted." 2. Where is the evidence that it makes it harder to digest? And don't say celiacs, as…

That is your assumption. Is there any actual evidence that "our bodies haven't had a chance to catch up", and to what, exactly? I mean, I could move from the USA to India and after a week or so, my body would be caught up to their food stuff.

But just at the top of this page (eta - page 10), you thanked someone for posting that Paleo diet had nothing to do with evolutionary science... now you are claiming that it does? I'm confused!

Thanks! I was wondering what they meant.

What does "difficult time processing" mean? And how can we get so fat off of something we can't process? That seems to be a case of wanting your sugar/gluten free cake and eating it too.

Too much fat, and she might not be getting enough of her other macros. Depends on what her goals are really and what the rest of her diet is like. Glad she's not only eating nuts! And macros = macronutrients: protein, fat and carbohydrates.

No, it isn't based on solid evolutionary science. No "may" needed. But the nutritional science seems to stem from the basic principle that we did not evolve to eat certain foods: Wheat is harmful because early humans did not eat grain (although they did). The science is then cherry picked to find something harmful in wheat…

Too much for what? If you are within calories (and macros), then no, it isn't. If you are over on calories (and/or fat), then yes it is. But do tell me that isn't all you are eating all day? Because then it's not enough!

You say you've plateaued, and yet you are not weighing yourself... is it just the inches not coming off? Thing is, the last few % body fat are usually quite hard to get rid of. You need to be in quite a small deficit, hitting your protein macro, and just give it time.

I'll have to look it up again. Remember reading it a year or more ago. I'm about to leave for the day though, so it may be tomorrow before I find it.

Just as an aside really, but there is also a paper that shows a diet of 75% carbs can reverse the signs of pre-diabetes as well. I personally manage mine with moderate carbs, spread out throughout the day, and exercise.

Absolutely! The conflation of the popular term "theory" (wild *kitten* guess) with the scientific term "theory" (well supported explanation based on multiple lines of scientific evidence) is another bugaboo of mine. Part of this discussion is about the scientific validity of the Paleo diet, and now we have one of it's…

Generations generally refers to when one reaches breeding age. Even if we take a conservative 20 years old for a human (I'd guess it would have been much younger back in caveman times?) that is 500 generations, not 142. Old people (especially women) tend not to breed as much. And is there any evidence that increased…

The word you are looking for here is hypothesis. You may believe your hypothesis is correct, but you won't know until you test it. Get enough experimental data together so it forms a cohesive picture, and then you have a theory. But there's that damn semantics again!

And anything that doesn't move. Sorry if that first bit was confusing. I meant yes, he mentions it, but then goes on to ignore it. We are omnivores. We eat all the foodz. Trying to go from there to the evolutionary mis-match is a huge leap.

No. Pseudoscience irritates me. As to the diet, eat what you want. I'm sure it isn't unhealthy, when done well (but then "done well" can be applied to any diet). But I do think Paleo is unsustainable for most people and not *required* for good health. And if rhetoric bores you, what are you doing on a discussion board?

What the article from the OP fails to mention --- or rather, just skips over willy nilly --- is that humans evolved to eat anything edible. Some societies had to go to great lengths to make certain things edible. But they ate whatever they could, whenever they could. In short, we evolved to be omnivores. From the article:…

Talk to a physical therapist. It really depends on how bad your back is, and we can't diagnose that. But in general, a 2 lb weight is not considered "weight lifting" for most people. Weight lifting would be a weight you can just do 3-5 reps for 3-5 sets (for strength building. also known as "heavy lifting") or 10-12 reps…

More. Yes, the body will burn fat if you exercise fasted. However, the body will also burn fat if you don't exercise at all and are in a calorie deficit. Exercise isn't needed for weight loss - a calorie deficit is all that your body requires. Exercise (in terms of weight loss) just increases the amount you can eat and…

And a profile pic drinking what looks to be an Advocare shake!

Maybe use this as a time to try new recipes and new cuisines? Chicken can be cooked in so many different ways, with different herbs and/or spices... try something new each time so it doesn't get boring?

I had a protein shake right before bed last night. I haven't died yet! Note: if you have acid reflux or other digestion problems, then it is wise to not eat when it upsets you. Other than that, it certainly isn't deadly.

I would suggest that this is probably because the people who eat later (a) eat high calorie snack food and (b) go over on their calorie requirements. If you are counting calories and staying in a deficit, meal (or snack) timing means virtually nothing.

There is a sign in my gym that says people who work out in the morning are more likely to stick to it. Especially if you have kids etc. I know that by the time I get home, cook dinner, help with homework etc I'm not in the mood to lift weights! That said: Do it whenever you can. Whatever time actually fits your schedule…

Losing weight is primarily about your diet. Eat at a reasonable deficit. Strength train to maintain lean body mass (and eat enough protein). Cardio can help create a deficit, but you can't out-exercise a bad diet.

Without a deficit, losing inches will be slower. Not impossible, just slower. Eating around your TDEE (if that is what you are doing) and lifting is a "body recomposition", and can take time. As to what to eat - lots of protein (0.8-1.0 g / lb body weight), some fat (~0.4 g per lb), and fill in the rest with carbs. When is…

A graphic description of Strong Lifts: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1019986-strong-lifts-5-x-5-program-for-the-beginner A thread on overall diet: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1175494-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants If you are in a deficit, you will likely not gain significant…

Beer! I call beer!

204 lb lost is great! You earned this! Congrats.