Teemo

Oh, yeah. Correlations are nonsense and have no place in debate about science support for paleo OR non-paleo. But my post was made in response to someone who used correlations to support paleo and not meant to be taken seriously. It was a joke because of how ridiculous correlations can be. Edit: Or rather, correlations…

l looked at your diary and it was pretty awesome. Make sure you're drinking plenty of water (not more than usual if you're getting 8 glasses per day though) just to stay hydrated. And most of the advice is right on. There's nothing to "do" except move on and maybe analyze how/why you binged. Although... I just looked back…

Both of these, although I consume most of my protein post-workout since that's also when I eat. Plus... I like the idea of the "anabolic window" even though it's pretty much completely broscience. :laugh:

Sure. If you weren't joking, you apparently read my post and completely ignored the context (i.e., evolution intellectually). You also must have missed that it was poking fun at the ridiculousness of using evolutionary markers to support paleo. [Which is something you haven't done so, again, it wasn't really directed at…

I'm happy with leangains, not because of anything magical, but because of the convenience. Being able to save time from not having meals all the time has been a blessing. Since it's only been one day give yourself sometime to adjust for the hunger since your body needs to "retrain" its hormonal cycle. I haven't lost any…

I am not even sure if you're serious but out of respect for some of our previous conversations I'll assume you were making a joke.

I saw two guys with iPads and they were hipsters. Draw your own conclusions. I haven't seen a study saying that consuming grains lead to an increased risk of Parkinsons, though an increase in the consumption of animal fats has been cited as leading to a five-fold increase in the likelihood of PD.…

I have no idea what you're trying to say or imply with that remark. The atomic bomb as a technological achievement was tremendous. That it resulted in the unfortunate loss of life and an age of finger-on-the-button nuclear deterrence doesn't undercut that. Even with correlational pseduo-science you don't get to pick and…

That's a fair claim, btw. And fully supported. The problem with that stance is that, in regard to the matter of scientific support, the burden of proof is on paleo dieters to show that their paleo diet is BETTER than a diet with grains. Not the reverse... "My diet is better... prove it's not!" Might as well claim the…

In the interest of full disclosure I am currently eating a dinner that is mostly paleo :happy:

Clearly, if you aren't following paleo you're a sheep. Sheep!! Baaaaaa! Though if you're espousing this correlational pseudo-science you should fairly note that the many thousands of years when mankind was "eating paleo" were marked by brutal and primitive behavior while it was during the post-agriculture evolution of…

Least egregious as a practical matter. Following the paleo diet won't perform any of the (minor) miracles claimed, but it's better than the sugar-heavy processed calorie-laden junk that got most of us into this mess.

Someone doesn't understand that the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim. Everyone's always looking for the next nutritional "boogeyman". Of the diets that really are without practical or scientific foundation, "paleo" is probably the least egregious offender. If nothing else it's still an improvement on…

Zig-zagging calories to keep your metabolism "guessing" = makes no sense. Carb and calorie cycling according to workout days = makes sense.

Usually zig-zagging calories is in reference to your workout days. On days you workout you expend more calories and thus need to eat more calories (not to mention the benefits of protein in muscle-repair, etc.) On non-workout days you eat less because you are doing less.

I would imagine a weekly fast would be more difficult than a daily fast since leptin would cause you to be hungry/starving at the times when you usually eat.

The good news is that NOT eating six meals per day and only eating three (or two or one) meal per day has no effect on your metabolism. :smile: So... don't worry about it!

Yes, although I don't think of it in those terms. Borrowing one of my prior posts: "Let's say your resting metabolic rate (RMR) is 1,800 calories. That means, if you lay in bed all day and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING your body would need 1,800 calories to maintain its current level of functionality. Now, most of us don't have…

I use both depending on what I feel like and cost-wise it actually works out about the same. So really it's whichever one you prefer taste-wise.

Pretty much. And I would suggest you lift a heavy enough weight to cause your muscle to grow as a consequence. That usually means a heavy enough weight that you can't move it more than 8-12 times in a set. (Or 4-6).

I would tend to agree except (1) it's hard as hell for me to gain muscle and I'm terrified of losing it, anecdotal science or not, (2) Xtend isn't that expensive, and (3) watermelon Xtend is delicious.

Training with BCAAs though, I hope? As Berkhan recommends; since training completely fasted is muscle-wasting.

Yes. But it is woefully inefficient and the term "tone up" is misleading. Fat and muscle can do two things and (for the purposes of this argument) two things ONLY: they can increase or they can decrease. You can not tone up muscle any more than you can untone muscle, or firm up fat. The term "tone up" is actually referring…

Almost by definition that statement is impossible. If you're eating everything in moderation -- which, inherently, means within reasonable limits -- you're not going to get fat. Everything in EXCESS is what is making America fat.

Because... it IS a fad? "a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., especially one followed enthusiastically by a group." When did paleo dieting, in its current incarnation, take off? Within the last 10-20 years. When did it begin gaining widespread practice? Within the last 10. The Paleo Diet was written in the…

:laugh: Cordain states that ALL sweeteners should be avoided... INCLUDING honey. Which makes sense. Honey might be the most nutritious of the sweeteners but the overall nutritive value is minimal. And being the best of the worst is hardly a reason to recommend it. (Much like diet soda may be better than regular soda but…

I'm not an open-minded paleo person but if you want to become a paleodieter because it is convenient for you to achieve your goals then by all means you should give it a shot. In any case, the basic principles of avoiding processed foods, sugars, etc. are good ones in all circumstances... and no one has ever faulted the…

Which it probably doesn't, in any case.

Grain... "zealot"? :laugh: Seeing as how the consumption of grain is the norm, that term should better be used to describe paleodieters, no? Especially since paleodieters are the ones who trumpet how superior their method of dieting is, and are the ones who are promoting the (minimally-accepted) idea that grains are…

Don't want to get involved in another paleo diet thread except to say that bacon is one of the foods you should avoid while on the paleo diet due to the high salt content. Ah, can't resist getting my two cents in. In before paleo-dieters tell me the food lists published by guys like Cordain are more of a guideline than an…