Paleolithic Diet

[Spinner19641]

When the major causes of death were generally recognised to be either disease or of a violent nature it is difficult to speculate as to the long term effects of a dairy free diet. For example, would we have seen eveidence of osteoporosis in an elderly paleolithic individual?

I agree with your point about the Chinese diet and that there are other sources of calcium available. But I guess it comes back to the convenience issue - do people really want to go to the effort of cooking meat on the bone these days? I enjoy it but I guess it's not for everyone.

I don't mean to be rude but this is a boring discussion.

- Maybe super athletes do benefit from the Paleo diet - I'm not one and don't want to be one so I don't care about that.

- Maybe cavemen didn't get osteo - I don't think we know that for sure but even if they didn't - so what.

- Maybe we could all derive our dairy needs through stewing meat - billions of Chinese do - but dairy seems to work just as well and many people eat it because they like it, not just because it is 'convenient'.

You obviously like this diet and that's great for you. I like my diet too but I don't feel the need to bang on about it.

 

[dawnball]

We didn't live as long so our bodies didn't need to last as long.

And we probably derived calcium through other means. For example, the Chinese do not traditionally eat dairy (as in butter, milk or cheese) but they do eat dishes (such as stews) cooked with the meat on the bone so nutrients from the bone and marrow are eaten.

Greens, weight bearing exercise, sunshine and low sodium. Your body absorbs and retains calcium quite well, actually. But you need plenty of magnesium to utilize that calcium, and vitamin D (hence the sunshine) to properly absorb calcium. You'll also need vitamin K and boron. Excess sodium (and phosphoric acid, from soda) are probably the biggest contributors toward calcium excretion in modern life. Most people in the US are also arguably vitamin-D deficient (some studies say up to 75%).

I've been dairy free for a year or two at a stretch for medical reasons, and my (fairly extensive) research indicated that I don't need to supplement calcium (even without dairy products) as long as I got weight-bearing exercise, ate my greens and supplemented with sufficient magnesium and Vitamin-D. I do start craving greens when I've been dairy free for a few weeks though, and it's not unusual for me to have several servings of cooked greens or other higher-calcium veggies per day.

I would strongly encourage anyone who's considering a restrictive diet for any reason to do a lot of research on micronutrients. The Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State is a really good place to start reading.

As far as paleo specifically - When I was first diagnosed with gluten intolerance I was also intolerant to: all nightshade vegetables (potatoes, tomatoes, peppers), all grains (corn, rice, etc), dairy, legumes (beans, green beans, peanuts). What I was left with was pretty darn close to paleo. I lost weight quickly, I felt good, and I had a pretty nutritionally balanced intake.

But I ate everything that could be found at local farmer's markets and at a big greengrocer. Modern diets are incredibly limited in the variety of nuts, seeds, fruits and vegetables that are consumed. My husband and I would go through a half bushel of collard or other greens in a week, in addition to the other vegetables we ate. We sought out fiddlehead ferns (which taste like dirt), kohlrabi, sunchokes, every variety of squash under the sun, etc. It's not something I could have done in a healthy manner with nothing but a Kroger or a Wal-mart as a food source.

But I found that it was impossible to maintain weight during pregnancy, and after my daughter was born (and I started to add back those foods) I gained weight quickly, until I weighed almost as much as I did before my diet was limited. So like any other restrictive diet - limiting choices can limit calories and cause weight loss. It's also a fairly low caloric-density diet. But lifting those restrictions makes it easy to gain it all back.

I'm currently dairy free again, and one of my focuses is building habits that will continue to work for me if I'm ever able to add dairy products back into my life. I would really rather not be pushed back to paleo, for logistical reasons if no other, but it was the least of the available evils.

 

[Jericho]

There are medical reasons some have to eliminate foods from their diets, however most on this board are not in that situation. We encourage eating from a variety of sources because this isn't about a short term diet. It is about creating a changing in your entire lifestyle.

 

[dawnball]

What are others experiences of following Paleo?

I did it for just shy of 3 years. I lost about 20lb/year without noticeable effort. However, I found it socially limiting, expensive, time consuming, difficult to get sufficient variety for me to be comfortable with micronutrient values and generally incompatible with a life I would chose to lead.

As a weight-loss diet I found it to be lacking. As a lifestyle, I don't have any quibbles with it, but it's not one that I would chose to lead. I know a couple who live in a mud hut without running water or electricity beyond a few solar cells, harvest a significant portion of their food from the surrounding countryside and have been known to call in late for a meeting because "I was bicycling to the meeting when I saw a roadkill deer, so I stopped to skin it and take the hide home to tan." That's not a lifestyle I care to lead either, but it doesn't seem to be hurting them at all.

As far as it being a fad diet - I would have to say that as it was generally practiced on the paleo newsgroups, it struck me as a fad. Most of them seemed to think it was the thing to do, and to have not put much thought at all into why they did it other than that someone said they would lose weight if they followed the diet. It doesn't have to be nutritionally unbalanced, but like most other restrictive diets (low-carb, for example) it is frequently implemented that way.

Oh, and really - you can't believe that digestion time has a meaningful impact on metabolic equations and that paleo isn't a low-calorie diet. The caloric density is quite low unless you're eating meat jerky and nuts all the time. Now, if you want to talk about food satiation, or blood glucose levels, or appetite blunting - all of those can be affected by the dietary choices, and they all have an effect on the volume of food and number of calories that people who are free-fed consume.

 

[dawnball]

There are medical reasons some have to eliminate foods from their diets, however most on this board are not in that situation. We encourage eating from a variety of sources because this isn't about a short term diet. It is about creating a changing in your entire lifestyle.

I don't believe that I indicated that most were in that situation. Or that most ought to eliminate any particular foods from their diets. In fact, I pointed out that eliminating any food from your diet without doing your own survey of available research is a bad idea.

My point was that dairy isn't necessary to consume sufficient calcium, and that calcium isn't usually the determining factor for bone health. I'd be happy to discuss relevant studies or current recommendations for maintaining bone mass on dairy-free/low-dairy diets if people have an interest.

I really don't see this as more controversial than the idea that vegetarians can be healthy without meat in their diet (for whatever reason they chose to exclude it.)

 

[Jeanette401]

I don't believe that I indicated that most were in that situation. Or that most ought to eliminate any particular foods from their diets. In fact, I pointed out that eliminating any food from your diet without doing your own survey of available research is a bad idea.

My point was that dairy isn't necessary to consume sufficient calcium, and that calcium isn't usually the determining factor for bone health. I'd be happy to discuss relevant studies or current recommendations for maintaining bone mass on dairy-free/low-dairy diets if people have an interest.

I really don't see this as more controversial than the idea that vegetarians can be healthy without meat in their diet (for whatever reason they chose to exclude it.)

I don't think anyone was saying that dairy was necessary - just sort of reiterating what you said in another thread - that it's harder to get good nutrition on a restrictive plan. A classic example of 'well this group did it' is the Inuit diet - which involves virtually no plants at all. How do they manage to not be lacking in vitamin C? They eat raw caribou brains and marrow (cooking apparently destroys the vitamin C). So to say "Well, the Inuits don't eat plants and ate mostly fat and they had very little heart disease" may be true, but unless you're eating an identical diet and have a similar activity level - well, as you said, you'd better do your research! Mmmmm. Raw caribou brains.

I find the paleo diet interesting - I tried something similar for about 6 weeks as an anti-allergen plan. No gluten, no nightshades, no dairy, no processed sugars, not even maple or honey... I did have sweet potatoes since they're on the least allergenic food list, but it seems like they're allowed on some versions of the paleo plan.

From it I learned that I am very very glad that I am not allergic to casein because I love cheese It was the single hardest thing for me to give up. I did Atkins for 5 years and I think that was still easier than a zero cheese diet for me!

In any event, I'm not really sure I understand some of the logic of the restrictions of paleo - the legumes being the #1. It's true they have to be 'processed' before eating, but paleo doesn't recommend eating raw meat and it seems that roasted veggies are fine, so why black beans are a no-no is confusing. My theory is that it's not really grounded in evolutionary principles as much as it is reducing calorie intake by removing yet another source of non-protein foods from the list of choices. Maybe without removing them people were less likely to lose weight without counting calories. Or maybe it's something that seems random and illogical to me (again, cooking food is not a 'new' development like bread & cheese) so I don't understand why paleo man would have shunned them.

Interestingly, I read that we have only seen two genetic changes between modern day hunter gatherers (the ones who were still eating/living that way until a few hundred years ago) and the ones who started cultivating food some 10k years ago. Those are gluten and lactose tolerance. To me, that suggests that the paleo digestive systems were already suited to eat non-wheat and non-dairy foods such as beans and peanuts and that if you did evolve to eat dairy and wheat... why try to turn back the evolutionary clock and pretend you didn't get that adaptation? Also, lactose tolerance is not exactly new, it's just that in the lactose intolerant, it turns itself off at age 3. The adaptation was to leave on the tolerance after baby-hood.

To my mind, the main reason that the paleo diet succeeds is that it encourages good protein intake (which increases satiety) and promotes low calorie density, unprocessed foods with plenty of fiber (again helping fullness). I don't really believe there's an evolutionary advantage to eating this way - especially because most of evolution has focused on getting the most efficient processing of foods. We evolved to love the taste of calorie dense foods such as sweets and fats, and to store fat for the lean season. In terms of weight loss, I don't feel evolution is our best friend

 

[dawnball]

To my mind, the main reason that the paleo diet succeeds is that it encourages good protein intake (which increases satiety) and promotes low calorie density, unprocessed foods with plenty of fiber (again helping fullness). I don't really believe there's an evolutionary advantage to eating this way - especially because most of evolution has focused on getting the most efficient processing of foods. We evolved to love the taste of calorie dense foods such as sweets and fats, and to store fat for the lean season. In terms of weight loss, I don't feel evolution is our best friend

Yes, exactly. Most people also eat it as a very repetitive diet, which mutes appetite. I was discussing this with my gatherer friends and my husband today, and we were pretty much all in agreement that actual paleolithic man ate very little like the "paleo diet". Modern research shows that paleolithic tribes likely harvested and consumed grains, and ate potato-like tubers.

Oddly, the "paleo diet" as practiced in the modern era seems to have more in kind with early neolithic or mesolithic diets than with paleo. You know, when people lost 3" in stature and started having horrible health problems? The current prevailing theories say it has nothing to do with the consumption of grains or dairy products. Rather the decrease in animal protein (particularly red meat) and replacement with fish caused a decrease in total calorie consumption. In addition, people were living in larger groups with decreased hygiene - so disease and parasite transmission was higher. Seasonal starvation also became more common, since people had to store enough foodstuffs to tide them over the winter instead of migrating after readily available foodsources. Was phytate consumption an issue? I'm sure it was. Was it the only issue? Highly unlikely.

Back on topic - I've said in this thread, I think as a weight loss diet it's sort of bunk. But if you have philosophical or other reasons for eating a primitive diet/living a primitive lifestyle - it certainly can be done, and done in a healthy
manner.

 

[Steve]

If you're someone in charge of advising people on how to eat for weight loss and you're married to one particular diet rather than taking and objective, individualized approach... I'd say you need to re-examine your mode of operations.

Paleo works just like any other diet that works - it controls calories - directly and indirectly. Directly it limits foods, which by default, tends to reduce caloric intake. Indirectly it promotes healthy, satiating foods, which, as already mentioned, can, among other things, slow the rate of digestion keeping you full longer. This indirectly controls calorie intake.

This doesn't make the diet special though. Some people may love it. Others will hate the rigidity though. Remember, what's not rigid to you can be extremely rigid to someone else.

I wouldn't have chimed in, but when the OP claims to be working with clients, it really concerned me that he's taking such a funneled approach to his recommendations.

It's a false dichotomy to think in terms of paleo vs. non-paleo eating. When it comes to weigh control, there are MANY ways to skin a cat, nutritionally speaking.

There are certainly pros to the "paleo" way of eating...

-emphasis on lean meats
-eliminating "empty calories" otherwise known as micronutrient dilution
-places an emphasis on fruits and veggies which can't be denied in terms of health benefits
-same can be said about it's emphasis on nuts

The list goes on. But this can be had in any way of eating. The list of "rules", for the most part, is something I include in my own nutrition. Minus the rigidity of course.

And to the OP - if you're truly a professional in the industry, I'd suggest getting up to snuff in terms of research. Writing it all off due to financial biases is beyond naive. In addition, the research that has been produced pertaining to paleo has been positive. It'd help your argument. It is also littered with major problems... but it couldn't hurt your cause.

 

[jameshedleyturn]

Paleolithic diet is rather a philosophy rather than a fad diet. It really asks what you would define as a "cave man" diet and whether or not you believe that there has been any significant change in human DNA since introduction of agriculture (or even way before that). Many people have tried to define what a "cave man diet" would be like with all sorts of guesses all over the place. Really its not a weight loss diet for say but rather like a philosophy on how a diet should be, un till death. If you believe on this side of the nutritional agenda then its up to you.

I will be supporting this diet but in the view of another man and by a book that most of the commerical world would probably never heard of because it has only a little to with losing weight a main point but rather a sympton of the changes.

I wouldn't rattle on too much about this diet too much because a diet is a philosophy on the way you should (or not if the case maybe) eat long term un till death.

 

[clever_plant]

I love the appeal to emotion that always goes with the whole "back to basics, real natural cave-man diet".... if I were to live like a real danish caveman I would eat oysters and roots and die in about a day or two since I'm already way past the assumed lifespan of cavemen. "But it is all natural" yes, so is cyanide, doesn't mean its good for you.

There is a single way to eat healthy and it is: get the nutrients you need and the calories you need. Also avoid stuff that makes you die. The science is unfortunately nowhere near done on this subject so at best we can estimate things that are useful, especially when we are dealing with an individual so that we can take into account the behaviour, life and health of that individual.

The whole "philosophy" part of it is just.. bleh... to me. Unless there is an actual ethical or rational argument for it, it is moot to me. I mean... you might also say that eating shellfish is very bad if you follow a certain religious philosophy, but that doesn't make it healthy or unhealthy, it just makes it supersticious.

I think steve might be more chimed into this part of research but there IS some merit to avoiding starch, as far as I can remember. Other than that... bleh.

 

[jameshedleyturn]

Well its not only Cavemen who follow this particluar diet. Tribes who are untouched by civilisation follow a similar diet (well except tests done on them). Their health reports are often good. I mean you could use the original line from the guy who first came up with the idea, or you could take view the of Dr. Cordain or you could take the view of someone I wish not to name. Like any other philosophy there are hundreds of splinter groups to choose from. If the Genome project does prove that our DNA hasn't altered since then or requires 10s of thousands of years to adapt then won't see the end of it hahaha!!!

As you have mention posious compounds, arsenic is a very essential element in the human diet but only a trace amount is required. I pray to god that no scientist ever tries to find the toxic amount... lol!

 

[clever_plant]

Well its not only Cavemen who follow this particluar diet. Tribes who are untouched by civilisation follow a similar diet (well except tests done on them). Their health reports are often good. I mean you could use the original line from the guy who first came up with the idea, or you could take view the of Dr. Cordain or you could take the view of someone I wish not to name. Like any other philosophy there are hundreds of splinter groups to choose from. If the Genome project does prove that our DNA hasn't altered since then or requires 10s of thousands of years to adapt then won't see the end of it hahaha!!!

As you have mention posious compounds, arsenic is a very essential element in the human diet but only a trace amount is required. I pray to god that no scientist ever tries to find the toxic amount... lol!

Do you know of any tribes that have longer average lifespan than people do in say... Sweden? I didn't think so. Now this might be due to all sorts of differences like hygiene, medicine and what not, but simply saying "but tribal people are so healthy" is plain wrong.

Arsenic is not cyanide and it doesn't change the fact that being "natural" is not a positive adjective about something you eat, it simply means that we don't need to synthesize it to get it. Crude oil is natural too, so is lava, do you think any of those are healthy because they are natural? I'd bet that refined, bleached sugar is way more healthy than say... oak...

Also, whether or not DNA has changed, which it has btw, doesn't impact on the health of a given food. I mean, is there any evidence that cavemen had the ideal diet? Did cavemen live longer, better, healthier lives?

 

[jameshedleyturn]

Well you say Cave men but really I would like to say tribes men because they are continuing with that lifestyle. There is a lot of reasons why tribes men are more healthier than us but that would be incredibly controversial to say. Now when I talk about healthier I do mean in health statistics like low chances of diabetes, cancer... all the sort of degenerative disease we get which takes 10, 20, 30 years to kill you. There foods are lean, organic and healthy than our estrogen and all sorts of crap pumped animals which are teaming with fat, antibiotics and all sorts of shit hot chemicals that slowly but surely killing us off.

Then you talk about hygiene, medicine and etc, If thats your arguement seriously, I mean how did we actually survive in the first place... We take 14 years to have the ability to have children a least. You talk about Medicine (I assume pharma opposed to ortho medicine) being the champion... adverse reactions kills a lot of people or make people incredibly ill, a majority of the time medicines do not work at all and a irreversable condition can not be cured sadly . Hygiene debates could go forever... you could mention introduction of civilisation made a lot of diseases or biotechnologies causes a lot of disease (I assume you mean bad hyiene causing disease).

But all so controversial stuff... We are going way off top... It is a diet... Any author of this diet doesn't ask you to strip off and go join them, we are too domesticated for that... But its up to whether to actually look into the arguement... If you want an explanation to why our human DNA hasn't changed for so many ten of thousands of year then ask Dr Stephen Hawking for his answer... Anyone can write to him! More evidence may appear when you actually get past the 4 calories to a gram of carb or protein and 9 grams of fat. You start to find out that there is a variety of type of protein, carbs and fats. Then you may start to what a saturated, unsaturated is... you may start to understand double bondings... You'll start to understand the varients in protein... You may start to understand about rates of digestion of carbs and its link with the hormone insulin... then you understand insulin abuse causes long term high levels of fat storage from defensive mechanisms to toxic levels of insulin... you'll find a Glycemix index to dictate carb choices... Learning it is beautiful... but as I say... it's up to you to go beyond the hype that comes with "weight loss" and float down the river

 

[jameshedleyturn]

Well actually everything has to start off natural... I mean where else you get it from... Twists and turns... kinks and keys... all of the supplements I take started off natural but there is not a single trace of the original thing... like corn syrup is turn into ascorbic acid... however it requires processing to get there... But before you start putting down supplements, I have to tell you its for very controversial reasons and reasons which probably started with the industrial age. I would probably tell you as well a certain type of B12 supplement had part cyanide but because I'm at uni, I don't have the information and google is useless. But I would be happy to obtain it and tell the story... so long as if my memory servs me right... Man, actually that was an amazing book! I shall get it again regard!!! On we shall go!

 

[Jericho]

Opposing views

The evolutionary assumptions underlying the Paleolithic diet have been disputed.[18][21][22][32] According to Alexander Ströhle, Maike Wolters and Andreas Hahn, with the Department of Food Science at the University of Hanover, the statement that the human genome evolved during the Pleistocene (a period from 1,808,000 to 11,550 years ago) rests on an inadequate, but popular gene-centered view of evolution.[22] They rely on Russell (2001)[75] to argue that evolution of organisms cannot be reduced to the genetic level with reference to mutation and that there is no one-to-one relationship between genotype and phenotype.[22]

They further question the notion that 10,000 years is an insufficient period of time to ensure an adequate adaptation to agrarian diets.[22] Referring to Wilson (1994),[76] Ströhle et al. argue that "the number of generations that a species existed in the old environment was irrelevant, and that the response to the change of the environment of a species would depend on the hereditability of the traits, the intensity of selection and the number of generations that selection acts."[77] They state that if the diet of Neolithic agriculturalists had been in discordance with their physiology, then this would have created a selection pressure for evolutionary change and modern humans, such as Europeans, whose ancestors have subsisted on agrarian diets for 400–500 generations should be somehow adequately adapted to it. In response to this argument, Wolfgang Kopp states that "we have to take into account that death from atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurs later during life, as a rule after the reproduction phase. Even a high mortality from CVD after the reproduction phase will create little selection pressure. Thus, it seems that a diet can be functional (it keeps us going) and dysfunctional (it causes health problems) at the same time."[77] Moreover, S. Boyd Eaton and colleagues have indicated that "comparative genetic data provide compelling evidence against the contention that long exposure to agricultural and industrial circumstances has distanced us, genetically, from our Stone Age ancestors"[12] however they mention exceptions such as increased lactose and gluten tolerance, which improve ability to digest dairy and grains, while other studies indicate that human adaptive evolution has accelerated since the Paleolithic.[78]

Referencing Mahner et al. (2001)[79] and Ströhle et al. (2006),[80] Ströhle et al. state that "whatever is the fact, to think that a dietary factor is valuable (functional) to the organism only when there was ‘genetical adaptation’ and hence a new dietary factor is dysfunctional per se because there was no evolutionary adaptation to it, such a panselectionist misreading of biological evolution seems to be inspired by a naive adaptationistic view of life."[22]

Katharine Milton, a professor of physical anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, has also disputed the evolutionary logic upon which the Paleolithic diet is based. She questions the premise that the metabolism of modern humans must be genetically adapted to the dietary conditions of the Paleolithic.[18] Relying on several of her previous publications,[81][82][83][84] Milton states that "there is little evidence to suggest that human nutritional requirements or human digestive physiology were significantly affected by such diets at any point in human evolution."[18]

And finally, there is evidence to suggest that the diet of Stone Age humans did include, in some form, the refined starches and grains that are excluded from the paleolithic diet. A 2010 study documented the discovery of a 30,000 year old mortar and pestle from which flour of several plants were isolated.[85]

 

[Jeanette401]

Er, who's the nameless paleo advocate with a book, and why are we not naming him? I think I got confused.

I agree with what Steve said - there are a lot of positive things about the paleo diet that I agree with. However, the appeal to emotion that CleverPlant mentions is logic defying to me.

Aside from lactose tolerance and gluten tolerance, there pretty are no genetic changes in between modern day 'tribesmen' and bread eaters. To me that suggests that man was already adapted to eat most foods that weren't bread or dairy. Beyond that, the idea that eating with your evolution will make you leaner is also baffling. Evolution wants me to be energy efficient, it doesn't really care much about me being lean, because humans have dealt with famine more regularly and for a lot longer than they have obesity.

A lot of modern day tribesmen are also physically active - far more so than most people in first world countries. Given that there are two major points of difference, how can we attribute their health to their diet rather than the fact that they have to be so active it's hard to get enough calories to become fat? Especially when there are vastly differing diets that have historically led to good health markers? (I.e. compare the Inuit diet to the Okinawan.)

The whole back to nature approach may be philosophically appealing, and by all means, go with that if that's your thing - it just doesn't make it scientifically accurate, nor does it guarantee you'll get more health benefits than taking the 'good parts' of the diet and making them the focus. Lean meats, veggies, unprocessed, activity etc.

 

[clever_plant]

Well you say Cave men but really I would like to say tribes men because they are continuing with that lifestyle. There is a lot of reasons why tribes men are more healthier than us but that would be incredibly controversial to say. Now when I talk about healthier I do mean in health statistics like low chances of diabetes, cancer... all the sort of degenerative disease we get which takes 10, 20, 30 years to kill you. There foods are lean, organic and healthy than our estrogen and all sorts of crap pumped animals which are teaming with fat, antibiotics and all sorts of shit hot chemicals that slowly but surely killing us off.

Then you talk about hygiene, medicine and etc, If thats your arguement seriously, I mean how did we actually survive in the first place... We take 14 years to have the ability to have children a least. You talk about Medicine (I assume pharma opposed to ortho medicine) being the champion... adverse reactions kills a lot of people or make people incredibly ill, a majority of the time medicines do not work at all and a irreversable condition can not be cured sadly . Hygiene debates could go forever... you could mention introduction of civilisation made a lot of diseases or biotechnologies causes a lot of disease (I assume you mean bad hyiene causing disease).

But all so controversial stuff... We are going way off top... It is a diet... Any author of this diet doesn't ask you to strip off and go join them, we are too domesticated for that... But its up to whether to actually look into the arguement... If you want an explanation to why our human DNA hasn't changed for so many ten of thousands of year then ask Dr Stephen Hawking for his answer... Anyone can write to him! More evidence may appear when you actually get past the 4 calories to a gram of carb or protein and 9 grams of fat. You start to find out that there is a variety of type of protein, carbs and fats. Then you may start to what a saturated, unsaturated is... you may start to understand double bondings... You'll start to understand the varients in protein... You may start to understand about rates of digestion of carbs and its link with the hormone insulin... then you understand insulin abuse causes long term high levels of fat storage from defensive mechanisms to toxic levels of insulin... you'll find a Glycemix index to dictate carb choices... Learning it is beautiful... but as I say... it's up to you to go beyond the hype that comes with "weight loss" and float down the river

So, To take this from one end, and bear in mind, I'm not really opposed to the paleo diet. It reminds me somewhat of Ross, and that is disgusting, but other than that I'm sure it is fine. It is all the mumbo jumbo that goes along with it that annoys me.

1: What do you base this "tribesmen are more healthy" on. So, you claim less diabetes, cancer etc. Diabetes I have seen studies backing up so I'll take your word on that, cancer I have no idea about, but the lifespan is still miles behind the average western country. If we are to continue debating health we need to define health

2: I actually just pointed out that the lifespan of I countries also might be increased by access to modern medicine. Lets not start a debate about medicine since I can already now predict that we will never agree. It is blatantly false that it "doesn't work most of the time" and that adverse reaction kills lots of people, at least if compared to the vast amount of people medicine saves.

3: I understand the differences that the lenght of carb molecules cause in the way they are used by the body, the differences between saturated and mono and poly unsaturated fats and chemistry 101 just fine And I Agree that learning is beautiful, to me it is basically one of the three top contenders for main source of joy.

But, I still haven't seen any real evidence for the "paleo diet" being somehow superior to everything else. As stated I can see good qualities in it. Lean meat is good, fish is good, fibers and veggies is good etc. But all the philosophy has nothing to do with the health of it

Also I would rather not disturb Stephen Hawking with questions about chem 101. I'm sure he has better things to do

 

[Jeanette401]

I have a pet theory that so many diets rely on the mumbo jumbo as you call it, to get past cognitive dissonance. I.e. if the diet is 'magic' then it allows you to succeed without meaning you're stupid & lazy for failing the last 10 diets you tried.

I freely admit that's part of what got me with Atkins - I was convinced that I was a smart person, I was restricting myself to the point of strong discomfort, I was walking for 4 miles a day several days a week and yet my weight loss was minimal. Ergo rather than me doing something wrong, I must have a broken metabolism that didn't respond to 'common sense' dieting. Atkins bypassed all of that with it's promises that it would make you lose weight through the magic of ketosis, and the lack of calorie counting meant you never saw that you were actually eating fewer calories and just feeling less hungry.

Like the paleo diet, it got me eating more lean meats and more veggies so it was overall a positive step, but the magic of ketosis was more like Dumbo's magic feather. I suspect the same can be said for most diets out there. They promote a 'philosophy' that lets you side step a critical evaluation of your previous dieting attempts, because theirs is manifestly superior.

That's my theory anyway

 

[clever_plant]

I think that is a sound theory, it just... i feel somewhat ... bad for people, when they think they are stupid and lazy when they fail I guess we all do it tho. I actually felt a bit like that when I turned vegan, especially due to some of my more new agey friends going "yes it is because milk binds the fat to the body" etc. Which I realize is probably retarded woo woo but.. we all want to believe the goodstuff . Then I started counting calories and realized that I just got a lot less calories when living vegan due to the lack of... delicious... fried....bacon... erhm.. etc.

 

[Jeanette401]

LOL! The milk binds the fat to the body! Awesome!

I guess we all want a little woo woo in our lives... and maybe the woo can help you feel better about the lack of delicious fried... er. Yeah. Restricting yummy food choices seems to be an effective method used by large numbers of diets really. Although cutting back on the processed crap also helps!

That does remind me though, I remember watching the TV show 'cupcake wars' and in one episode the Vegan cupcakes beat the crap out of the 'normal' ones in taste in every test. It made me really want to try those vegan cupcakes...

It's also a shame that people do have the feeling of failure - and I'm sure the people in the media going 'Just work harder!' doesn't help. I was doing poorly on the SlimFast diet not because I wasn't working hard enough, but because their definition of 'sensible' and mine were not the same Not to mention that 2 slimfasts a day + 'sensible dinner' is extremely unsatiating. My hunger based estimate at the time was that I must be eating 1200 calories a day. In reality... Do you know how many calories are in a pack of ramen?