Paleo? For or against?

Gorilla Rising

I was thinking of giving the paleo diet a go starting tomorrow.

I just want to do what's 'right' for my body I guess.

Now, there's plenty of hype and information about the paleo way of living.

It's not without its critics either: http://www.outlawfitnesshq.com/the-paleo-diet/

I know there are a few paleo advocates on here. I'm just wondering what the best way to go would be.

I'm love carbs (brown rice, bit of wholegrain bread, potatoes) and also I can't imagine eating that much fat/meat...

I'm losing weight steadily at the moment as it is and I've a good workout routine.

So if anyone has any information or suggestions for me I'm all ears

Gorilla Rising

Actually I just found another thread that answers my questions.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=81111984

Apologies.

Mods - can delete if you wish!

--Kaiser--

fortune wookiee wrote: »

It's not without its critics either: http://www.outlawfitnesshq.com/the-paleo-diet/

That's the dumbest critique of paleo I've ever read.

#1: Do we really know what cavemen ate?
We've actually got a pretty good idea from anthropology and archaeology, just because the author is ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is. We also know they definitely didn't eat grains, simple sugars and vegetables oils.

#2: Diet location dependant?
Macro levels were probably different depending on the area but I don't think many paleo proponents dictate exact macro-nutrient ratios, and if they do it's probably related to hormonal food response.

#3: Can't replicate it?
Strawman, no one I've read states you can accurately replicate a stone age diet. You can get closer to optimal though (certainly closer than a normal western diet).

#4: They didn't live long enough to get diseases?
A common fallacy, the average age of cavemen was low because of lack of medicine, high chold mortality etc...Modern hunter gatherers live to ripe old ages (largely) without suffering all the diseases mentioned.

#5: Who Says We Haven’t Evolved?
Another strawman. Some populations have clearly evolved lactose tolerance but the fact that grains contain lots of antinutrients for which we have no defence is an indication that we are not designed to eat them as a staple of our diet.

#6: Who Says Our Digestive Physiology Changes Significantly At All?
I don't know what he's getting at here. We have evolved from frugivores to omnivores over millions of years, this a biological and anthropological fact.

#7: Animal to Plant Ratio.
Looking at modern hunter gatherers, the ratio varies but again, none of them eat grains, vegetables oils or simple sugars.

#8: They weren’t eating to ‘be healthy’. They were eating to survive.
No shit Sherlock.

Gorilla Rising

Excellent post Kaiser.

I guess I'm also somewhat concerned about the levels of purines in a paleo diet as someone who's very prone to gout attacks..

--Kaiser--

fortune wookiee wrote: »

Excellent post Kaiser.

I guess I'm also somewhat concerned about the levels of purines in a paleo diet as someone who's very prone to gout attacks..

I don't know much about it but here's an article on the subject
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/gout-primal-paleo-diet/#axzz2QdhHRMNe

Gummy Panda

I'll only support paleo if I can rape and pillage rival tribes

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I'll only support paleo if I can rape and pillage rival tribes

you could join the IDF

jam_mac_jam

I don't know, there is a lot of wisdom there. Especially avoiding processed food and grains like wheat. However there is also some things I can't really understand such as peanuts and legumes, maybe I am just brainwashed to think lentils and Chickpeas are good for me. That said a lot of food I eat would be paleo and since I have started eating lower grains and higher fat I feel much better and have lost weight. There are just things in it I don't agree with. I eat dairy and beans.

I agree with eliminating grains and veg oils, I can see the scientific agreements.

There is also a lot of difference in what it is, some saying low fat meats, others all types of meats and some like Mark Sisson saying dairy is ok and others not. So yes there is some in it I would agree with but some of it is just silly.

Some of the science or logic is also a bit silly. And wrong. Its ok to eat protein powders and such some processed food but don't eat a bean or a potato,potatoes? In some ways I think its a re marketed low card diet with a veneer of health.

Another critic while not as harsh http://summertomato.com/is-it-healthier-to-eat-like-a-caveman/

Gorilla Rising

Yeah it's a good article.

Re the lifestyle thing:

I think I might find it difficult to give up everything personally as I do like a bit of 'this and that' occasionally and I like to cook and sample new food so excluding grains etc doesn't really fit into my lifestyle.

Ziphius

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

#1: Do we really know what cavemen ate?
We've actually got a pretty good idea from anthropology and archaeology, just because the author is ignorant doesn't mean everyone else is. We also know they definitely didn't eat grains, simple sugars and vegetables oils.

Actually we do have evidence that grain was consumed by palaeolithic people.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/10/08/1006993107.abstract

Revedin et al wrote: »

European Paleolithic subsistence is assumed to have been largely based on animal protein and fat, whereas evidence for plant consumption is rare. We present evidence of starch grains from various wild plants on the surfaces of grinding tools at the sites of Bilancino II (Italy), Kostenki 16–Uglyanka (Russia), and Pavlov VI (Czech Republic). The samples originate from a variety of geographical and environmental contexts, ranging from northeastern Europe to the central Mediterranean, and dated to the Mid-Upper Paleolithic (Gravettian and Gorodtsovian). The three sites suggest that vegetal food processing, and possibly the production of flour, was a common practice, widespread across Europe from at least ~30,000 y ago. It is likely that high energy content plant foods were available and were used as components of the food economy of these mobile hunter–gatherers.

A good criticism of the "paleo diet" here:

Gorilla Rising

That was really interesting.

Pretty hard to argue....for me anyway!

Chancer3001

Weve had tools to make grains for almost 30,000 years.

But we've been hunter/gathering for almost 2million!!

Calf Cam

I am grain and egg intolerant among others and have found the new diet has improved my health immensely and I have lost weight which is always a plus - buy I am only just getting used to planning my food to avoid hunger periods. The egg intolerance is probably the hardest as I was pretty dependent on eggs for protein in my diet - but I am going to make some home made protein bars with whey protein and crushed dates and almonds - thanks to some fab advice from Collette in Evergreen in Galway at the weekend.
I guess balance in your diet is the most important thing when you give up grains etc and eating out in restaurants becomes a bit of a nightmare as not everyone is clued in or helpful and it can be trial and error and a bit embarrassing in company!
A lot of food outlets are conscious and helpful with gluten free options but grain free and egg free options seem to be non existent - it would be nice to have a listing of Special Diet Catering outlets when you are planning a night out!

--Kaiser--

Ziphius wrote: »

Actually we do have evidence that grain was consumed by palaeolithic people.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/10/08/1006993107.abstract

Let's not split hairs, for the most part, and for most of our existence, our ancestors were not eating grains.

A good criticism of the "paleo diet" here:

And a comprehensive rebuttal here. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of criticisms that can be levelled at the paleo movement, but most of the criticisms I've read are based on strawman arguments

Ziphius

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Let's not split hairs, for the most part, and for most of our existence, our ancestors were not eating grains.

Well sure. I mean grasses only evolved, what, 100 million years ago? And we can trace our ancestors back a few billion years. The point is where do you draw the line with what is "natural" human diet? How far back do you go? Why is 30 thousand years of grain consumption not enough?

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

And a comprehensive rebuttal here. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of criticisms that can be levelled at the paleo movement, but most of the criticisms I've read are based on strawman arguments

That is not much of a rebuttal really. The criticism seems to be on rather minor points of the talk such as which sex the diet is targeted at, what date it was established, and whether it is a "fad" or a "trend". To use your on phrase this seems like hair splitting.

With regards to the actual science Wolf seems quite happy and, even, complimentary.

"Prof. Warinner’s analysis of the limitations of stable isotopic readings is VERY interesting and important. "

"There are some very interesting developments with dental plaque analysis indicating consumption of tubers, grains, and legumes much earlier than was previously thought. "

"This is a FANTASTIC section. It is true, unless you do significant foraging on your own, most of what we consume has been “Luther Burbanked” into large, tasty, low toxin-load fruits and veggies."

"This is a great description of what HG’s of central Mexico ate, and the fact they moved with the seasons and availability of food. Beautiful, very interesting piece…I wish we had an hour on this alone."

"This is a simply OUTSTANDING section. Diversity of food sources, locality, and understanding of the neuro-regulation of appetite, changes in the gut biome…how easy it is to eat a caloric level that is completely inappropriate with our genetics, eat the whole animal…"


Perhaps I should have qualified my earlier post. I have nothing against the "paleo diet". It seems perfectly healthy and probably far healthier than many most diets. My problem is with the pseudoscientific language it takes and massive unfounded assumptions it makes.

El_Dangeroso

Ziphius wrote: »

Perhaps I should have qualified my earlier post. I have nothing against the "paleo diet". It seems perfectly healthy and probably far healthier than many most diets. My problem is with the pseudoscientific language it takes and massive unfounded assumptions it makes.

I'm not paleo (I was for a while but who wants to live life without butter and cheese?), but any nutrition paradigm is rife with psuedoscience, even the mainstream food pyramid. Problem being there's simply not enough science to make any blanket statements about food, nutrition is an incredibly young science, less that a century old in earnest, so all we are left with are heuristics.

My personal heuristic is to try and eat local-ish whole food that has been eaten by healthy populations for centuries, ie it has been proven to sustain multiple generations. It's not perfect, I'm sure there are exotic or novel foodstuffs that I would be healthy consuming, I'm just trying to utilise the precautionary principle and hope for the best.

One of the best criticisms I have heard of paleo is that it is very easy to get too little molybdenum, which is abundant in oats, beans and other grains.

youtube!

It's a tough one really. My experience for what it's worth is this.

I have been "mostly" Paleo now for over a year and yes I have lost weight and generally feel healthier in the process.

Within that time I decided to go full on Paleo for a few weeks here and there.

What happened in those periods was my energy levels plummeted when I tried to carry out intensive exercise programmes. I needed more carbs and even though I persevered with more fruit and veg it was not working. Now I know the old adage of co-relation does not imply causation but in my case when I re-introduced my Pinhead oats that I had always taken for brekkie I definitely noticed a sharp increase in energy levels and my performance improved quite dramatically. For me oats are awesome!

However when I tried wholegrain breads again I bloated out and felt knackered again, I don't do dairy or cheese either.

Basically I eat a lot of fish chicken and beef once a week as well as fruits and veggies every day twice a day, I have also cut right down on nuts as they seem to put the weight on me. Strangely though I have no issues with small amounts of sugar, meaning I can have the odd chocolate bar (dark) on occasion. If I even look at a potato or pasta of any kind my weight goes up and my energy the opposite way.

OP I think what you must remember when choosing a new way of eating is that effectively you are an experiment of one. No two bodies react the same way to certain foods so you really must experiment and see what suits both you energy levels as well as your waistline. Paleo is not perfect but it is a good baseline that much is certain.

--Kaiser--

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

One of the best criticisms I have heard of paleo is that it is very easy to get too little molybdenum, which is abundant in oats, beans and other grains.

Liver and eggs are good sources of moybdenum

El_Dangeroso

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Liver and eggs are good sources of moybdenum

Sorry, I meant manganese. Unless you eat a lot of nuts, or shellfish every day. It was something I always came up low on in cronometer.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

huh
according to that website my diet is pretty much stacked with all sorts of vitamins and nutrients

weakest on vitamin D but everything else is a-ok. nice to know. although the numbers for sodium and cholesterol are slightly worrying. cholesterol less so as it's most likely just the eggs in my omelette

--edit

actually, is it a bad thing that over 50% of my energy comes from fats(lipids)?
it's probably all the coconut oil and coconut milk.. never thought it'd be quite that large a slice of the pie. anything I should be looking at or is that fine, so long as general nutrition is ok?

El_Dangeroso

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

huh
according to that website my diet is pretty much stacked with all sorts of vitamins and nutrients

weakest on vitamin D but everything else is a-ok. nice to know. although the numbers for sodium and cholesterol are slightly worrying. cholesterol less so as it's most likely just the eggs in my omelette

--edit

actually, is it a bad thing that over 50% of my energy comes from fats(lipids)?
it's probably all the coconut oil and coconut milk.. never thought it'd be quite that large a slice of the pie. anything I should be looking at or is that fine, so long as general nutrition is ok?

It's cos it's double the calories. Check out the lipid balance, as long as omega 6 is <4% of your total calories you should be OK.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

hrm... around 6% yesterday, 15% today

damn peanut butter

--edit

wait no, that's percentage of total fats. dont see how to work it out as a percentage of total calories

ah well, I eat healthy. I'll figure the details out as time goes on.

--Kaiser--

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Sorry, I meant manganese. Unless you eat a lot of nuts, or shellfish every day. It was something I always came up low on in cronometer.

Hmmm, I put in what I ate yesterday (great app, btw) and came up with 76% on maganese which isn't too bad, the only only other vitamin/mineral I was coming up low with was calcium....but I did eat some chicken bones

Sangre

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

hrm... around 6% yesterday, 15% today

damn peanut butter

--edit

wait no, that's percentage of total fats. dont see how to work it out as a percentage of total calories

ah well, I eat healthy. I'll figure the details out as time goes on.

Come on man, this is Busy at Maths stuff! What percentage do fats make up of your total calories (X%)? 6/15% of X% is.....?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well

isn't that obvious

El_Dangeroso

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Hmmm, I put in what I ate yesterday (great app, btw) and came up with 76% on maganese which isn't too bad, the only only other vitamin/mineral I was coming up low with was calcium....but I did eat some chicken bones

If you eat a single oatcake that pops over 100%

--Kaiser--

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

If you eat a single oatcake that pops over 100%

Actually I forgot to add the bag of nuts I ate yesterday which brings me up to 161% for magnanese, so ha!

SunnyDub1

I'm not for or against paleo, when I done it I felt tired and very restricted to foods, plus I felt if you wanted a decent tasty meal it required a lot of prep and ingredients, it was costing me a lot of time and money - that's only coming from my own experience and paleo diet plan I followed.

I didn't feel much benefit from it but Like a previous poster posted when I introduced oats, fruit and certain veg back into my diet I had more energy for work outs etc and felt I was less hungry.
My diet now mainly consists of fish, meat, eggs & veg. I have some fruit, nuts, cheese now and again and have oats for breakfast every second day. most of my carb intake is from veg and other complex carb sources.
Like that again, on the rare occasion I have eating bread/pasta etc I have felt bloated and hungry and actually just don't enjoy simple carbs or miss it at all.

Different diets will work for different people in different ways but I think , If you are looking for a healthy life change diet plan that you will stick to I suggest just eating clean and allowing a treat once in a while, it doesn't feel like a "diet" as such, you will benefit from it (weight loss, energy, sleep well etc ) and mostly likely stick it out without feeling deprived of certain foods.

El_Dangeroso

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Actually I forgot to add the bag of nuts I ate yesterday which brings me up to 161% for magnanese, so ha!

Ah but then how much omega 6 were you taking in hmm? :P

--Kaiser--

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Ah but then how much omega 6 were you taking in hmm? :P

....counteracted with cod liver oil! That Chron-O-Meter has made me feel even better about my diet, a typical day not deficient in any major vitamin or mineral

El_Dangeroso

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

....counteracted with cod liver oil! That Chron-O-Meter has made me feel even better about my diet, a typical day not deficient in any major vitamin or mineral

Well I hope you're not taking in 10g of fish oil, because that's how much you'd need and that would start to become counter-productive.

BTW if anyone is curious:

http://cronometer.com/download/

is what website we're referring to. I prefer the standalone download myself.

youtube!

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Well I hope you're not taking in 10g of fish oil, because that's how much you'd need and that would start to become counter-productive.

BTW if anyone is curious:

http://cronometer.com/download/

is what website we're referring to. I prefer the standalone download myself.

Man oh man am I having fun with this website!:p So much better than My fitness pal which I find jumbled and confusing, Cronmeter rocks! Thanx so much for the heads up!:pac:;)

Tar.Aldarion

cronometer is cool, although needs even more foods! Although as I eat a lot of home cooked meals it's rather difficult. I ate too much iron today
It doesn't differentiate in vitamins does it? such as cyanocobalamin, hydroxocobalamin and methylcobalamin, D2 vs D3 etc?


Thoughts on:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2960598-X/abstract

--Kaiser--

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Thoughts on:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2960598-X/abstract

Here are some comments
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ie/2013/03/atherosclerosis-in-ancient-mummies.html

http://huntgatherlove.com/content/atherosclerosis-human-condition

El_Dangeroso

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

cronometer is cool, although needs even more foods! Although as I eat a lot of home cooked meals it's rather difficult. I ate too much iron today
It doesn't differentiate in vitamins does it? such as cyanocobalamin, hydroxocobalamin and methylcobalamin, D2 vs D3 etc?

No, it doesn't, neither K1 and K2 nor Beta-carotene and retinol are differentiated either.

To be fair I don't think the USDA database has these, and that's where most of this info comes from.

I figure if your eating food as opposed to taking supplements, the form probably isn't as important. Except maybe with people who can't convert beta-carotene to retinol efficiently (a lot of celtic people lack this ability).

FYI, copper is very good to balance a high iron intake, also giving blood!

Tar.Aldarion

Suppose it's not essential, it's more of a general thing that can show you gaps.
Yeah I will have to give blood anyway, don't really need too much iron with Hemochromatosis!

Brion

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Well I hope you're not taking in 10g of fish oil, because that's how much you'd need and that would start to become counter-productive.

BTW if anyone is curious:

http://cronometer.com/download/

is what website we're referring to. I prefer the standalone download myself.

Trawling through some paleo-related posts and saw this. Pretty nifty program I must say. Sorry for the size of the images below (tried to resize them here but doesn't seem to make a difference). That was a day's intake recently, anything I should be on the lookout for?

Cale

Just wondering if anyone would have any insight as to how paleo would fair in years to come?

I mean, would it be advisable if you're in your 60's say to be eating that much fat?

I guess you'd have to taper it down to fall in line with your lifestyle at that age...

Just a thought..

j@utis

there's a guy in this video who could answer your question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCye_4oaUHM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
does he look like 72?

Cale

j@utis wrote: »

there's a guy in this video who could answer your question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCye_4oaUHM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
does he look like 72?

Impressive.

Tar.Aldarion

j@utis wrote: »

there's a guy in this video who could answer your question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCye_4oaUHM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
does he look like 72?

I doubt it has much to do with it, does this vegan look 72?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6qi3gfIJRA

El_Dangeroso

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I doubt it has much to do with it, does this vegan look 72?

Aren't they both health conscious people with good genes who don't smoke, exercise regularly and avoid junk food? That could be it

In any case I don't think you have to be strict paleo OR strict vegan to look like that when you are old. Vegans die younger than vegetarians, and we don't have the long term data on paleo.

I'm gonna go out there and say that genes probably determines 70% of your longevity, the rest being made up with avoiding junk-food, keeping a decent lean muscle mass into old age, not smoking or drinking to excess, getting good sleep and having a wide, supportive social structure around you (in fact this last point may be even more important than diet based upon current data :eek:).

j@utis

she says she's been vegan for a year and a half ...

Tar.Aldarion

Yeah that is my point really, a sample of one says to me, "it's possible to live on the diet" whereas longevity and appearance is much more based on nature than nurture with nurture obviously helping along the way. With that being a case of don't treat your body like crap, rather than striving for the utmost in optimal diets. i'd like to read about that social aspect.

j@utis wrote: »

she says she's been vegan for a year and a half ...

Woah, looks like it worked really fast!

El_Dangeroso

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Yeah that is my point really, a sample of one says to me, "it's possible to live on the diet" whereas longevity and appearance is much more based on nature than nurture with nurture obviously helping along the way. With that being a case of don't treat your body like crap, rather than striving for the utmost in optimal diets. i'd like to read about that social aspect.

There is a tonne of research on social connection and health, here's a nice study that was highlighted recently in TIME:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2006938,00.html

It's also one thing all the 'blue zones' have in common too.

spiralbound

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Vegans die younger than vegetarians

Do you have a source for that?

El_Dangeroso

Here you go: http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/14/4/963.full

I don't know if you have access to the full text:

Being a vegan was associated with a higher mortality risk (1.59; 95% CI, 0.98-2.59) than being a lacto-ovo vegetarian (1.08; 95% CI, 0.86-1.34), when compared with nonvegetarians with moderate meat/fish consumption, accounting for all other variables

spiralbound

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Here you go: http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/14/4/963.full

I don't know if you have access to the full text:

Cheers. There were only 60 vegans, and 23 deaths, though, I'm not sure you can make a strong statement based on that.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

I was paelo for over a year. It defiantly works well for weight loss. But as others have said energy levels for me were pretty low. I did find however that my training and weight loss plateaued on this diet. On research I found others that found the same.

Its also extremely expensive diet, and just as vulnerable to portion size as any diet.

Weight loss on a pealo diet has a lot to do with water retention. Carbohydrates suck a lot of water into cells as a transport mechanism, I find I can gain and loose 3kg in a 24hour period on a high carb day.

Anyway I dont think its a way of life really, its a diet. Short to medium term.

El_Dangeroso

spiralbound wrote: »

Cheers. There were only 60 vegans, and 23 deaths, though, I'm not sure you can make a strong statement based on that.

It was statistically significant for what it's worth, i.e, there is less than 5% probability the result was due to chance.

But since veganism is a very recent phenomenon we will have to wait for more data to confirm the finding.

spiralbound

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

It was statistically significant for what it's worth, i.e, there is less than 5% probability the result was due to chance.

But since veganism is a very recent phenomenon we will have to wait for more data to confirm the finding.

Yes, it was statistically significant, but they had a very small sample size, in one country, of people who had been vegan since the 70s (I'm sure there is more information on vegan nutrition available now than there was then). This is not enough evidence to say 'Vegans die younger than vegetarians' - the vegans in this study had a higher mortality risk than the vegetarians.