sprince

Have to laugh every time I see the term paleo diet. Some of us are put off by the complete silliness of the premise. You can't really experience the diet of the paleolithic age until you have chased your bacon burger for 8 hours without success, and finally have to go to bed (probably in a pile of damp leaves), exhausted, cold and hungry. If you think of the paleo diet in realistic terms it's not all that attractive. I suspect the caveman lifestyle was somewhat less glamorous than what is depicted in the movies.

GeorgeBMac

I think that supporting health and well being involves MORE than simply exercising and eating "right" (whatever the heck THAT is!). In addition it is:

-- maintaining a proper weight AND proper waist size
-- getting the appropriate checkups on time: eyes, teeth, and preventive stuff like colonoscopies, prostate, breast exams as well as appropriate blood work such as lipid panels, liver assays, CMP's, thyroid panels, etc... in order to identify (and correct) problems when they are small
-- getting vaccinations on time: flu, zoster, pneumonia, TDAP, etc...
-- avoiding unhealthy practices such as street drugs & tobacco as well as overindulging in legal drugs like alcohol
-- stress management (meaning to practice things that help you manage the stress in your life effectively)
-- maintaining strength as you age
-- maintaining flexibility as you age
-- maintaining cardio pulmonary function as you age
-- getting enough sleep
-- living a safe lifestyle (driving defensively both in your car and on your bike, etc... and not doing crazy stuff)

We can argue the details -- whether this is best or that is best or, whether this is necessary or that is -- but all in all maintaining health and well being involves a lot more than JUST this or JUST that...

edit to add:
And notice: only two of those items involves the health care system. The rest is all on YOU!

Rowan

More than likely, they went home to their gatherer wives and kids and ate berries, nuts and roots.

carnivroar

This is not true at all, Paleo can be high carb (the carbs coming from roots, absolutely not grains). A lot of Paleo folks do crossfit which is pretty intensive and aerobic exercise requires muscle glycogen.

Yes, some people do claim that you can live with 0 carbs, I've come across that, and even went 100% carnivore for a month with no problem. But this is not ideal: the brain needs some glucose (very little), which it could manufacture from protein, but from what I understand, this is not ideal because the process is taxing and it's a waste of protein. See this: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-brain-ketones. Furthermore, carbs are needed to supply muscle glycogen for intensive exercise (i.e., not cycling).

And once again, the American diet is not even suitable for Americans. And the American diet is as far from Paleo/LCHF as it gets. I don't see your point.

I'm not a big fan of the whole Paleo mindset either, I used to call them Paleotards. But it is an Ad hominem logical fallacy to discredit the nutrition based on some of their practices. LCHF does not necessarily mean Paleo; for example, I eat LCHF and a lot of dairy (which Paleo rejects) and refrain from eating nuts (which Paleo endorses). I mention Paleo a lot because that's how most people get introduced to LCHF.

lenA

[QUOTE=
The other totally hilarious thing is that people are quoting Examiner articles on science! [/QUOTE]

Examiner.com is just a news aggregator Site.

They don't write anything.

blacknbluebikes 

Slinging science around like a rock on a rope, when simple math will do. heavy sigh.
Every day, make (calories burned) > (calories consumed), reasonably to about a 500-700 deficit. It's really hard to maintain excess weight in that case. Wanna eat more? ride more. Wanna ride less? eat less. simple math. commit to it or don't, all else is commentary and dancing baby click-thru ads.

Spld cyclist

From what I've read the "science" recommends little or no carbs. I've been reading comments on the forum, including yours, that people modify the diet by adding carbs when necessary to sustain hard athletic efforts. To me, that points to a major hole in paleo theory. If paleo humans could exert themselves on the so-called paleo diet, why can't modern humans? Either the diet is wrong or modern humans are different from paleos with respect to dietary needs.

I never claimed that the average American diet is healthy. My point was that there are different outcomes when different populations eat similar diets. It's possible that southwestern Native Americans would do better on something closer to a paleo diet (although some would make the argument that it's more about total calories in the context of their "feast or famine" history). In contrast, there are other populations that at worst tolerate better, and at best thrive, on higher-carb diets. How could that be? Maybe that evolution has made major changes in some populations in the last 10,000 years or so? Paleo theory says that can't happen.

I get it now that you're not fully on board with paleo. However, this back and forth started when you questioned my qualifications to understand evolution.

I think that the scientific premise of paleo is seriously flawed, and that has major implications for how people will approach the diet. If the science is wrong, people will avoid certain foods for no good reason, perhaps with negative consequences for their health. At the least, people seem to be putting aside foods they used to enjoy, and I think enjoying food is one key to happiness. I enjoy eating my carbs and can't discern any negative effect on my health, nor can I find any solid science that says I should avoid them, so I'm going to keep eating them.

While the scientic premise is seriously flawed, that doesn't mean the diet is all bad. Paleo advocates whole foods and lots of veggies, and puts appropriate emphasis on the fact that factory-farmed meats are nutritionally deficient. Some people seem to be enjoying better health since switching, whether it be orthodox paleo or some other form of LCHF. Whether or not it helps will depend on one's genetic make-up, desires, and habits.

carnivroar

This is not true at all, and I'm saying this as a physics major who understands conservation of energy. In the end, yes, conservation of energy holds, but the rate of consuming/burning energy is not so simple. For example, it's well known that some animals, including humans, gradually burn less energy when they are starving in order to slow death. On the other hand, some calories just cannot be stored, and must be burned or excreted (e.g. the medium-chain triglycerides in coconut oil). Then you have hormones and all sorts of stuff. The human body is much more complicated than that.

GeorgeBMac

The trouble is: VERY little is actually understood about metabolism and its effects and ramifications -- at least partly because it involves an immense and VERY complex system with an almost infinite quantity of interactions between all the subsystems and sub-processes. So, "Calorie-In vs Calories-Out" is still probably the most reliable way to control weight.

I know a lot of internet gurus claim that "The Answer" lies in some isolated study they did. But the human body is far too complex for that kind of oversimplification to be reliable. Or, to stake your life on...

Carbonfiberboy 

(Bolded by me) The "saturated fat" caught my eye before you edited it to "medium-chain triglycerides". So I looked it up of course:
Coconut Oil
Doesn't make much of a case for disregarding thermodynamics. If you burn MCT for energy, you aren't burning something else, or if you're using it to go faster or longer, then you're burning more energy. So pretty much a wash except for the higher bad cholesterol thing. I tried pure MCT some time ago. Expensive, didn't seem to do anything that plain carbs didn't do, and something else to deal with.

That said, there is an issue with energy required for digestion, generally figured at about 7%-10% of calories consumed. High fiber consumes more energy. Protein consumes more energy, followed by carbs, with the very least being fats. This is a very big deal and is one reason I don't count calories. Take a look at this:
Precision Nutrition » Research Review: A calorie isn?t a calorie
based on this study:
Postprandial energy expenditure in whole-food and processed-food meals: implications for daily energy expenditure

Quote:

eating whole food took 46.8% more energy to digest on average than processed food!

We all know that celery takes more energy to digest than it has in it, but this study is pretty amazing even to a person who's eaten natural foods for decades.

squirtdad

I saw a study some place (and I can't find it to post link ) that showed that no matter what the diet was (LCHF, HCLF, vegetarian, juice, etc etc) that people lost weight on, when you actually counted the calories consumed there is no "magic" the people who lost weight were consuming less calories.


I think a key point is that every individual is different and what works for one person does not work the person standing next to them, both physiologically and psychologically.

eriku16

Total and absolute BS... From ancient times, thriving civilizations have always based their diets having ample sources of CHO in them.

Machka 

+1

Absolutely right!!

That's all there is to it.

Machka 

Yep ... you can lose weight eating McDonalds every day ... as long as you eat fewer calories than you burn.

There's a show we get here called Embarrassing Bodies, and on it, they did a little segment on a woman with an eating disorder. All she would eat were potato chips ... and although she would tolerate various flavours, she had a specific brand and flavour she preferred. She ate a small bag for breakfast, another for lunch, another for dinner. Before she started this, she had been heavy and once she limited herself to a certain number of potato chips every day, she lost weight. She was losing weight eating potato chips. She had numerous health issues, so a daily diet of potato chips is not a recommended way to lose weight but it boiled down to the fact that she was consuming fewer calories than she burned.

And counting calories is a very interesting and eye-opening exercise.

sprince

The premise is completely flawed. The paleo diet may very well consist of largely of of food that is good for you, and there is a valid argument that it consists of food that we have evolved to process. But to extrapolate the dietary habits of paleo man with that modern man leaves out many important factors. Paleo man didn't have grocery stores, fast food chains, disposable income, convenient transportation or vacations. Life expectancy for paleo man was 33 years, 40 was very, very old. By 30 he may have reproduced, had teen aged offspring, and therefore had become completely irrelevant in evolutionary terms. There were likely many days when the calorie intake was zero to nearly zero. The "gatherer" aspect of the diet was very seasonal, so for many days during the year there may have been no nuts, berries or roots to fall back on when the hunt for animal protein failed. Much of the protein during leaner times probably came from insects, unless of course it was cold and you either got lucky or were screwed.

So if you want the full paleo diet effect, you might eat a few thousand calories on Monday, Tuesday and every other Friday. Then fill in the other days with some roots and frozen wasps. In the summer during drought, you might make do with elephant dung tea and a few maggots. A few times a month have all the meat you can eat, and for a few weeks a year, all the fruit you can eat. But then how much can you really eat in one sitting? Then replicate the activity level with a 100 mile ride every other day, and sleep outdoors. On a daily basis you've pretty much blown through 150% the calories available on the very best of days.

I doubt that paleo man spent much time being self conscious about his belly fat. If he had any fat at all, it meant surviving to see see another year.

Spld cyclist

Sprince,

That's good!

GeorgeBMac

All good points...

... But I am still confused how a diet favored by those with a life span of only 30-40 years is promoted as "healthy"...

Further, regarding the "we evolved" argument: We evolved to eat and process an incredible range of food stuffs because, through most of human history, we were forced to eat what was available -- so basic survival dictated that we be able to process it. It was a case of "eat it or starve". Somehow the Paleo people think that made it healthy. And, back then it WAS healthy because it is STILL healthier to eat bugs, weeds and rotting carcasses than it is to starve to death.
... But, today we have more options and I think we can do better...

And, that is especially true when one realizes that the chronic diseases that are brought on by longer lives combined with unhealthy lifestyle / diet choices are bankrupting this nation.

lenA

If it so easy why do millions struggle, including me, with weight control?

It must be that we're a bunch of losers that can't add 2+2

I'm sure I can come up with simplistic answers in how to deal with your shortcomings...if you have any, that is...

wolfchild

The lifespan of paleo man was short because of their harsh, dangerous, high-risk lifestyle, inconsistent food supply, frequent hunger and starvations, and lots of fighting and violence. It wasn't short because of the type of food they ate.

Machka 

Too much food ... too little exercise.


For the next week just simply ...
For the following month, keep counting and make sure you have a 500-1000 calorie deficit every day.


If you're not counting, it can be very hard to estimate accurately ... it's very easy to underestimate the amount of calories you're consuming, and very easy to overestimate the amount of calories you're burning.

lenA

That's it...let's close the books

Machka 

wolfchild

I wonder why obesity was so rare in the old days. Way back in 1800's and early 1900's every circus had their "fat person". People would spend money just to get a closer look and be entertained by some fatty. Today it's a normal daily occurrence, and you see them everywhere. What gives ?? It's not even funny anymore, it's sad.

lenA

this

Illustrated History of Heart Disease 1825-2015 : Alan Watson ? Diet & Heart Health Analyst

time line is an interesting read

Machka 

People were a lot more active back then.

We've got a whole heap of modern conveniences now which mean that we can go the whole day and barely move.

Inactivity and the sedentary lifestyle has become such an issue that, in the interests of health and wellness, offices are encouraging their employees to get up once an hour and move.

They say that sitting up burns more calories than lying down ... and standing up burns more calories than sitting ... and walking burns more calories than standing ...
But most people spend their day lying down or sitting.

So if we spend 8 hours lying down (asleep at night), and 15 hours sitting in front of a computer at work and/or TV at home, and 1 hour riding our bicycles ... that's not much exercise. Better than those who don't do any exercise, but still not much.


But back then, even activities like cooking were more active. I lived for a year in very rustic conditions and discovered just how active. There's getting the wood to build the fire ... in my case that involved wandering all over the hills around our cabin with a wheelbarrow to gather fallen tree branches. Then you get the fire going. Then you mix up the cake (or muffins or whatever else you're baking) in the bowl by hand (no electric beaters). The cake goes into a heavy cast iron dutch oven which gets lifted into the fireplace ... and then turned every few minutes for an even distribution of heat ... and lifted out to check the cake, and put back in because it's not done yet ... etc etc. By the time it's all done, you've had a bit of a workout.

Back then there were gardens and farms to tend, there was a lot more walking to get places ...

Even office jobs were more active. Just a mere 17 years ago, I was standing at a drafting table all day. I'm not drafting in my current job, but it is all done at a computer now. And filing used to involve standing at a filing cabinet and walking back and forth. Now everything is on the computer system and no one has to move from their desks.


It's one of the challenges I deal with now. Because I am genetically inclined to develop DVT, I need to get up and move at least once an hour. So I consciously try to do that + a short walk in the morning + a long walk at lunch + some sort of after work exercise. But if I get involved in something, a couple hours can go by and suddenly I realise that I haven't moved recently.