'john' left the following comment on my last post:
I can't wait for this paleo fad to finally come to an end, but I fear it's become such a religion for so many that it's going to overstay its welcome.
First of all, "paleo" is NOT like most other diets. It is not a "diet" plan to shed a few unwanted pounds from the holidays.
It is not a program to slim down in time to look your best for your summer swimwear.
It is not a "fad" for which some so-called expert goes on the Oprah Winfrey show -- oh wait, she retired...good riddance -- Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz or The View, and women all over the country race to embrace their inner cave-woman and start eating bacon, fatty cuts of meat and free range chickenskin sopping in grass fed dairy cow butter.
It's not a "diet," per say, and it's certainly not a "religion."
It's simply recognizing the truth about nutrition and what our bodies were designed to thrive on...and the foods that are part of an industrial agricultural system designed to maximize profits by appealing to your taste buds and resisting spoilage for as long as possible.
That's not a fad. It's a way of life. It's understanding just how truly damaging certain neolithic food creations are to the human physiology.
It's understanding just how ubiquitous the marketing propaganda and health misinformation is propagated in our mainstream consciousness and how it is all designed to guide our choices when grocery shopping and eating out.
It's quite simply, gaining knowledge of the truth and making decisions accordingly.
And while SOME people definitely take it to the point of religious fervor, that's not what you see when you read the works of people who have been at the forefront of this "paleo" movement for a number of years. Mark Sisson has his 80/20 principle (which I basically follow), and he also puts sugar in his coffee every morning, and eats dark chocolate and drinks alcohol on a regular basis. Richard Nikoley eats corn tortillas that his hispanic wife cooks....and I agree wholeheartedly. Mexican food is just not the same without some tortilla and/or masa flour. (I just make sure to only eat corn tortilla processed in the traditional manner of nixtamalizado - in which the corn is treated with lime, which neutralizes the lectins and phytic acid and other naturally occurring anti-nutrients in the corn - before grinding into flour.) Many other noted Paleo bloggers have also discussed adding potatoes and white rice back into your diet in moderation once you no longer have SAD related issues to deal with.
This to me is the reason why "paleo" is not a strict, dogmatic religion type diet fad.
Another reason why so many people become overly-enthusiastic about the "paleo" diet, is that once you embrace certain paradigms - namely the healthy goodness of saturated fats and meat - it's something else to realize there is such a wealth of simply delicious foods for which you do not have to limit yourself on and eat until you are completely satiated on it AND STILL LOSE WEIGHT. That is a completely different experience than all of the other real Fad Diets for which you have to count your calories or eat smaller portions that leave you still hungry and irritated. Once you realize that not only will filling you up full of bacon, eggs, cheese, steaks, fish, ham, lamb and bison and loads of butter and grease will not only NOT make you fat, it will actually help you lose weight...well, a lot of folks can't help but get excited and enthusiastic once they realize that the paradigm of mainstream society for which your weight issues are merely a matter of gluttony and laziness is nothing but a BIG FAT FUCKING LIE.
When people first adopt the paleo diet, the physiological and mental effects are rather dramatic. You lose weight, you start feeling energetic, and a host of minor irritable health conditions go away.
This usually comes from those who first go 'Paleo' extreme and cut out all carbohydrates except for cruciferous vegetables, and don't eat dairy and sugar...even fruit.
For the average person raised on the SAD their whole lives, the transformative effects can be really dramatic over a short period of time. They note these effects, and it becomes almost dogmatic to them to avoid all carbs is the key to their diet success.
In the short term, this is no doubt true. For people who have developed varying levels of insulin resistance, visceral fat, and on the constant ebb and flow of the high-carb/insulin/blood sugar roller coaster, following a strict paleo regime for a short period of time (several months) would be good to lose the excess weight, restore insulin sensitivity and stabilize their metabolism and even energy levels. But once you've reached the point where these things are no longer an issue, you need not be rigid in your adherence nor do you need to treat all carbohydrates as the equivalent to cocaine or heroin.
Once a strict adherence to paleo-tenets reverses the various effects of the SAD (everyone is different...some may take longer than others), you can begin to add certain starchy foods (like potatos and rice), fruit and dairy back into your diet and occasionally indulge in neolithic foods like sugar and alcohol, without losing the gains your initial transition phase brought about.
This is nothing new, either. The original Atkins diet was based on "induction" in which you cut out ALL carbohydrates except for fibrous, cruciferous veggies. After a number of days of carb avoidance, your body goes into ketosis and you begin to burn your bodies stored fat as fuel, and the ketones from that process begin to show up in your urine. Once you got beyond the induction phase and lost your excess body fat and restored your metabolism, the old Atkins diet preached adding carbs in smaller proportions back into your diet once again. If you you began to notice you were gaining weight again, than go back on the ketogenic diet and than slowly add the carbohydrates back again until you find your optimal maintenance point.
It's not rocket science...and it is not a religious edict either.
No need to become the Paleo-Taliban, invoking holy war on all plant based carbohydrates or declare jihad on all factory farmed meats. The "paleo" diet paradigm is just a general understanding to guide your decision making about your overall consumption behavior to maximize your health. Use your common sense, and understand and accept that the occasional deviation will not result in a diet heresy that will destroy all of your dietary progress, or doom you to ill health and diseases.
For instance, I try to avoid grains as much as possible in my overall consumption patterns. For someone with IBS or Krohns or Celiac, they pretty much have to strictly adhere to 100% avoidance to avoid the bad reactions they get to gluten-containing foods.
But I do not, nor have I ever, had any sort of digestive or auto-immune disorders associated with grain based glutens. So when my sister baked me a Black Russian Birthday Cake (Chocolate cake with Kahlua & Vodka frosting), I cut myself a huge piece of cake and a couple of scoops of ice cream and I FUCKING ENJOYED IT.
And all of my friends and family couldn't help but make comments about how I'm eating all that sugar and wheat flour. I laugh and tell them "my diet is a general guide that I follow. It is not a strict religion. I am not going to diet-purgatory for a single transgression, I am not going to immediately put back on the 35 lbs. of fat that I lost nearly 5 years ago when I first went "paleo," nor am I going to have a heart attack or develop diabetes from the occasional rare indulgence. I appreciate the effort involved in making a custom cake to celebrate my special occasion, and the spirit in which it was given to me and my family.
This does not mean I will go back to eating whole grain breads and cereals on a daily basis, or that I will resume drinking soda on a daily basis, or that I will go back to my former state of avoiding all saturated fats and minimizing my meat consumption and cooking with Omega-6 imbalanced vegetable oils.
Terry also brought up a related issue in which she cooks for a family that does not follow the basic low-carb diet that she herself tries to follow. For one thing, the cost issue. If your budget is tight, and grass fed beef is out of the picture...better to eat factory farmed beef than to eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches or Ramen noodles. Better to eat SPAM and eggs for breakfast than a big bowl of breakfast cereal and lowfat milk. When I can afford it, I buy grass fed beef, buffalo, lamb and free range chicken. When I can't...well, I still have to feed my family. While I oppose factory farming on principle, we still need meat to eat.
I wish I really could influence the market demand for free range produce so that no one else would eat factory farmed meat, making free range foods the standard fare in all grocery markets. But that's not happening anytime soon, and the reality is while factory farmed meat is substandard in nutrition to free range fare...it's still better than eating a grain-based/vegetable oil type processed foods that makes up the majority of the SAD.
Another consideration is to avoid being the social outcast at gatherings and events. Everyone hates the diet fascist attempting to control how everyone else eats. If there's one thing I'm sensitive to, it's not becoming the preachy asshole killjoy telling people that the food they are eating and enjoying at the moment is the reason why they have so many health problems. If someone offers me food that I generally try to avoid, I just say no thank you, I'm not hungry at the moment...or I serve myself food and avoid the eating food I don't want to ingest, even if it's on my own plate. Like eating the cheeseburger and not the bun, or the pizza toppings without the crust, or pour the spaghetti meat sauce on white rice instead of wheat based pasta.
"Paleo" is not fad. People that figure out the underlying principles and change their lifestyle accordingly will have gained the knowledge to guide their dietary choices for a lifetime...including the occasional indulgence that is diametrically opposed to those principles. It's about attaining good health to enjoy life. Sometimes enjoying life means not eating the perfect diet 100% of the time...just most of the time.
56 comments:
You've mentioned eating yogurt several times. Do you go for plain yogurt (I know you go whole milk from grass fed cows) or do you indulge in yogurt sweetened with natural sugars? I really like yogurt sweetened with honey, raw sugar, or maple syrup, but I can't eat plain as it reminds me of a bowl of sour cream.
I eat it plain...with cut up fruit. And that's usually as a dessert after breakfast.
But I could also eat it plain...it's an acquired taste. After eating it so much, I eventually start to relish the unsweetened, tangy bite.
I meant to write that some sweet fruit really does offset the bitterness of plain yogurt. Pears, apples, banana, mango, strawberries, blueberries, papaya...whatevers. That's usually the sole serving of fruit I'll eat in a day.
Does this include when you are sick? Flu, cold, whatever? When I am sick I crave the old standby: starches, noodles, white bread, Ramen, etc. I assume because they are so easily digested. My fear is that if I eat these things the sickness will linger, but the thought of all the protein and fat that I generally eat just makes my stomach turn.
The paleo diet is basically the atkins diet, which was the diet fad to rule them all. It has some good features, like avoiding processed food, but it's still a fad. If we're eating like paleo-man, where are the bugs and snakes? Man is evolved to adapt to what's available, not to stubbornly filter out good sources of energy for puritanical reasons. People these days get fat because they eat highly processed food that's calorie dense and low in nutrients, eat too much of it, and don't exercise. Athletes are the healthiest people among us, it's practically their job to be so, and none of them eat paleo except in a cutting phase. There are some good points contra the paleo diet here:
http://dudequest.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/the-paleo-diet/
i've always tried to live by the maxim:
"eat close to the farm."
Modernguy
"The paleo diet is basically the atkins diet, which was the diet fad to rule them all."
The Atkins diet, which works pretty darned well compared to most fad diets, was a fad because it was promoted and marketed in the same way as any other fad diet. It works because it is a better approximation of the truth than most other fad diets.
"If we're eating like paleo-man, where are the bugs and snakes?"
The paleo diet isn't about paleo re-enactment. I don't eat bugs and snakes and I don't cook on an open fire dressed in a wolf skin loin cloth (at least not on week nights). The idea is to take the knowledge that, as the saying goes "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", and apply it to your diet.
"Man is evolved to adapt to what's available, not to stubbornly filter out good sources of energy for puritanical reasons."
We evolved to eat what was available during our evolution i.e. from two million years ago to ten thousand years ago. Man is evolved to adapt to eat non-optimal forms of nutrition and not die straight away - doesn't mean it's not doing harm.
"Athletes are the healthiest people among us, it's practically their job to be so, and none of them eat paleo except in a cutting phase."
I don't know enough about sports nutrition but they do eat more protein than non-athletes and take more care over the quality of their foods as well. They tend to be much higher carb consumers as well. Athletes, particularly endurance athletes, are incredibly injury prone. Maybe a paleo diet with some extra carbs would help.
As for the link you suggested, he doesn't seem to say anything I haven't read at paleo blogs - either as arguments demolished or as ideas to improve the base of knowledge which constitutes the paleo diet.
In particular the suggestion that paleo humans did eat starches is not all that controversial - it's just how much that is at issue. He claims that paleo advocates ignore the idea that human have adapted to eat agricultural products. They don't, it's well know that if you give a Pima tribesman a western diet they get Type II diabetes before they are twenty five, it takes Europeans until they are forty, so we have adapted to an extent - just not enough to make eating these foods a good idea.
The whole point of the article on which you were commenting is that the "paleo diet" is, or should be, a way of understanding human nutrition rather than a set of proscriptions. I put the "paleo diet" in quotes because in this context the phrase is not helpful.
It's possible that the "paleo diet" will, for many people, be a fad and they will go back to coco pops and type II diabetes. An evolutionary way of looking at human nutrition is here to stay, however.
PeterB
You're right about the cost. Grass fed beef is something we can afford to do only on occasion. Having a large family demands that you make adjustments when and where you can.
But even with those limitations, we eat far less wheat and boxed styro-food than we did before we became more aware. And we do that even though we're on a budget.
I sometimes shudder when I think of how much garbage I fed my kids for so long. And I did it thinking I was giving them healthy fare.
I enjoyed the post, Keoni. Your nutritional posts are always full of good information.
@Peter B
I have nothing against extra protein. You need it to build muscle. As for carbs directly causing diabetes, I haven't heard of any studies claiming that. I would think proving that would cause quite a controversy. But it doesn't need to be proven because it isn't true. If you want to know how to eat healthy, look at natural bodybuilders. They are healthier and in better shape than almost anyone. Do you want to look like this?
http://www.muscle-build.com/images/steve-reeves.jpg
Eat a balanced diet with complex carbs and lots of protien and work out, it won't kill you.
I appreciate the post.
If we water down the "paleo diet" to mean "just eat in moderation", then yes I would agree that it's quite a non-retarded "paradigm". Of course in that sense it loses its characteristics that set it apart from standard nutritional advice.
But the reality is that paleo advocates do paint grain-based foods as "evils" -- as in your prior post -- and saturated fats as "goods", even though the truth is dependent on the context. Grain-based foods are not inherently bad or unhealthy. Overconsumption of grain-based foods is certainly unhealthy. And whether or not saturated fats contribute to good health or bad health depends on a variety of circumstances: Does the person have a family history of CVD? Is the person in a caloric deficit or caloric surplus? What is the balance of fatty acids consumed? One can't blindly advocate, "load up on as many saturated fats as you'd like!"
There is also this -- if not explicit, at least implicit -- idea that you can eat as much as you want on a paleo-type diet "and still lose weight", and you can't do this on a diet higher in carbs. This is my biggest criticism with the diet: that it's the "carbs" that cause weight problems, not the total amount of calories. That's pure crap. Weight gain and loss is controlled by the calorie balance equation, and it's very possible to "eat as much fat as you want" and still end up in a caloric surplus. This is basic science and if one refuses to acknowledge this fact he is moving into the realm of a "religion" -- believing something out of faith.
Now don't get me wrong... I believe in cutting back carbs when trying to lose body fat, simply because cutting carbs is probably the most productive way to create a caloric restriction. But the caloric restriction is the goal -- it's not that grains are inherently unhealthy or are more prone to fat-storage. If in a caloric balance, and eating in moderation (i.e., not being neglectful), I see no inherent benefits to a "paleo" diet.
I also appreciate that you are willing to set aside the paleo stuff to slam down a nice piece of birthday cake... much as I can appreciate a vegetarian setting aside his principles for a steak dinner on occasion. In both cases it's acknowledged that "the way" isn't truly an all-around superior way of life, and that "the other way" does offer things of value.
And yes, the bun on the cheeseburger and the crust on the pizza are probably not way up in the top 10 of most nutritious foods in the universe. But then again... so what? We don't eat merely for nutrition. We also eat for enjoyment. Buns and pizzas are not bad for the average person [who doesn't have a disease]. They are not unhealthy. They do not cause harm to one's body. They do not contribute to fat storage (assuming caloric balance). As long as a person is maintaining his health and keeping an appropriate appearance, and is not restricting his diet for other reasons (cutting fat, athletic performance, whatever), he'd be a moron to not eat something that is enjoyable and causes no ill health effects.
I primarily take issue with your argument that gluttony and laziness are not the driving forces behind people's "weight issues", because those are exactly what the problems are. I will give that there are factors (some genetic, some cultural, some environmental or habitual), that may predispose people to gluttony or otherwise make it more difficult for people to balance their calories, but the fact of the matter is that eating more than one burns off is what causes weight gain, and the opposite is what causes weight loss. The only problem with the SAD is that people just eat too damn much of it. Though, there may be a legitimate argument in that the types of foods in the SAD encourage people to overeat, or otherwise make it difficult to control calories -- but that's a problem of self-control, not grains or flashy marketing.
JMO... all in good fun of course.
I'm going to write a dieting book. On the first page it'll have the following:
"1) Eat less.
2) Exercise more.
Do #1 to lose weight.
Do #2 to lose weight.
Do both #1 and #2 to lose a lot of weight."
And that'll be followed by about 300 black pages.
Easy money!
:-)
Mix a small amount of dried wild blueberries, goji berries and/or cranberries into plain yoghurt and let it sit overnight. The berry colors and flavors will bleed into the yoghurt, making it quite delicious the next morning, and you get the fiber and antioxidant benefits of the berries as well.
Well, it's obvious that a few of you are recent readers of this blog. I've written a slew of pieces that are based on links to a host of sources to back up the following claims and rebuttals I'm about to make here. If you're interested in understanding why I will be saying you're wrong, ask me and I'll give you links later.
But if your idea is that I'm wrong, and that I'm mistaken, and you already know better...well good for you. I've read hours and hours regarding research and issues related to diet and health. But it goes beyond that....I've tried them out myself and have figured out from self-experimentation that which is truth and that which is mainstream media bullshit.
On with the rebuttals...
As for carbs directly causing diabetes, I haven't heard of any studies claiming that. I would think proving that would cause quite a controversy. But it doesn't need to be proven because it isn't true.
Too MUCH carbs causes diabetes. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean they don't exist. They do.
Eat a balanced diet with complex carbs and lots of protien and work out, it won't kill you.
Fuck "complex carbs." There are only two considerations you should have with carbs - 1) how much you're eating in proportion to how much protein and fat you're eating at the same time, and 2) whether or not it has anti-nutrients and/or issues with inhibiting vitamin and mineral absorption, and especially when it comes to grains, it's effects on your gut lining.
"Complex" carbs like "whole wheat" and "whole oats" can most certainly kill you slowly over a lifetime of eating it. Your disbelief is not nearly as convincing as the wealth of studies and research I've read regarding the problem with grains.
"If we water down the "paleo diet" to mean "just eat in moderation", then yes I would agree that it's quite a non-retarded "paradigm"."
So you're implying that "paleo diet" is a "retarded" paradigm?
*facepalm*
But the reality is that paleo advocates do paint grain-based foods as "evils" -- as in your prior post -- and saturated fats as "goods", even though the truth is dependent on the context. Grain-based foods are not inherently bad or unhealthy.
You are completely wrong...well, maybe not completely. Depends on the grain, and how much you consume in proportion to the other macro-nutrients. While white rice has almost no other issues than spiking your blood glucose if you eat too much of it, grains that contain glutens, lectins and phytates are inherently bad and certainly unhealthy.
And whether or not saturated fats contribute to good health or bad health depends on a variety of circumstances: Does the person have a family history of CVD?
Irrelevant. Saturated fats (natural sat fats) have nothing to do with CVD.
Is the person in a caloric deficit or caloric surplus?
Irrelevant.
What is the balance of fatty acids consumed? One can't blindly advocate, "load up on as many saturated fats as you'd like!"
Yes you can, I do it all the time, and I practice what I preach. For almost 5 years now I've been eating as much saturated fat as I like, and I've been feeding it to my family too. It seems to be working just fine...much longer than your mis-characterization of a "fad diet."
"There is also this -- if not explicit, at least implicit -- idea that you can eat as much as you want on a paleo-type diet "and still lose weight", and you can't do this on a diet higher in carbs. This is my biggest criticism with the diet: that it's the "carbs" that cause weight problems, not the total amount of calories. That's pure crap."
Don't let me disabuse you of your emphatic notions of superior knowledge. You sound so certain of yourself. I'll just say this...your restatement of the standard conventional wisdom regarding "calories" is not just crap, it's complete and utter bullshit.
Your body handles calories differently. Total calories means exactly nothing unless you're talking about literal starvation. Other than that, your body handles carbs, proteins and fats differently.
Take two different diet plans that allow for 2500 calories a day. Eating 1000 calories of Fat, 1000 of protein and 500 calories of carbohydrates vs. eating a diet of 250 calories of Fat, 500 of Protein and 1250 calories of carbs
is going to have two completely different results over a period of time.
"Now don't get me wrong... I believe in cutting back carbs when trying to lose body fat, simply because cutting carbs is probably the most productive way to create a caloric restriction. But the caloric restriction is the goal -- it's not that grains are inherently unhealthy or are more prone to fat-storage."
Wrong. Caloric restriction is a red herring. Quality and quantity of calories is the most important factor.
And yes, the bun on the cheeseburger and the crust on the pizza are probably not way up in the top 10 of most nutritious foods in the universe. But then again... so what? We don't eat merely for nutrition. We also eat for enjoyment.
This is why you fail to understand why this whole "paleo fad" is not going away. The reason why so many people find it so effective is that you learn to enjoy eating all that saturate fat and protein...and you eventually don't even really miss the carbs like you used to crave them.
I actually really enjoy eating my food very much now...whereas back in my SAD days, there was many a meal I ate that was simply "fueling up." Eating all kinds of snack foods and junk is really nowhere near as enjoyable as eating a real meal made out of real food and prepared from scratch with care and love.
That all being said, there is something you are also not considering either. Most commercial buns, pizza crust, breading and other such fare is nowadays typically made with partially hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrup. So yes, you are completely wrong, eating that crap regularly will be bad for your health in the long run, even if you think you're watching your calorie count and not overindulging, eating that crap over the course of years will lead to health problems. You're worried about CVD?
You could eat partially hydrogenated oil every single day for years and not get fat because you're naively and blithely believing in your precious calorie counting practice.
But you'll get clogged arteries from years of eating that industrially produced garbage in all those buns and crusts you think are harmless.
"I primarily take issue with your argument that gluttony and laziness are not the driving forces behind people's "weight issues", because those are exactly what the problems are."
You primarily take issue here based on ignorance, naivete, and mass media brainwashing.
All calories are not the same.
The science of thermodynamics makes sense when you burn food in a calorimeter.
Your stomach is not a bunsen burner with a flame that burns all fats/proteins/carbs in the same fashion.
But you know what...fuck this. Keep clinging to your beliefs that "paleo" is just a fad, and all you need to do is control your calories and make sure you exercise. That is, after all, the mainstream, conventional wisdom that most people are fooled into accepting as truth.
This blog is decidedly dedicated to opposing what I discover are the lies and falsehoods of the mainstream, conventional wisdom of our mass media, corporate driven society.
You keep counting your calories and condescendingly referring to the paleo diet as a fad.
keoni-
i wanted to leave you an email, but couldn't find a "contact me" link. could you leave me a link to contact you. i appreciate it.
Lol. I can't wait to see what amazing health and achievement gains olympic athletes will make when they finally accept the "truth" of the paleo-way. I mean, if they're the cream of the crop physically now, wait until they start loading up on bacon and cutting out all that useless oatmeal. And they'll all have Keoni Galt to thank, some guy in Hawaii who probably once lost 30lbs eating paleo and now thinks it's manna from heaven.
Keoni,
If you aren't willing to accept that one's body is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, I don't know that much more could be said. Reason and logic aren't going to sway your opinion. The "metabolic advantage" of one macronutrient over another is pretty much negligible. Even if it requires more energy to burn a fat calorie than a sugar calorie, that's still part of one's energy expenditure, and the difference is so minute that it's impractical to adjust one's calorie consumption accordingly. This sounds like Gary Taubes quackery.
I'm glad you've been doing the research and studying this for years. From the looks of it I've been studying it about twice as long as you have; I've been a believer in neurotic dieting before and came to realize that it's all BS. If you're willing to look at the other half of the studies you'll see that most "diets" are BS and do nothing more than come up with a backdoor way to eliminate calories from the diet -- then, like magic, the person starts losing weight.
Paleo isn't a bad diet for people looking to lose weight, since protein and fat are generally more satiating, but as a magic diet for all people in all circumstances, it's BS. Of course you can lose weight on the Twinkie Diet too. Or the McDonald's Diet. And even improve all of your health markers (amazing how that happens even with Twinkies). The absolutist statements of the paleo diet advocates are where credibility is lost, and where it moves from something reasonable to something more akin to a religion. But keep believing those absolutist statements. Don't let logic, reason, science or even anecdotal evidence -- like that of the healthiest people in the universe: athletes -- convince you. Heck, don't even let it open your mind.
I've been lean all of my life and I've done everything from super-clean eating to super-crap eating and from controlled-calorie eating to I'll-just-eat-whatever-the-hell-I-want eating to high-carb to no-carb. Maybe it's magic. Or maybe it's magic genetics. Or maybe it's because I maintain calorie balance. Nahh, can't be that. I'll go with magic.
modernguy - there are plenty of athletes who eat low carb...but there are also plenty who carb load on such things like oatmeal, pasta etc.
The difference is that carb loading athletes train extensive hours almost every day, which is why they are lean and fit despite eating carbs.
Most regular people have jobs, family obligations and such for which they simply cannot work out for hours on end like olympic athletes and professional athletes who make it their full time vocation.
This is why it is ridiculous to look at what a carb loading athlete eats and think that carbs have nothing to do with weight gain.
Here's a clue - look at plenty of retired athletes who no longer work out so much and still eat plenty of carbs.
But hey, don't worry, no one is saying you have to eat anything. Stuff your face with all the carbs you like, no skin off my nose.
As for john...
I'm glad you've been doing the research and studying this for years. From the looks of it I've been studying it about twice as long as you have;
And yet you managed to study the lies and bullshit that misleads so many people. From the looks of it, all your premises are based off what the average Sheeple learns from reading the newspaper and watching TV Doctor hacks like Dr. Oz.
I've been a believer in neurotic dieting before and came to realize that it's all BS.
LOL - except you've embraced the most neurotic diet of all...your on the "calorie counting" diet. The "paleo" diet is not neurotic at all. I simply recognize what foods are artificial, man made, and cause negative reactions in the human body, and I minimize or avoid it's consumption.
If you're willing to look at the other half of the studies you'll see that most "diets" are BS and do nothing more than come up with a backdoor way to eliminate calories from the diet -- then, like magic, the person starts losing weight.
This is where you fail. Paleo is NOT about eliminating calories in general, and it's sole purpose is not to "lose" weight. It's not a diet. But you're still tilting at this strawman caricature that it's just another fad diet.
Paleo isn't a bad diet for people looking to lose weight,
And it's not a bad diet for building muscle and recovering from a host of diet related, degerative diseases caused by eating neolithic, industrially produced food products for a long period of time.
since protein and fat are generally more satiating,
Hello, this is one of the reasons why you can "eat all the fat and protein you want" and still lose weight.
but as a magic diet for all people in all circumstances, it's BS.
No one claims it's magic. Magic claims are for fad diets. Paleo simply says that if you eat the foods your body was designed/evolved for, you will experience the health benefits.
Of course you can lose weight on the Twinkie Diet too. Or the McDonald's Diet. And even improve all of your health markers (amazing how that happens even with Twinkies).
Now I know without a doubt you're the kind of guy that thinks he knows it all and has "studied for twice as long as I have" by basically reading mainstream media bullshit and accepting it as truth.
Your missing the real point. Paleo is not about "losing weight." You're right about one thing, in the short term, anyone can starve themselves of nutrients and burn excess weight off (which is what twinkie guy did, for a short period of time, he basically starved himself).
The point is can you keep it off long term and enjoy good health by being in a constant caloric deficit? Can you do it without having to work out like an athlete for hours on end? That's the BS magic diet garbage you are falling for.
The absolutist statements of the paleo diet advocates are where credibility is lost, and where it moves from something reasonable to something more akin to a religion.
There are only a few absolutist statements from paleo advocates:
1) Grains are for the most part bad for you. For someone who claims to have done so much research, you completely ignored my reference to lectins, glutens and phytates and other anti-nutrients in grains. Yet you've "Studied much longer than I have." lol
2) Industrially produced vegetable oils rich in Omega 6 fatty acids and mostly rancid from the high heat of processing and the use of solvents like hexane in it's production are all bad for you.
3) Carbs in excess are also bad for you.
That's about it. The ironic thing here is that the absolutist, faith based statements are being made by yourself regarding the law of thermodynamics and calorie counting is the only true diet "magic formula."
But keep believing those absolutist statements. Don't let logic, reason, science or even anecdotal evidence -- like that of the healthiest people in the universe: athletes -- convince you. Heck, don't even let it open your mind.
This is the funniest thing. I certainly have read plenty of research and reports, and I've also applied logic, reason and most of all SCIENCE. Your problem is that you fail to realize just how much studies and research are flawed or deliberately misreported in the first place that leads to erroneous believes like the ones you're espousing here. By reading a report that "scientists have shown you can lose weight on a Twinkie diet" you believe something has been scientifically proven.
Duh. Starvation results in weight loss. Great.
Maybe you're right... perhaps the paleo thing hasn't picked up enough of a mainstream following to even be considered a fad, albeit the ones who do follow it are extremely rigid in faith in it. But I'm sure it'll go the way of Zone, Atkins and all the other ones that get popular and then die off.
If you need a paleo diet to keep yourself in check, by all means, I wouldn't want to discourage you.
i guess not. ok then. have fun argueing with the masses.
Re: "Hello, this is one of the reasons why you can "eat all the fat and protein you want" and still lose weight."
Umm, no. A person can get fat overeating fat and protein, and some people's bodies do not signal a fed state before over-consuming. Protein may blunt hunger, but for a lot of people that isn't enough to control intake.
It's funny that you think everything I've learned is from the TV media, simply because I refuse to accept the paleo dogma and instead insist on such ridiculous concepts like "caloric balance".
John, you're a fucking clueless twat. You should read about projection, because all the accusations you make against your supposed paleo proponents are displayed by yourself in this thread.
The only one clinging to dogma is you. The calorie in/calorie out mainstream proposition of weight loss is true, but, and that's where it gets interesting, absolutely meaningless and unhelpful. It's like a traffic jam on the motorway, saying that it's because more cars come in than go out is true, but unhelpful.
As for the protein/fat thing, the point is that indeed one will fatten if overconsumed, but people restrain spontaneously, which is exactly the point.
You said: Protein may blunt hunger, but for a lot of people that isn't enough to control intake. This should trigger a question on your part, why is that, and why does it work once the neolithic agents of disease are removed?
"John, you're a fucking clueless twat."
I notice people tend to get really stirred up when their religion is questioned.
"As for the protein/fat thing, the point is that indeed one will fatten if overconsumed, but people restrain spontaneously, which is exactly the point."
Translation: I need the structure of a paleo diet because I don't have sufficient self-control over the foods I eat. Great, fantastic. Not everyone is in that situation, which is why making posts about how Cap'n'Crunch is conspiring with the federal government to kill us all with evil grains is irresponsible.
If you can't eat Cap'n'Crunch without shriveling up into a pile of heaping death, then congratulations on your paleo diet. But to say that it's a superior "way of life" and snooting down on people who have no problems eating grain-based foods like Keoni does, then you can expect some push-back.
Okinawans, traditionally having one of the highest life expectancies in the world. Ohhhh noooooooooooes... how do they do it? A diet high in carbs, including starches and grains, and low in protein and fat. Ohhhh noooooooooooes!
Maybe it's because they don't overeat? Nahh, that can't be it. They must have some kind of magic Eastern juju going on.
Clearly paleo is the superior diet though.
john-
quit trolling, you've made your point...it's obvious you and the owner of this site WILL NOT agree. quit the drama, and go on about your business.
Yes dense people stirr me a little up.
Translation: I need the structure of a paleo
There is no structure in paleo.
It's a advice of exclusion:
avoid grains, avoid rancid oils and trans-fats, don't overindulge in sugar and an advice of enjoy real food.
Everything else is the strawman in your head.
But you're free to stick your fingers in your ears and denying that big agra makes a killing by selling cheap crap for a lot of money.
That governments conspire to help corporations and vice-versa is known for a long time (read Smetley Butlers "War is a racket" for instance).
readers:
PLEASE DON'T keep engaging john about this subject. let it go.
keoni post's on various subject's and i'm here b/c by and large i see eye to eye with him. not everyone is going to agree with him......COOL. but this thread is soooo off the rails now that's it not worth reading anymore.
at this point i'm just waiting to see what keoni's going to post next....this thread's done. move on, nothing left to see here.
"keoni post's on various subject's and i'm here b/c by and large i see eye to eye with him. not everyone is going to agree with him"
I respect him and agree with him on most stuff, but when it comes to nutrition he's just way off the mark... and with an audience, it does more harm than good. If he didn't want a discussion, why did he make this post? But you're right, everything that needs to be said has been said.
Oh BTW... here's the data on what Okinawans ate in the 20th century. Table 1 shows >90% of calories from carbohydrates, mostly starch, grain, and rice.
http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJCN/Volume10/vol10.2/Sho.pdf
Hey john stop trying to convince us with words. It's about the truth maaaan. The media is lyyying to you!
You guys are right, the paleo diet is not about restricting calories. It's about trying to find another anti-mainstream dogma to cling to to give yourself a reason to feel enlightened. For myself, I'll eat what athletes eat in a reasonable proportion to the amount of exercise I do. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Im pretty surprised anyone could find reason to debate this issue. Its been known for many years that high protein low fat n carb diet is the superior way to eat to repair our bodies. Bodybuilders and athletes have been doing this for years...fat was the enemy because it was easy to put on a label that a product is low in fat, unfortunately ignorance on the consumers part means people will continue buying products with 30+grams of sugar (carbohydrates), but 0grams of fat. The media has never been helpful to people, it never will be. Those who seek knowledge will always live better lives than those who are spoon fed their information...fat is needed, protein is needed, carbs are not. simple. I had put on some weight myself, and decided it was time to get back into it, lost 14kgs in 3 weeks cutting out bread alone. Some people wont put on weight due to high carb diets, but they will also have a very hard time building muscle. Good luck to them i say..
It's about trying to find another anti-mainstream dogma to cling to to give yourself a reason to feel enlightened
Yeah, right DUDE. That's what it's ALL about.
Why do you bother reading my blog, when it's quite clear that you just don't get it?
Go blather elsewhere.
john-
as part of said audience and being career military, my diet is very important. i work with a personal trainer and her eat's EVERYTHING you put in fron of him.
i rarely eat grains or starches and i have a pretty decent physique. if what you do works for you....fine. but Keoni's obviously found (after doing his own research) what works for him.
"lost 14kgs in 3 weeks cutting out bread alone."
Wow 10 pounds per week, this really is a miracle diet.
"but Keoni's obviously found (after doing his own research) what works for him."
Yeah, and then tries to claim that's it the "truth", and everyone else is deluded by the big bad mainstream media. These kinds of things are always framed as the enlightened one vs the masses.
Sorry dude (Keoni), but people in much better shape, who are much more active and probably healthier than you too have found what works for them, and it includes things like oatmeal and brown rice.
ok my last post was pretty long but i forgot to mention why it is important to maintain your muscle mass..
Lean muscle mass is your bodies ability to burn calories or energy at rest. The more muscle mass you have the more calories you burn at rest. This means losing muscle is effectively slowing down your metabolism. Build muscle and your metabolism speeds up.
Hope i have made this clear...and there no longer will need to be debate on this issue...because you are wrong and we are right. lol
At rest, a pound of muscle burns about 6 calories per day, which is less than insignificant.
If a person were to lose 5 lbs of fat (2 cals per lb per day) and replace it with 5 lbs of muscle, he would increase his metabolic rate by about 20 calories. Alternatively, he could reduce his caloric intake by the same amount merely by eating one fewer small carrots.
Now let's see... which is easier... hmmm. Recomping 5 lbs of mass, or not eating a small carrot? Seems like a wash.
John,
That 6 calorie number is not without dispute. Many studies show 35 calories per day. So lets examine the claim.
at 6 calories a lb, a body builder with 100lbs of muscle would need 600 calories a day to support his muscle mass. Whereas someone with half that mass of muscle, maybe a weekend warrior? would need 300 calories a day. That difference is about that of a Snickers bar.
At 35 calories per lb., we see 3500 and 1750 calories, respectively. About 6.5 snickers a day.
Check out what one randomly picked body builder eats each day and see which calorie per lb theory fits the evidence
http://clips.team-andro.com/watch/4e92cc5af043eebfd094/markus-ruehl-essen
Markus Ruehl is roided up to the core. His diet is pretty useless for drawing any conclusions for average folk.
There is a limit -- a rather low limit -- to how much muscle a person can add naturally. Even if he can add enough to adjust his resting metabolic rate upward by 300 calories, it'll take him almost a lifetime just to get there.
Of course, that doesn't take away from the realities of how training can burn a lot of calories, and how building mass requires a lot of calories. But the point was about energy requirements at rest. Adding muscle seems to have a very small impact on that.
The best natural bodybuilders only carry about 35-40 lbs of muscle more than the average untrained individual. Obviously steroids can increase that dramatically but that's irrelevant to this discussion.
Every single diet fad since the 1950's has said
"This is not a fad, it's a way of life".
I'm saving this blog-post, and I will come here in 18 months and rub it in your face :D You're soooooo gonna cringe thinking back to your paleo days.
You know, like when people see 80's pics of them in neon pants and some weird hairdos.
:D
@Anonymous
I'm going to write a dieting book. On the first page it'll have the following:
"1) Eat less.
2) Exercise more.
Do #1 to lose weight.
Do #2 to lose weight.
Do both #1 and #2 to lose a lot of weight."
And that'll be followed by about 300 black pages.
Easy money!
There was even research done on this. Apparently, the more complex and elaborate the story and reasoning behind a diet is, the better it sells.
People's ego doesn't want to accept that they JUST EAT TOO FUCKING MUCH - because its a crushing admission.
This is why fads are so succesful. You get to blame something outside yourself... Oh oh, its modern industry and processing to blame... Oh oh its carbs to blame... Oh oh my parents are to blame.
This is why you have fat people blogging about the difference between doing an exercise at a 40 degree angle vs a 45 degree angle and which is better for weightloss.
The psychology behind this is that... Hey, it can't be that I'm fat because I EAT TOO FUCKING MUCH FOOD AND I CANT FUCKING STOP CRAMMING FOOD IN MY MOUTH ---> no no, I just haven't discovered the RIGHT magical combination of foods...
Sigh... What I am most annoyed is when I see intelligent guys fall for orthorexia and fads... Then again, the more intelligent you are, the more capable you are of rationalizing.
@ModernGuy who said:
The best natural bodybuilders only carry about 35-40 lbs of muscle more than the average untrained individual
I just want to even further potentiate what you said. When he says the best in the world only have 35-40... I want to make a further distinction. THIS IS THE ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM ever found...
Like, not only have they dedicated their life to natural bodybuilding obsessing about squeezing every single last drop of additional muscle, BUT they also happen to genetically gifted.
That means the person of average genetics can only hope for 25-30 pounds of extra muscle, and that's at a height of 5'10 (178centimeters)... And that's after a decade of obsessive training.
Markus Ruehl is roided up to the core. His diet is pretty useless for drawing any conclusions for average folk.
Few further distinctions. Nobody actually knows what these guys eat, because their "supposed" diet changes on who their sponsor happens to be. A marketing rep invents the list of the supposed diet of the representative in concert with the magazine that runs it.
That's why BodybuilderProX can be said to have one diet in a German mag, and in a brazillian mag. It's an utter and complete scam.
If you want some truth, look to retired bodybuilders who no longer have connections to the industry. They are a lot more easier to reveal all the secrets and how protein is overhyped and bullshit and how they didn't eat half the things they were paid to say they eat etc... etc...
By the way, adoniseffect(dot)com is your best red pill when it comes to the nutrition and bodybuilding industries. They're two natural bodybuilders who rip apart diet fads and bodybuilding myths and lies. You can say they're the mythbusters of nutrition and bodybuilding...
Every single diet fad since the 1950's has said
"This is not a fad, it's a way of life".
I'm saving this blog-post, and I will come here in 18 months and rub it in your face
18 months? I'm going on 5 years now. At this point, I think it's safe to say it's become my way of life.
1) I eat foods the mainstream claims are bad for me, like meat and saturated fat.
2) I avoid foods that are largely designed for fooling tastebuds and maximizing profits while destroying health.
That;s it. It's not a fad diet...just a paradigm I've found is rather easy to follow.
There are many reasons to cut out fructose and other processed foods that seem to be in everything these days. My advice to all the people that are "anit-paleo" is to try it. The best way to prove something wrong is to do it with 100% conviction, and record the results. If you find that this doesn't work, come back in a couple months and report the truth (from your perspective). As for me, I've been doing Paleo for about a month now and have dropped 25lbs, have increased energy, my skin has cleared up significantly, and I have recently started training for The CrossFit Games. It might not work for everybody, but it does for most. Also if you still think a calorie is a calorie, I suggest you youtube the lecture called "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" which is a UCSF PHD describing biochemically how certain sugars are metabolized by the body. The truth might shock you!
Chance N.
18 months? I'm going on 5 years now. At this point, I think it's safe to say it's become my way of life.
1) Even though I am still suspect I know it's possible, because I was an orthorexic myself for about 5 years too. I went 5years without touching a single gram of anything with sugar, any liquid except water or anything processed. I spent those 5 years ranting about the evils of processed foods, as slowly but surely I was getting fatter and fatter. At the end I was a fat orthorexic... I'd say 25% bodyfat after 5 years of zero processed foods.
Slowly overtime I learned it's all about portion control, and that banning foods is more unhealthy than anything. I slowly started reintroducing "bad foods" and counting calories. I'm now 12-15% bodyfat and my diet is about 90% junkfood of which at least half is processed food.
The last thing I reintroduced by the way was sugar, which was the last fearmongering theory I was afraid of letting go. I lost the last 10 pounds after reintroducing sugar.
2) you haven't been strict paleo for 5 years have you. The "fad" we're discussing here is paleo which is far far far more restrictive that simply avoiding processed foods.
1) I eat foods the mainstream claims are bad for me, like meat and saturated fat.
That's utter bullshit on par with patriarchy theory. There is no evil unified "mainstream". The same magazine that runs a story that meat is bad for you, has another article 2 pages later about how you should eat more meat. It's always been like this. One article on CNN says dairy is bad for you, and another says you need more dairy.
There have always been competing nutritional schools ALWAYS-and even though different schools and theories have been more prominent during different years, there has never been this mythical conspiracy where every authority and media in the world feature ONLY 100% just one nutritional school. That's utter bullshit conspiracy theory.
2) I avoid foods that are largely designed for fooling tastebuds and maximizing profits while destroying health.
In other words I adopted a conspiracy theory that blames the big bad corporations for my lack of control.
I've banned myself from anything tasty, so I don't have to face my inner demons that make me fill an inner void by over-eating.
Out of curiosity
- What's your current bodyfat percentage.
- What's your BMI
- What was your bodyfat percentage before 5 years
- What was your BMI before 5 years?
Alek, you clearly miss the overall point of the post just to get up on your pedestal to condescendingly dictate your opinion as factual.
Even though I am still suspect I know it's possible, because I was an orthorexic myself for about 5 years too. I went 5years without touching a single gram of anything with sugar, any liquid except water or anything processed.
The entire point of this post was to point out that "paleo" should only serve as a general guideline, certainly not an orthorexic disorder program. I guess you missed the entire paragraphs I wrote here about how I follow an 80/20 principle...and I in fact do at times eat sugar, wheat flour foods (like birthday cake), and that I certainly do not follow "Paleo" like a strict religion? Did you miss how I pointed out that many of the prominent "Paleo" bloggers all do the same?
But don't let that get in the way of denouncing your paleo straw man!
There have always been competing nutritional schools ALWAYS-and even though different schools and theories have been more prominent during different years, there has never been this mythical conspiracy where every authority and media in the world feature ONLY 100% just one nutritional school. That's utter bullshit conspiracy theory.
lol. You're funny man. One has to be considerably obtuse to miss the overwhelming zeitgeist of mass media culture in the West. I never said 100%...but the predominant view regarding meat and fat is most certainly that it is bad for you.
In other words I adopted a conspiracy theory that blames the big bad corporations for my lack of control.
You really are full of yourself.
I guess when one looks at the evidence that politicians appoint former Big Ag executives to regulatory agencies like the FDA and USDA, and said agencies tell everyone they should be eating the products of Big Ag, that's not a conspiracy, right?
That said agencies approve of crap like hydrogenated oils, MSG and high fructose corn syrup in the food supply has nothing to do with "conspiracy" right?
I'm not telling anyone how to eat. If eating that processed, industrialized crap works for you, don't let me stop you from gorging yourself on it.
Just keep counting your calories. I'm sure you'll be fine.
Alek, you clearly miss the overall point of the post just to get up on your pedestal to condescendingly dictate your opinion as factual.
But I wasn't responding to the blog post. I was responding to the comments. The comments involved into a discussion on the subject of Is paleo a fad diet yes/no.
That is what I am and was responding to, not your post.
The entire point of this post was to point out that "paleo" should only serve as a general guideline, certainly not an orthorexic disorder program.
Mmmm. I didn't say YOU do it. I said *I* did it. Lol. Let me walk you step by step
1) Discussion was is paleo a fad (paleo in the most strict sense with its restrictions of entire food groups)
2) Then you said you've roughly followed paleo for 5 years
3) I then said "Ok, I believe you, I know its possible, coz I've gone *even* further and done it super 100% strict for 5 years"...
I guess you missed the entire paragraphs I wrote here about how I follow an 80/20 principle...and I in fact do at times eat sugar, wheat flour foods (like birthday cake), and that I certainly do not follow "Paleo" like a strict religion? Did you miss how I pointed out that many of the prominent "Paleo" bloggers all do the same?
But the discussion here was IF paleo is a fad. If you sometimes follow it and sometimes don't that's not Paleo.
That's like saying "I'm vegan on most days". It's like saying "I'm a little pregnant". You either are or aren't.
If you're only sometimes mostly trying to stay away from processed foods that's not paleo, that is the "I can't control myself from binging on tasty foods, so I try to mostly avoid them by telling myself an elaborate pseudo-scientific theory mixed in with a bunch of conspiracy theory" - method.
lol. You're funny man. One has to be considerably obtuse to miss the overwhelming zeitgeist of mass media culture in the West. I never said 100%...but the predominant view regarding meat and fat is most certainly that it is bad for you.
I've been studying it for 10 years, and what I found is that every diet sect manages to convince themselves in an us.vs.them theory.
- If you're a vegan you go around swearing how the evil mainstream zeitgeist is promoting meat left-and-right.
- If you're a low-carber you swear up and down that everyone is trying to force feed you carbs.
- If you're paleo, you swear that everyone is trying to take your meat from you.
- If you're a low-fatter, you swear you're sick and tired of the zeitgeist that says carbs are bad for you.
You really are full of yourself.
I am, I admit it. But my arrogance is based on both practical success, and having gone through every stage of diet-ism.
Speaking of which, what's your stats? You skipped the question about your stats 5 years ago and your stats today?
I guess when one looks at the evidence that politicians appoint former Big Ag executives to regulatory agencies like the FDA and USDA, and said agencies tell everyone they should be eating the products of Big Ag, that's not a conspiracy, right?
That said agencies approve of crap like hydrogenated oils, MSG and high fructose corn syrup in the food supply has nothing to do with "conspiracy" right?
I'm not telling anyone how to eat. If eating that processed, industrialized crap works for you, don't let me stop you from gorging yourself on it.
You did get that part right though. There's a TON of profit-motives and politics involved in what gets produced and subsidized and all that shit... One problem.
What you don't say is that there are COMPETING interests. There is no magical Illuminati that promotes just ONE UNIFIED agenda.
The truth is the meat industry has its own lobby.
The fruit industry has its own lobby.
The vegans have their own lobby.
The dairy-associations have their own lobbyists.
The organics have their own organic food lobby.
They ALL influence these politics. You're acting as if the "low-fat, meat-hating, msg-loving and proccessed food promoting" group is some uber-powerful lobby with UNIFIED interests... Heck no.
Here's another trick. If a study is funded by the meat-produces it shows how beneficial meat is. If a study is funded by vegan groups it shows how bad meat is for you. If a study is funded by dairy farmers it shows how good dairy is for you, and if its funded (or lead by ideological) vegans it shows how bad dairy is for you.
I'm sure curious on those stats btw? :)
If eating that processed, industrialized crap works for you, don't let me stop you from gorging yourself on it.
That was kinda the point isn't it? Neither me nor the french or naturally skinny people "gorge" on it.
That's why we eat processed stuff most of the day, yet we don't put on any fat.
You kinda projected right there what I assumed... The stereotype I hold in my head is "People who declare entire types of food to be evil are people who aren't capable of eating small quantities of such foods". Why eat an entire cake once a week (the break from paleo), when you can have 2 small bites of cake every single day?
You end up eating less cake, and you're twice as lean... Though it does require learning self-control around food.
Post a Comment