Paleo 101: How and why you should eat like a Caveman

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Dashel

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,836
2,941
I have to say it is interesting to see the reaction talking about nutrition and eating has on some people. It's almost like politics or religion.

Regarding the low carb thing, here is Robb Wolf, one of the more popular advocates of a paleo diet:

http://robbwolf.com/2012/12/19/carb-...oughts-part-1/

Slowly I realized, both by experimentation and by really looking at the literature: CALORIES MATTERED MORE THAN CARBS FOR BODY-COMP.

I have to say this was a pretty big shake-up for me. I'd assumed one could eat as much fat as one desired and STILL get leaner. As I mentioned above, when I first started eating LC, or more specifically, cyclic low carb (CLC) I was leaner than ever in my life. I know based on blood work and fat deposition that I had insulin resistance while vegan, and CLC helped with this immensely, but it was my new-found energy and activity level that drove my leanness, not an inability to store fat in the absence of significant insulin. I think this is one of the most damaging messages that comes out of the LC camp to this day, I was duped by this, so I'm not going to do what a lot of other recovered LC writers do and make folks out to be idiots for still believing this.but, it is time to face facts. In every damn study it is clear that for fat loss we'd like adequate protein, and a calorie restriction scenario. LC is fantastic for this in that one typically feels satisfied on high protein, moderate fat, loads of veggies. If one is insulin resistant, this approach can be nothing short of miraculous. HOWEVER! If one manages to cram enough cheese, olive oil and grass-fed butter down the pie-hole, this is in fact, a "mass gain" diet.

LC is fantastic for the insulin resistant individual, as it addresses both glycemic load and satiety. But if one manages to bypass normal satiety mechanisms, or if one can find some combinations of highly palatable, but low-carb foods, it's still a ticket to Fat Camp.

The insistence on the part of the LC community in adhering to the "no insulin, no fat gain" dogma ends up discrediting the real therapeutic benefit of LC and hurts us all.
Click to expand...
 
A

arkktheseaotter_sl

shitlord
406
0
The whole no insulin no fat gain is pushed by the vast majority of the Paleo community. It's a staple.

Maybe I'm confusing myself because there's 17 diff versions of Paleo and Taubes and Sisson and Wolf and whoever the fuck else all have diff views that they have cherry picked out of whatever research fits their agenda to make money?
 
Dashel

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,836
2,941
arkktheseaotter_sl said:
With the advent of Paleo anyone who eats lean meat, vegetables, nuts and fruit these days is doing "Paleo" when over the past 50 years the rest of the world just referred to it as "eating good."

Fads, they'll getcha.
Click to expand...
This is a very good point to bring up, I get that you're bashing Paleo but when you say "eat good" that can mean a lot of different things. Some people think drinking fruit juice is a part of eating good. Others think their Kashi cereal or Special K is good. Or maybe a whole grain bagel, or low fat yogurt. Maybe they buy the bread with no HFCS (but with sugar) and think that's a healthy choice. There is a lot of conflicting information about what is and isnt good.

It's easy to say eat good, or eat in moderation but things can get tricky with cheap processed foods and sugar everywhere. The thing I like most about this approach is the focus on whole natural foods.
 
Dashel

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,836
2,941
arkktheseaotter_sl said:
The whole no insulin no fat gain is pushed by the vast majority of the Paleo community. It's a staple.

Maybe I'm confusing myself because there's 17 diff versions of Paleo and Taubes and Sisson and Wolf and whoever the fuck else all have diff views that they have cherry picked out of whatever research fits their agenda to make money?
Click to expand...
Wolf pushed that idea as well but this was a very recent post by him this past December. So he is challenging it. There are different versions because nutrition is still a cluster fuck in my opinion. The past 30 years have been a big joke when it comes to what we are told we can and should eat to be healthy. The result is everyone being fatter. You can pin some of it on inactivity but not all of it.
 
A

arkktheseaotter_sl

shitlord
406
0
Well that's the entire reason why Paleo is dumb because they claim calories aren't important, or are less important than insulin control, which is idiotic.

I didn't say and wouldn't claim that eating a Paleo type diet is "bad" even though their hysteria over grains is not necessary for like 90% of people. However their dogma is laughable and the Paleo community needs to be punched for the most part. If Robb Wolf is going to make it clear that calories matter then good for him, all I know of him is when I saw him on Rogan's podcast. Again, I dont know who could make the argument that eating whole foods is bad, but the Paleo mantra of avoid insulin > calorie control is flawed.

I also don't agree that nutrition over the past 30 years has been bad. There have been plenty of world class athletes and lean motherfuckers before Paleo came along? How'd they do it? Calorie restriction. Case closed.
 
Tmac

Tmac

Adventurer
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
10,188
17,578
Famm_sl said:
nless you're some pussy new age vegan fuck, or serious competative athlete.
Click to expand...
Because those are the only people with self-control? haha.

The whole argument against grains is stupid. Any athlete knows that you're supposed to carb stack before training and that they are VITAL to maintaining energy.Michael Phelp'straining diet takes a big ole' dump on top of the paleo myth.

Anyways...
 
A

arkktheseaotter_sl

shitlord
406
0
Celestein_sl said:
@ark When you say damage you're implying some kind of permanent or sustained issue, that's different than saying temporary readjustment, which is what you meant to say clearly once you clarified. Asking for evidence that long term ketosis causes some kind of permanent metabolic harm(when afaik no such research exists, as someone who regularly reads medical journals and literature), is not unreasonable, and isn't even an attack as you took it to be. If such a thing existed I am genuinely interested in reading it.

There's a fundamental contradiction in your statement though, you say that a ketogenic diet is associated with low carbohydrate intake AND calorie restriction...then go on to say we're discussing keto as a lifestyle.

If keto is a lifestyle dietary choice then you are not going to exist in a permanent caloric deficit...you're going to eat your maintenance or a surplus, continuing to run a caloric deficit when you've reached your goals would be stupid, so I don't know why you make that assumption.

But I don't disagree with the premise that people from go from low carb back to high carb(which isn't "normal" really, but perceived as normal), will balloon back up. When you go from a diet that suppresses appetite and minimizes fat storage to one that increases appetite and maximizes fat storage...then yeah, no shit people will regain fat ridiculously fast.

That's not a metabolic "problem" though, that's an issue with habits. People don't magically balloon from the increased carbs, they do it because by increasing carb intake they end up increasing their caloric intake as a whole because they've formed habits of only eating when their body says its hungry, which in a high carbohydrate diet is pretty much always.
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying but I don't see how it's a contradiction. If 2000 calories a day is the average is someone really going to eat 200g protein 110g fat and <50carbs for a year straight? And that's not counting exercise so assuming they meet the same macros every single day, they'd be in a deficit when exercise is added in. If you are claiming someone is going to stay at maintenance for a whole year with exercise then you are talking 250g protein a day + more fat. Is that realistic? I don't think so. We're talking straight keto, no breaks.

And yes people do balloon from increased carbs. Of course they do, calorie intake isn't the only factor.
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
Dashel_sl said:
I have to say it is interesting to see the reaction talking about nutrition and eating has on some people. It's almost like politics or religion.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Especially followers of the paleo diet. Plenty of research and expert opinion to show that it's absolutely among the worst of the fad diets to follow, and yet people believe in it without any good reason. And the only proof they have is a poorly written book that is a mishmash of half truths and molested data.

To any followers of the paleo diet: Sure, keep rewarding your bad dietary behaviors by believing that you are somehow eating some magical diet. But rest assured, the science does not back up what you believe, and the chance is greater than not that you will suffer adverse cardiovascular events secondary to the poor choices you are currently making.
 
Dashel

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,836
2,941
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
Plenty of research and expert opinion to show that it's absolutely among the worst of the fad diets to follow, and yet people believe in it without any good reason.
Click to expand...
Can you site one? I've seen the US News ratings of different diets and it's based on US government standard which I think are complete crap.

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/paleo-diet

Carbohydrates. At 23 percent of daily calories from carbs, it?s far below the government?s 45 to 65 percent recommendation.
Click to expand...
The US recommended diet, brought to you by the Department of Agriculture. The other issue they usually have is with saturated fats which mean instant death!
... maybe?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

CONCLUSIONS:

A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.
Click to expand...
 
S

supertouch_sl

shitlord
1,858
3
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
Absolutely. Especially followers of the paleo diet. Plenty of research and expert opinion to show that it's absolutely among the worst of the fad diets to follow, and yet people believe in it without any good reason. And the only proof they have is a poorly written book that is a mishmash of half truths and molested data.

To any followers of the paleo diet: Sure, keep rewarding your bad dietary behaviors by believing that you are somehow eating some magical diet. But rest assured, the science does not back up what you believe, and the chance is greater than not that you will suffer adverse cardiovascular events secondary to the poor choices you are currently making.
Click to expand...
there's nothing bad about the paleo diet. shut the fuck up.

and people are misinterpreting what robb wolf had to say. he's simply saying you shouldn't eat a hypercaloric low-carb diet and expect to lose weight, although i rarely see that kind of eating promoted. he's also not suggesting people cram hundreds of grams of carbohydrate down their throats, especially if they're metabolically fucked up.
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
Dashel_sl said:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
Click to expand...
When newbs start reading literature, they always just go straight for the conclusion. You need to look at study design, methodology, the results, and the discussion. From the very study you're quoting:

Only a limited number of studies provided data that enabled the evaluation of the effects of isocalorically replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate or polyunsaturated fat, and, as such, the statistical power was diminished for the secondary analyses restricted to these studies. Most recently, however, an analysis conducted in a pooled cohort of studies showed a lower CHD risk when saturated fat was replaced with polyunsaturated fat and increased nonfatal myocardial infarction, but not fatal CHD, risk when saturated fat was replaced with carbohydrate (24).

Inverse associations of polyunsaturated fat and CVD risk have previously been reported (41, 42). Replacement of 5% of total energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat has been estimated to reduce CHD risk by 42% (43). Notably, the amount of dietary polyunsaturated fat in relation to saturated fat (ie, the P:S ratio) has been reported to be more significantly associated with CVD than saturated fat alone, with a reduced CHD risk found with P:S ratios ? 0.49 (44). Only 1 of the 21 studies that met criteria for inclusion in this meta-analysis evaluated the relation of the P:S ratio with CHD (14). No effect was seen in this study, in which the average P:S ratio was ?0.4, nor was there an association of P:S ratio with CVD in the Israeli Ischemic Heart Study (U Goldbourt, personal communication, 2008). However, these studies were relatively small.

Of note, in intervention trials that have shown protective effects of reducing saturated fat, ie, the Veteran Affairs (19), Oslo Diet Heart (20), and Finnish Mental Hospital (21) studies, the calculated P:S ratios ranged from 1.4 to 2.4-values that are much higher than the threshold of 0.49 above which CHD risk has been reported to be reduced (44). Relatively high P:S ratios (1.25-1.5) were also observed in the Anti-Coronary Club Study, an early trial that showed beneficial effects of a lower fat diet (30-32% of total energy) (45). The presumed beneficial effects of diets with reduced saturated fat on CVD risk may therefore be dependent on a significant increase in polyunsaturated fat in the diet. Existing epidemiologic studies and clinical trials support that substituting polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat is more beneficial for CHD risk than exchanging carbohydrates for saturated fat in the diet, as described further elsewhere (46).
Click to expand...
This is why I advocate always replacing any saturated fat source with an polyunsaturated fat. Instead of dipping your bread in butter, use olive oil. Don't cook with coconut oil, use olive oil. Etc. When you review dietary comparisons, one thing to always be aware of is that earlier studies typically compare a straight high fat diet with a high carbohydrate diet, and usually will find no difference: they are equally unhealthy! But more and more and more research keeps showing that replacing dietary saturated fat with unsaturated fat reveals stepwise (ie, the more you replace, the greater your benefit) decreases in cardiovascular disease.

And, because the following (from above) is a terribly written sentence, let's all make sure we're on the same page with it:

Most recently, however, an analysis conducted in a pooled cohort of studies showed a lower CHD risk when saturated fat was replaced with polyunsaturated fat and increased nonfatal myocardial infarction, but not fatal CHD, risk when saturated fat was replaced with carbohydrate (24).
Click to expand...
- Lower CHD risk when saturated fat was replaced with polyunsaturated fat.
- Increased nonfatal myocardial infarction, but not fatal CHD, risk when saturated fat was replaced with carbohydrate.

(In no way am I advocating a high carbohydrate diet, or saying anything positive about carbohydrates whatsoever. I only wanted to make sure that sentence read clearly, because I stumbled on it multiple times at first.)
 
S

supertouch_sl

shitlord
1,858
3
you're citing an epidemiological study in which there are several unknown variables. what kind of saturated fats are these subjects consuming? are there oxidized fats involved? are they drinking a big soda with their hamburgers? are they getting enough omega 3s? saturated fat isn't inherently bad and anyone with a rudimentary grasp of biology will say the same.
 
Famm

Famm

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
11,041
794
Tmac47_sl said:
The whole argument against grains is stupid. Any athlete knows that you're supposed to carb stack before training and that they are VITAL to maintaining energy.Michael Phelp'straining diet takes a big ole' dump on top of the paleo myth.
Click to expand...
This has absolutely nothing to do with the post you partially quoted. I never said athletes should avoid carbs, wtf tangent are you off on? Most people who need to change their diets aren't putting out anything remotely approaching Phelps's wattage per day.

As far as self control, I was saying that even people who eat well will tend to go and cheat once in a while if they aren't idealistic or dogmatic for some reason such as moral vegetarianism or are on a strict training regimen. The fact that most people who watch what they eatdon'tconsume taco bell about 99% of the time is evidence that they DO have self control. GTFO you bunglicking shitcock.
 
Dashel

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,836
2,941
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
When newbs start reading literature, they always just go straight for the conclusion. You need to look at study design, methodology, the results, and the discussion.
Click to expand...
None of which changes the fact that "A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD"

As far as low carb high carb; all meaningless to me. I care more about what I'm eating than if it's a carb or not. Spinach and broccoli are carbs. Big difference from a sugary cake, a pizza crust or even a bagel. Same with any macronutrient. Protein, fat and carbs are not inherently good or bad it depends on what form they take.
 
Caliane

Caliane

Avatar of War Slayer
15,766
12,344
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
Oh my god. This reads like a 5 year old explains reproduction. "And then the boy pees on the girl and a baby comes out!"
Click to expand...
well yeah. condensing 2 hours worth of actual explanation into 30seconds worth of forum text, because people clearly aren't taking the time to research will do that...
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
Dashel_sl said:
None of which changes the fact that "A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD"

As far as low carb high carb; all meaningless to me. I care more about what I'm eating than if it's a carb or not. Spinach and broccoli are carbs. Big difference from a sugary cake, a pizza crust or even a bagel. Same with any macronutrient. Protein, fat and carbs are not inherently good or bad it depends on what form they take.
Click to expand...
Thank you. You are so clueless you are simply quoting the conclusion section of a study you don't understand. I'd bet (don't bother posting after you've Google-ed it) that you have no idea what a meta analysis, an oberservational study, a p-value, or anything else is. It's clear you do not understand what was actually looked at in that study, or what types of studies were included in the meta analysis, the shortcomings of observational studies, etc.

I have no obligation to defend science against the ignorant. But what you are doing is cherry picking and misrresenting data. This is why I haven't bothered posting anything lengthy: it's the same show every time.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,037
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
It's amazing how little the average Joe knows about any of this. For example, all the retards that think HFCS is the devil.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/High-fr...CS_and_sucrose
Click to expand...
I'm not a doctor, so I know jack all about HFCS. I just know I let myself have 3 cokes a week (I'm addicted, and I won't cut them out completely) and I can taste the difference between sugar (Mexican/Pass Over) coke and HFCS coke (My wife's tried to switch it up on me, too. I've always caught it heh, so I'm pretty sure it's not in my head, but what the fuck do I know.)...So that's why I tend to go for products with sugar, rather than HFCS.

However, I was under the impression that the actual process of breaking down sucrose in your body, and not the end result of the chemicals, made HFCS and Sucrose different. In other words, yes, they are essentially the same chemicals when digestion is complete, but sucrose takes longer to process, so it's not as quick to be converted to fat (Because it can be used as made for energy?). I think this study concluded that the rate at which HFCS is converted to fat is greater.Here---again though, my understanding is based off of people interpreting the data, so this data could be bullshit, I have no idea (Hence why I linked it, to get other people to read).

In the end though, aside from curiosity, I personally don't give a fuck. I just know my average life span is higher, and we feed more people today, so I see no reason to try and revert to a diet where cavemen had to pick seeds out of their shit to survive. Things change (Like our diets from cavemen to modern men) and change isn't always bad. Personally, everyone in my family has lived well over 85, unless they got cancer, and they all ate a "Mediterranean diet". Which is lots of vegetables, fruits, with some grains (Rice or pasta), fish and the occasional chicken/red meat (Rarely), and almost all olive oil for flavoring and lots of spices/peppers. Seeing as it's worked for my great grandparents and grandparents and I feel better with it, I'm going with it.

But I'm still curious about the process of converting sugar vs HFCS. If the study is just bullshit, or if it has some merit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.