Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's Paleo in a nutshell. It's more or less a reasonably healthy way to eat, but it unnecessarily restricts a huge and perfectly healthy portion of the modern diet for no other reason than some dogmatic nonsense.
If you don't have a gluten or dairy allergy, you can include them in your diet without issue.
I agree with this. I have a roommate who eats full Paleo (except when he takes his parents to his favorite pizza place, or it's his second cousin's friend's birthday party downtown, or...you get the idea). He does well on it -- he works out a lot and usually has plenty of energy for his workouts. But I get pretty close to the same results just by replacing starches with animal fats and eating meals at the same time most days. The major difference is he spends like 3-4x as much on food as I do.
I'll eat two beef patties without a bun and some vegetables and people will be like, oh, you're going Paleo. Hey, whatever you want to call it -- you didn't see I ate pasta for lunch. I think nearly all of us can benefit from getting off the carb roller coaster once in a while, if you want to call it Paleo, fine, I'm OK with old-fashioned terms like "restraint," "moderation," and "balance."
I mostly agree with what you've said, but I would highly recommend limiting all grains (not just the gluten-grains) if someone is having problems with weight gain. The paleo restriction on grains is not mere dogmatic nonsense. They are full of carbs, and we have many decades worth of extremely well confirmed evidence indicating that carbs are linked to a variety of health problems, including weight-gain. In fact, along with the empirical evidence, there are also some very detailed theoretical concepts that help explain, in biochemical terms, exactly why carbs are linked to health problems. Highly refined carbs are the worst (table sugar, white bread, high fructose corn syrup), but carbs of any sort can be a problem if you are eating too many of them. The low-carb aspect of a paleo diet is one of the main reasons that it works so well, not just for weight-loss, but for overall health.
I'm not saying that everyone needs to be on a low-carb diet, but I am suggesting that no one should purposefully substitute carbs for fat or protein (i.e., do buy "low-fat" products, don't eat an extra slice of bread thinking it's better for you than an extra portion of meat or eggs, don't etc.)
Anyone interested in the science underlying the low-carb approach might consider reading Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes.
Thanks for posting here, unfortunately however you've bought into some bad information.
There is nothing inherently bad or unhealthy about carbs or grains. The reason they have received a bad rep over recent years is because foods high in carbs also tend to be higher in calories, and people have made the simple mistake of blaming the carb intake rather than the calorie intake for their weight gain and resulting health issues. In fact, the low carb diet works by restricting calorie intake by way of restricting carb intake.
It's all about calories in the end.
One last thing. You should forget everything you've learned from Taubes. The guy has no formal education in health or physical sciences (he was an engineer, IIRC) and his works have been completely discredited within the scientific community.
One last thing. You should forget everything you've learned from Taubes. The guy has no formal education in health or physical sciences (he was an engineer, IIRC) and his works have been completely discredited within the scientific community.
I'm glad you said this. I've been trying to find books or articles that specifically discredit the claims made by Taubes, but I have not found any yet. I find people making the general claim that "Taubes gives only one side of the argument," etc. but I have not yet found anyone offering any evidence specifically refuting any of his claims. In other words, I can find people saying "He full of crap" but I have not yet found anyone citing specific information or arguments detailing exactly why he is full of crap. Can you suggest some sources for me to check out?
Also, I'm curious: Have your read Good Calories, Bad Calories yourself? I work at a university, so it has not been difficult for me to check out a few of the studies referenced in his book. (And I really appreciate that Taubes gives his scientific references). What I need to find are equally good references to scientific information that contradicts his claims.
I've read through some of his book, yes. I didn't bother too much with it though because by the time I got around to it, it had already been picked apart. I read enough of it just for first hand reference.
I'm glad you said this. I've been trying to find books or articles that specifically discredit the claims made by Taubes, but I have not found any yet. I find people making the general claim that "Taubes gives only one side of the argument," etc. but I have not yet found anyone offering any evidence specifically refuting any of his claims. In other words, I can find people saying "He full of crap" but I have not yet found anyone citing specific information or arguments detailing exactly why he is full of crap. Can you suggest some sources for me to check out?
Also, I'm curious: Have your read Good Calories, Bad Calories yourself? I work at a university, so it has not been difficult for me to check out a few of the studies referenced in his book. (And I really appreciate that Taubes gives his scientific references). What I need to find are equally good references to scientific information that contradicts his claims.
I'd ignore everything Taubes says, but if you do what he suggests you will lose weight and your health will improve.
He doesn't know what he's talking about, however.
And of course, he didn't really create a fad diet, as the theory that starches (i.e. high carb foods) are fattening has been around for well over 100 years.
Agreed, which is why I eat low carb. It's not a fad diet. Vegan, on the other hand, is.
You keep mentioning "vegan" in relation to me, yet I never use the word. I have argued that a high carbohydrate whole food based diet is the most healthful......that could or could not be vegan.
Regardless, the paleo diet has no basis. It is rooted in some fantasy about how our paleolithic ancestors lived, then it goes on to make arbitrary distinctions in foods. They point out that modern grains have only been around ~10,000 years, yet ignore that our fruits, vegetables and domestic animals are all recent as well. Why is eating a domestic fruit that has been selectively breed to be very sweet, etc okay but eating the seeds from grasses (e.g., grains) that have been selectively breed to have large edible seeds bad?
Regardless, the starch phobia has no basis in nutrition. We are well adapted to each starches even compared to our closest ancestors. We produce 3~5 times more amylase in our saliva than chimps and gorillas.....that didn't happen because our ancestors were eating meat and fruit instead it happened because our ancestors were eating ample amounts of starch. What we aren't well adapted to eat is refined starches... Eat all the whole potatoes, legumes, oats, barley, whole wheat, etc you want.... but skip the white bread, refined pasta, french fries, etc.
Also, I'm curious: Have your read Good Calories, Bad Calories yourself? I work at a university, so it has not been difficult for me to check out a few of the studies referenced in his book. (And I really appreciate that Taubes gives his scientific references). What I need to find are equally good references to scientific information that contradicts his claims.
If you want to read differing views, try the people advocate very different ideas. For example read "The study china", "The starch solution", "The spectrum"....you'd find numerous references in these books and unlike Gary the authors have been involved in research as well.
I've read through some of his book, yes. I didn't bother too much with it though because by the time I got around to it, it had already been picked apart. I read enough of it just for first hand reference.
James Krieger, Lyle McDonald are NOT valid sources of obesity information AT ALL. They are NOT exopert scientists. They are laymen SALESMEN and MISINFORMED. Why do you FALL for their nonsense?
THIS MAN, Dr. Liebel, is an expert. EDUCATE YOURSELF PLEASE:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
