Paleo Diet!

It's not like other foods don't have carbs. Carbs aren't horrible, it's just about eating the good carbs not the ones that make you feel blah. everything I've read about this diet particularly hasn't been to completely cut out every carb. It has to cut out the bad ones. We need carbuncles. Just not the ones that make me bloaty.

I think that's fairly well understood. It's a low-carb diet, not a no-carb diet, although some people do 0% carbs apparently.

I agree. Won't argue that point.

As far as my dad.... He and my mom have no insurance. They haven't been able to get insurance for quite some time. He's considered a liability and even if they -could- get it, they can't afford it. My dad doesn't have the means to just "go talk to a nutritionist" (my autocorrect tried putting in a Nigerian just now lol), much less an actual doctor. The only Dr he will see is the one that theuve been seeing since 1985. He's in my hometown. They can't afford the trip there now, so he's just added out. Nor would he listen. He knows what he's supposed to do and what he needs to eat and what he should avoid, but at this point in his life, there's no sense. He's a very picky eater and he likes to snack around on whatever. He has managed to switch to sugar free chocolate candy and he'll eat like dried cherries to help his gout and if I'm around, he'll eat grilled cactus if I can find & make it for him cuz it helps with cholesterol . Otherwise, there's no convincing that man. He's incredibly stubborn.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-g...#axzz2fgbBCnwM

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-g...#axzz2fgbBCnwM



I believe part of the diet is 80% follow the guidelines and 20% cheat (if you'd like) so it's not like you have to follow 100%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by comma

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noxious.sunshine

The science of nutrition is always evolving and changing. Nothing is ever set in stone. You can swear by the latest studies or dig up something old or practically anything that you think makes sense, but that doesn't exactly mean it's a for sure right thing. For all you know, the doctor(s)/nutritionist(s) who made these reports could change their stance entirely within a year or 2.

---

I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions about nutrition science and science in general. Peer-reviewed studies rarely get proven wrong later down the road. The scientific method typically ensures that when something is linked to something else, that link is tough to break in the future. Findings get updated, not overturned. Einstein built on Newton's laws, not abolished them, and Einstein's Special Theory has been added to as well. Science makes the picture clearer over time, but it very rarely gives us the wrong picture. Newton's laws are still used to perform successful, real-world calculations constantly, as is Einstein's theory.

---

On the nature of scienceStrictly speaking, what you are saying is not necessarily true. That is not to say that Newtonian physics (or classical physics) was thrown out the door with the advent of Einsteinian/relativistic physic, rather there was a fundamental change in how we think of science and understand the world around us. Newton and his contemporaries weren't just doing science. They were also doing philosophy. There wasn't a clear line at that time between doing philosophy of science and scientific endeavors themselves. There were vast arguments on metaphysics, methods, epistemology going on at the same time being argued by scientist and philosophers alike. Heck, the scientific methods itself is heavily influenced by the work of Francis Bacon (who wasn't a scientist as we know it). Taking all that context into consideration, then when people like Thomas Kuhn talk about revolutions and paradigm shifts in science, it makes a lot more sense. Moreover, science is not a system of verification but a system of falsification.

tl;dr There are a variety of views on science and the nature of science and it is not as clear-cut as you argued. Though there are arguments to be made of science as progressive there are equally arguments to be made of science more revolutionary, consisting of paradigm shifts.

As for dieting, I think the name of the diet itself is rather ridiculous since it comes with a bunch of implications that are rather ridiculous. But that is an issue with nomenclature. As far as dieting goes, I am less educated about that and go with the rule of thumb not to excess on things. Too much of anything ain't that good for you (hell, excess of some vitamins can be carcinogenic).

Fad diet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

I think I am going to cut all carbs, fats, sugars, vegetables, fruits, grains, meats, dairies, seeds, nuts, bolts, and everything from my diet. I will survive solely on vitamins and water.

---

There's a product to make that diet even easier for you:http://iheartgiveaways.com/wp-conten...amin-water.jpg

and yeah isn't all food that's not pure poison ok for you in moderation, where the amount that "in moderation" means varies depending on the food type?

I don't have a lot of personal experience with the Paleo Diet, or, for that matter, diets in general, beyond the ones my parents and sister have tried or looked at. That said, I do have some fairly strongly held opinions on the Paleo Diet, and I'll share them, and how I reached them, here.

My first encounter with the diet was pretty much a non-event, noticing the Paleo Diet Cookbook in our bookstore, which I saw while walking by. I heard it mentioned a few places, but never paid it any mind.

I first paid attention to the diet when my parents read an article in their Food Network Magazine about a study performed by US News and a panel of nutritionalists/health experts. In which, of the 29 diets rated, the Paleo Diet is tied for last place, scoring abysmally in every category.

I then took a look at the cookbook out of bemused interest, and very quickly came to a similar conclusion. It is easily one of the worst diets I've ever seen. Following its rules will, quite literally, kill you.


See, the Paleo Diet advertises itself as getting you back to "eating what our cavemen ancestors ate". However, the rules it gives you for doing this cut out a very important dietary supplement that the cavemen had access to. One which, in fact, you cannot live without. I'm speaking, of course, of salt.

In every cookbook or diet guide for the Paleo Diet which I have seen, salt is eschewed. It will tell you no processed foods, yes, but it also tells you no foods containing salt at all, and no salt supplements of any sort. If it has salt, you aren't allowed to eat it.

There is no culture, from any time frame, which followed this rule. In fact, there is no land dwelling animal species which followed this rule. While cooking or eating with salt may not be the norm, there's a reason why the term Salt Lick exists. Salt has been a dietary supplement since before mankind existed. You cannot live without it. The average adult needs approximately 500 milligrams a day, or you die (your nervous system probably needs it the most, but several of your organs use it as well, in addition to simple fluid maintenance throughout your body). Interestingly enough, the theoretical dietary salt of Paleolithic man was about 770 milligrams (excluding any supplements); high enough to survive, and higher than the diet's guides, but still far lower than any expert will tell you is a safe salt dosage.

But let's ignore the "absolutely no salt" part of it and just say it's limiting salt: There's still no evidence supporting it. Search for the studies if you want (there was one wide scale one done as recently as May of this year indicating that very low sodium intake can cause increased health problems), or simply doctoral opinions.

There is almost no medical reason, of any sort, to cut salt. A healthy human body, of any age, can process salt even with wide changes in the dietary intake. Remember all those experiments you did in science class with osmosis and semi-permeable membranes? Yeah, guess what, your body is full of plenty of such membranes, and tons of water, a combination which makes processing salt simple (though you do have to watch your water intake).

Its horrible treatment of salt is only one aspect, though. In pretty much any review of the diet by health experts I've seen, it's also been called out for cutting entire food groups, some of which are the only (or only easily affordable) source of other essential nutrients: No dairy? No calcium, vitamin D, magnesium or phosphorus. No grains? No fiber, few antioxidants, and again, some lost vitamins.

While we're at it, let's not forget that the diet itself is completely theoretical. The "caveman" diet it talks of is all supposition, with no proof to it. And the various health benefits it espouses (because all the problems we have now are supposedly based on our new diets) are even more tenuous. How does anyone know whether there were obese cavemen? Or cavemen with heart disease? Saying that these (and other) medical conditions were caused by the civilized diet and not anything else (such as simply living longer, or changes in exercise patterns) is not only completely unproven, but it has no scientific backing whatsoever.

There's also no strictures on the meat you can eat. Meat's good, go ahead and have it. Of course, that particular cut, with the nice marbling that will cook up deliciously is just full of saturated fats, but the diet doesn't care about that.


If you want to cut out processed foods, fine. But cutting out entire food groups, or eliminating the majority of what let us become a civilization in the first place is not the way to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Just keep the really bad stuff to a once in a while thing and try to stay below 100g of carbs a day and straying from paleo isn't really a problem unless you have health issues with a specific food.

---

A few coworkers and I tried to stay below 35 (I don't know where the number came from) and it was much harder than I thought it would be. I lost 15 pounds in a week and a half, so I quit. I was already only 175ish pounds and then I dropped down to 160 and I just didn't like how skinny I ended up looking.

long story short diets work

I'm not really following this diet strictly or anything. More of cutting out pastas and breads. I'm trying to just eat veggies and fruit more. I just stumbled upon it as I was looking things up and was interested in it. From what some are saying it doesn't seem like the best diet to adhere to strictly. General principle of it though seems fine, less bread and pasta and more fruits and veggies! I can do that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

long ass postI don't have a lot of personal experience with the Paleo Diet, or, for that matter, diets in general, beyond the ones my parents and sister have tried or looked at. That said, I do have some fairly strongly held opinions on the Paleo Diet, and I'll share them, and how I reached them, here.

My first encounter with the diet was pretty much a non-event, noticing the Paleo Diet Cookbook in our bookstore, which I saw while walking by. I heard it mentioned a few places, but never paid it any mind.

I first paid attention to the diet when my parents read an article in their Food Network Magazine about a study performed by US News and a panel of nutritionalists/health experts. In which, of the 29 diets rated, the Paleo Diet is tied for last place, scoring abysmally in every category.

I then took a look at the cookbook out of bemused interest, and very quickly came to a similar conclusion. It is easily one of the worst diets I've ever seen. Following its rules will, quite literally, kill you.


See, the Paleo Diet advertises itself as getting you back to "eating what our cavemen ancestors ate". However, the rules it gives you for doing this cut out a very important dietary supplement that the cavemen had access to. One which, in fact, you cannot live without. I'm speaking, of course, of salt.

In every cookbook or diet guide for the Paleo Diet which I have seen, salt is eschewed. It will tell you no processed foods, yes, but it also tells you no foods containing salt at all, and no salt supplements of any sort. If it has salt, you aren't allowed to eat it.

There is no culture, from any time frame, which followed this rule. In fact, there is no land dwelling animal species which followed this rule. While cooking or eating with salt may not be the norm, there's a reason why the term Salt Lick exists. Salt has been a dietary supplement since before mankind existed. You cannot live without it. The average adult needs approximately 500 milligrams a day, or you die (your nervous system probably needs it the most, but several of your organs use it as well, in addition to simple fluid maintenance throughout your body). Interestingly enough, the theoretical dietary salt of Paleolithic man was about 770 milligrams (excluding any supplements); high enough to survive, and higher than the diet's guides, but still far lower than any expert will tell you is a safe salt dosage.

But let's ignore the "absolutely no salt" part of it and just say it's limiting salt: There's still no evidence supporting it. Search for the studies if you want (there was one wide scale one done as recently as May of this year indicating that very low sodium intake can cause increased health problems), or simply doctoral opinions.

There is almost no medical reason, of any sort, to cut salt. A healthy human body, of any age, can process salt even with wide changes in the dietary intake. Remember all those experiments you did in science class with osmosis and semi-permeable membranes? Yeah, guess what, your body is full of plenty of such membranes, and tons of water, a combination which makes processing salt simple (though you do have to watch your water intake).

Its horrible treatment of salt is only one aspect, though. In pretty much any review of the diet by health experts I've seen, it's also been called out for cutting entire food groups, some of which are the only (or only easily affordable) source of other essential nutrients: No dairy? No calcium, vitamin D, magnesium or phosphorus. No grains? No fiber, few antioxidants, and again, some lost vitamins.

While we're at it, let's not forget that the diet itself is completely theoretical. The "caveman" diet it talks of is all supposition, with no proof to it. And the various health benefits it espouses (because all the problems we have now are supposedly based on our new diets) are even more tenuous. How does anyone know whether there were obese cavemen? Or cavemen with heart disease? Saying that these (and other) medical conditions were caused by the civilized diet and not anything else (such as simply living longer, or changes in exercise patterns) is not only completely unproven, but it has no scientific backing whatsoever.

There's also no strictures on the meat you can eat. Meat's good, go ahead and have it. Of course, that particular cut, with the nice marbling that will cook up deliciously is just full of saturated fats, but the diet doesn't care about that.


If you want to cut out processed foods, fine. But cutting out entire food groups, or eliminating the majority of what let us become a civilization in the first place is not the way to do it.

---

You can actually get the things you think the diet is cutting out from many fruits, leafy greens, and nuts. I'm pretty sure fruits and veggies are actually a better source for antioxidants than grains anyway. Aside from the salt, I'm not sure you're actually missing much of anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

long ass postI don't have a lot of personal experience with the Paleo Diet, or, for that matter, diets in general, beyond the ones my parents and sister have tried or looked at. That said, I do have some fairly strongly held opinions on the Paleo Diet, and I'll share them, and how I reached them, here.

My first encounter with the diet was pretty much a non-event, noticing the Paleo Diet Cookbook in our bookstore, which I saw while walking by. I heard it mentioned a few places, but never paid it any mind.

I first paid attention to the diet when my parents read an article in their Food Network Magazine about a study performed by US News and a panel of nutritionalists/health experts. In which, of the 29 diets rated, the Paleo Diet is tied for last place, scoring abysmally in every category.

I then took a look at the cookbook out of bemused interest, and very quickly came to a similar conclusion. It is easily one of the worst diets I've ever seen. Following its rules will, quite literally, kill you.


See, the Paleo Diet advertises itself as getting you back to "eating what our cavemen ancestors ate". However, the rules it gives you for doing this cut out a very important dietary supplement that the cavemen had access to. One which, in fact, you cannot live without. I'm speaking, of course, of salt.

In every cookbook or diet guide for the Paleo Diet which I have seen, salt is eschewed. It will tell you no processed foods, yes, but it also tells you no foods containing salt at all, and no salt supplements of any sort. If it has salt, you aren't allowed to eat it.

There is no culture, from any time frame, which followed this rule. In fact, there is no land dwelling animal species which followed this rule. While cooking or eating with salt may not be the norm, there's a reason why the term Salt Lick exists. Salt has been a dietary supplement since before mankind existed. You cannot live without it. The average adult needs approximately 500 milligrams a day, or you die (your nervous system probably needs it the most, but several of your organs use it as well, in addition to simple fluid maintenance throughout your body). Interestingly enough, the theoretical dietary salt of Paleolithic man was about 770 milligrams (excluding any supplements); high enough to survive, and higher than the diet's guides, but still far lower than any expert will tell you is a safe salt dosage.

But let's ignore the "absolutely no salt" part of it and just say it's limiting salt: There's still no evidence supporting it. Search for the studies if you want (there was one wide scale one done as recently as May of this year indicating that very low sodium intake can cause increased health problems), or simply doctoral opinions.

There is almost no medical reason, of any sort, to cut salt. A healthy human body, of any age, can process salt even with wide changes in the dietary intake. Remember all those experiments you did in science class with osmosis and semi-permeable membranes? Yeah, guess what, your body is full of plenty of such membranes, and tons of water, a combination which makes processing salt simple (though you do have to watch your water intake).

Its horrible treatment of salt is only one aspect, though. In pretty much any review of the diet by health experts I've seen, it's also been called out for cutting entire food groups, some of which are the only (or only easily affordable) source of other essential nutrients: No dairy? No calcium, vitamin D, magnesium or phosphorus. No grains? No fiber, few antioxidants, and again, some lost vitamins.

While we're at it, let's not forget that the diet itself is completely theoretical. The "caveman" diet it talks of is all supposition, with no proof to it. And the various health benefits it espouses (because all the problems we have now are supposedly based on our new diets) are even more tenuous. How does anyone know whether there were obese cavemen? Or cavemen with heart disease? Saying that these (and other) medical conditions were caused by the civilized diet and not anything else (such as simply living longer, or changes in exercise patterns) is not only completely unproven, but it has no scientific backing whatsoever.

There's also no strictures on the meat you can eat. Meat's good, go ahead and have it. Of course, that particular cut, with the nice marbling that will cook up deliciously is just full of saturated fats, but the diet doesn't care about that.


If you want to cut out processed foods, fine. But cutting out entire food groups, or eliminating the majority of what let us become a civilization in the first place is not the way to do it.

---

You can actually get the things you think the diet is cutting out from many fruits, leafy greens, and nuts. I'm pretty sure fruits and veggies are actually a better source for antioxidants than grains anyway. Aside from the salt, I'm not sure you're actually missing much of anything.

---

Unfortunately, I am not the primary source of pretty much any of the information in the article (aside from the salt notice, which was based on my personal studies of the diet's regulations). You might be surprised how easy it is to find information from various health experts, doctors, nutritionalists, etcetera who speak ill of the diet. Those reasons were not my own, and I also left out the way the diet cuts beans and legumes, and that doing so will also cut out several of those same nutrients (and an excellent protein source), thus removing another efficient source for those nutrients.

The basics of the diet, "More of cutting out pastas and breads. I'm trying to just eat veggies and fruit more" as Freya so elegantly put it, are perfectly acceptable. But there are tons of diets which argue along similar lines, and don't include many, if any, of the problems that I've seen raised about the Paleo Diet. Check out the US News study I linked. There are several diets there that follow similar rules, but which rate higher in nearly every category, from healthiness to efficiency at taking off weight.

It is not hard, at all to find problems with the diet. It has critics everywhere, and not a lot of evidence of any sort backing it up.

Oh, and even its premise has been debunked. It argues for a return of the Paleo diet which existed before agriculture arose, approximately 10,000 years ago, hence its cutting of farm based foods. But Humans have been eating grains far longer than that.

The diet is based on a flawed premise and supported with wild supposition. There are safer, healthier, and easier to follow diets that also seem to work better.

If it works for you, in whatever modified version of it you follow, great. Power to you. But if you're looking for a diet to start, I'm going to advise you to go elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

long ass postI don't have a lot of personal experience with the Paleo Diet, or, for that matter, diets in general, beyond the ones my parents and sister have tried or looked at. That said, I do have some fairly strongly held opinions on the Paleo Diet, and I'll share them, and how I reached them, here.

My first encounter with the diet was pretty much a non-event, noticing the Paleo Diet Cookbook in our bookstore, which I saw while walking by. I heard it mentioned a few places, but never paid it any mind.

I first paid attention to the diet when my parents read an article in their Food Network Magazine about a study performed by US News and a panel of nutritionalists/health experts. In which, of the 29 diets rated, the Paleo Diet is tied for last place, scoring abysmally in every category.

I then took a look at the cookbook out of bemused interest, and very quickly came to a similar conclusion. It is easily one of the worst diets I've ever seen. Following its rules will, quite literally, kill you.


See, the Paleo Diet advertises itself as getting you back to "eating what our cavemen ancestors ate". However, the rules it gives you for doing this cut out a very important dietary supplement that the cavemen had access to. One which, in fact, you cannot live without. I'm speaking, of course, of salt.

In every cookbook or diet guide for the Paleo Diet which I have seen, salt is eschewed. It will tell you no processed foods, yes, but it also tells you no foods containing salt at all, and no salt supplements of any sort. If it has salt, you aren't allowed to eat it.

There is no culture, from any time frame, which followed this rule. In fact, there is no land dwelling animal species which followed this rule. While cooking or eating with salt may not be the norm, there's a reason why the term Salt Lick exists. Salt has been a dietary supplement since before mankind existed. You cannot live without it. The average adult needs approximately 500 milligrams a day, or you die (your nervous system probably needs it the most, but several of your organs use it as well, in addition to simple fluid maintenance throughout your body). Interestingly enough, the theoretical dietary salt of Paleolithic man was about 770 milligrams (excluding any supplements); high enough to survive, and higher than the diet's guides, but still far lower than any expert will tell you is a safe salt dosage.

But let's ignore the "absolutely no salt" part of it and just say it's limiting salt: There's still no evidence supporting it. Search for the studies if you want (there was one wide scale one done as recently as May of this year indicating that very low sodium intake can cause increased health problems), or simply doctoral opinions.

There is almost no medical reason, of any sort, to cut salt. A healthy human body, of any age, can process salt even with wide changes in the dietary intake. Remember all those experiments you did in science class with osmosis and semi-permeable membranes? Yeah, guess what, your body is full of plenty of such membranes, and tons of water, a combination which makes processing salt simple (though you do have to watch your water intake).

Its horrible treatment of salt is only one aspect, though. In pretty much any review of the diet by health experts I've seen, it's also been called out for cutting entire food groups, some of which are the only (or only easily affordable) source of other essential nutrients: No dairy? No calcium, vitamin D, magnesium or phosphorus. No grains? No fiber, few antioxidants, and again, some lost vitamins.

While we're at it, let's not forget that the diet itself is completely theoretical. The "caveman" diet it talks of is all supposition, with no proof to it. And the various health benefits it espouses (because all the problems we have now are supposedly based on our new diets) are even more tenuous. How does anyone know whether there were obese cavemen? Or cavemen with heart disease? Saying that these (and other) medical conditions were caused by the civilized diet and not anything else (such as simply living longer, or changes in exercise patterns) is not only completely unproven, but it has no scientific backing whatsoever.

There's also no strictures on the meat you can eat. Meat's good, go ahead and have it. Of course, that particular cut, with the nice marbling that will cook up deliciously is just full of saturated fats, but the diet doesn't care about that.


If you want to cut out processed foods, fine. But cutting out entire food groups, or eliminating the majority of what let us become a civilization in the first place is not the way to do it.

---

You can actually get the things you think the diet is cutting out from many fruits, leafy greens, and nuts. I'm pretty sure fruits and veggies are actually a better source for antioxidants than grains anyway. Aside from the salt, I'm not sure you're actually missing much of anything.

---

Unfortunately, I am not the primary source of pretty much any of the information in the article (aside from the salt notice, which was based on my personal studies of the diet's regulations). You might be surprised how easy it is to find information from various health experts, doctors, nutritionalists, etcetera who speak ill of the diet. Those reasons were not my own, and I also left out the way the diet cuts beans and legumes, and that doing so will also cut out several of those same nutrients (and an excellent protein source), thus removing another efficient source for those nutrients.

The basics of the diet, "More of cutting out pastas and breads. I'm trying to just eat veggies and fruit more" as Freya so elegantly put it, are perfectly acceptable. But there are tons of diets which argue along similar lines, and don't include many, if any, of the problems that I've seen raised about the Paleo Diet. Check out the US News study I linked. There are several diets there that follow similar rules, but which rate higher in nearly every category, from healthiness to efficiency at taking off weight.

It is not hard, at all to find problems with the diet. It has critics everywhere, and not a lot of evidence of any sort backing it up.

Oh, and even its premise has been debunked. It argues for a return of the Paleo diet which existed before agriculture arose, approximately 10,000 years ago, hence its cutting of farm based foods. But Humans have been eating grains far longer than that.

The diet is based on a flawed premise and supported with wild supposition. There are safer, healthier, and easier to follow diets that also seem to work better.

If it works for you, in whatever modified version of it you follow, great. Power to you. But if you're looking for a diet to start, I'm going to advise you to go elsewhere.

---

I'm not on that diet and I'm not even really a proponent of it, I'm just saying the stuff you posted wasn't necessarily true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skyblade

. Those reasons were not my own, and I also left out the way the diet cuts beans and legumes, and that doing so will also cut out several of those same nutrients (and an excellent protein source), thus removing another efficient source for those nutrients.

---

Anti-nutrients:
Amylase inhibitors prevent the action of enzymes that break the glycosidic bonds of starches and other complex carbohydrates, preventing the release of simple sugars and absorption by the body. Amylase inhibitors, like lipase inhibitors, have been used as a diet aide and obesity treatment. Amylase inhibitors are present in many types of beans; commercially available amylase inhibitors are extracted from white kidney beans.^[4]


Phytic acid has a strong binding affinity to minerals such as calcium, magnesium, iron, copper, and zinc. This results in precipitation, making the minerals unavailable for absorption in the intestines.^[5][6] Phytic acids are common in the hulls of nuts, seeds and grains.


Some proteins can also be antinutrients, such as the trypsin inhibitors and lectins found in legumes.^[9] These enzyme inhibitors interfere with digestion.


Just a simple wiki search but you can find articles if you feel like it;)


But from what I've read the antinutrients in legumes can be mostly neutralized by cooking them (you'll see the cooking times on the packages I believe it's the same amount of time needed neutralize them). Then the anti nutrients in flour and nuts can be neutralized by soaking them.


Simplest way of doing a diet is eating all natural foods as much as you can, cut out sugar loaded foods , artificial colours/flavours, modified oils, etc.

Hey look, comma and Spuuky are being aggressively contradictory. smurf me. You two must be a joy to hang out with, I tell ye.