Paleo Diet!

[Slothy]

Grass fed beef from your parents? Marry me?

I can't even find it in grocery stores......everything is "grain fed" ~.~

There's a place around here that gets locally sourced grass fed beef. I think it's a fair bit easier to get here in Canada with our over abundance of land. I'd rather not have to buy it though.

[Flaming Ice]

Grass fed beef from your parents? Marry me?

I can't even find it in grocery stores......everything is "grain fed" ~.~

There's a place around here that gets locally sourced grass fed beef. I think it's a fair bit easier to get here in Canada with our over abundance of land. I'd rather not have to buy it though.

Yeah, free is great.


It was actually hard to get organic for a while too but superstore has an organic section Plus president's choice is getting more products out there too.

[Spuuky]

Other way around actually. You can't out train a troutty diet.

I basically don't agree with this. Yes, if your diet is sufficiently extreme in its badness, then sure, it matters (and I concede that many Americans apparently do have extremely bad diets but I guess I'm not discussing them here). But if you are within a normal dietary range of human consumption then exercising matters a lot more than cutting out potatoes or bread from your diet.

[Slothy]

Other way around actually. You can't out train a troutty diet.

I basically don't agree with this. Yes, if your diet is sufficiently extreme in its badness, then sure, it matters (and I concede that many Americans apparently do have extremely bad diets but I guess I'm not discussing them here). But if you are within a normal dietary range of human consumption then exercising matters a lot more than cutting out potatoes or bread from your diet.

If you're the type of person who struggles with gaining and losing weight then unless you're training at professional athlete levels you won't get very far without cutting crabs. Fat loss is literally about 90% diet. And that's to say nothing of the effects excess Carbuncle consumption has that you can't readily see in your waist line. You can exercise all you want and even be lucky enough to stay lean, but if you're eating 200-300g of crabs a day with much of that being bread, potatoes, etc. you're still at much higher risk of things like type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

[Freya]

Carbuncle consumption D: NOT THE CARBUNCLES

[Slothy]

smurf smart phones.

[noxious.sunshine]

He also said 200 - 300 gs of crabs XD

[comma]

You could start by reading the book Wheat Belly if you want some really good coverage of the topic. It's well argued, well sourced to literally hundreds of studies and a pretty damn enjoyable read to be honest.

I don't want to read a well-argued interpretation of research, I want to read research. If you can make a claim in a thread, you can post a link to research.

[Slothy]

You could start by reading the book Wheat Belly if you want some really good coverage of the topic. It's well argued, well sourced to literally hundreds of studies and a pretty damn enjoyable read to be honest.

I don't want to read a well-argued interpretation of research, I want to read research. If you can make a claim in a thread, you can post a link to research.

Yeah, I'm not going to try to track down research articles on my phone so I can post them for you. You want a list of research studies, hit up a library or book store and take a look at the long list of references used in Wheat Belly. Or you could spend two seconds on Google yourself. It's not that hard to find these studies, I'm just not going to bother when I'm stuck with nothing but my smartphone to do it.

[comma]

Okay, whenever you get the chance to back up your claims, feel free to post studies. You must have read some convincing stuff in order to say what you did, so I'm just curious what you read.

[comma]

This is a study I found that summarizes a lot of research (based on over 80 studies; see References) on low-carb/high-protein/high-fat diets like the paleo diet: https://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:3...diets-2003.pdf

Feasibility:

The US National Weight Control Registry, which compiles details of individuals who have lost more than 13 kg for a year or more, analysed the diets of 2681 members.10 They found that fewer than 1% of these successful people had followed a diet classified as ‘low carbohydrate’ (defined as 24% or less total daily kilojoules coming from carbohydrate) suggesting that this type of diet is not realistic for the achievement of longterm weight loss.

Efficacy in weight control:

those individuals consuming a diet with 55% of energy from carbohydrates, compared to those whose diets comprised zero to 30% energy contribution from carbohydrates, actually ate the same amount of food in terms of weight, however consumed less energy, more fibre, and less fat. Individuals consuming a greater percentage of carbohydrates ate more low-fat foods, unrefined grain products and fruits, and these adults were more likely to have a BMI less than 25 kg/m2. Such data suggests that a high-carbohydrate diet, which contains unrefined grains, cereals, and plenty of fibrous matter, is more nutritionally adequate than low carbohydrate diets and of a lower energy density, which may be important in weight control.

In regard to ketosis, which results from a high-fat diet:

elevation of blood uric acid levels is a well-recognised side effect of prolonged ketosis. Long-term effects of exposure of the body to elevated uric acid levels while on ketogenic diets have not been studied, but potential does exist for arthritic and renal complications due to long-term hyperuricaemia. Studies on a normal adult population using a ketogenic diet for weight loss for periods of a year or more (as described in the aforementioned paediatric group) have not been performed, though the documented side-effects may potentially pose a serious health risk to individuals.

Risk of deficiencies:

However, low-carbohydrate diets are at greater risk of being nutritionally inadequate as they enforce restriction of food choices. Typically, low-carbohydrate diets are low in fibre, thiamin, folate, vitamins A, E, and B6, calcium, magnesium, iron, and potassium. In the absence of supplemental multivitamins, there is a real risk of nutritional deficiencies occurring. Low-carbohydrate diets are also usually higher in saturated fat and cholesterol with protein mainly being derived from animal sources.

Heart disease:

A review of the effect of the use of isoenergetic ketogenic diets on blood lipids found that, overall, LDL-cholesterol and total cholesterol tended to be elevated while HDL-cholesterol levels were lowered. As LDL-cholesterol is considered a major contributor to the process of atherogenesis, then long-term use of low-carbohydrate diets, be it for weight reduction or weight maintenance, may have the potential to put an individual at greater risk of heart disease.

Fairly obvious about calcium:

Low-carbohydrate diets promote the restriction of dairy products, particularly milk and yoghurt, which are the main sources of calcium in the diet. As peak bone mass is an important factor in determining long-term fracture and osteoporosis risk, adoption of dieting practices that restrict calcium intake (particularly in those under the age of 30) have the potential to compromise the attainment of peak bone mass.

A little less obvious about calcium:

Low-carbohydrate diets have the potential to generate a sub-clinical chronic metabolic acidosis (via the presence of ketone bodies in blood) which can then promote calcium mobilisation from bone.

Cancer risk:

The potential link between increased intakes of meat (typically seen on low-carbohydrate diets) and bowel cancer risk can not be ignored as it has been suggested that the link between meat and the consumption of animal protein with cancer is as strong as the association of fat with cancer.

[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.

[comma]

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.

You wouldn't be the first: https://campaign.soylent.me/soylent-free-your-body

But really, that could go a long way in battling the food crisis if it turns out to be as good as they suggest.

[noxious.sunshine]

Omg. You guys are ridiculous sometimes.

I side with Vivs on this, personally.

Especially when it comes to the carb part. Not everyone can consume carbs and it be "healthy". My father has type 2 diabetes - he's supposed to stay on a low-carb low-sugar diet. Does he? Hell no. It's my dad. He ain't gon listen to nobody. And he's on his last legs, so he should be able to enjoy those things while he can.

Eating breads and pastas also make -me- feel sluggish and tired if I eat too much.

Because of my family history, I'm at risk for a lot of health problems including strokes & heart attacks, breast cancer (and I can almost guarantee that I will get it at some point), diabetes, and a plethora of other things.

So because of this, I -do- have to take into account what I eat and drink. Especially when it comes to carbs.

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.

[comma]

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.

So, you know, every little cause I mentioned up above is each one bad thing about that diet. Those things aren't likely going to change. What may happen is that a lot of good things get discovered about the same diet, or even the same facets above may show some good signs. Or even worse signs. It simply comes down to weighing the good against the bad, and making the best judgment call one can make given the currently available information. To say that the information will change in the future and can therefore be safely disregarded is ignorant and anti-science.

Oh, and honestly, if your dad has special dietary needs, he should listen to his personal nutritionist and not just adhere to some diet that's popular on the Internet.