Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paleobird's Next Big Adventure

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Crabbcakes View Post
    Ah. So I gather they will be like a November snow here - lotsa flakes that are soon gone...
    Sorta like a granola bar. Fruits, nuts, and flakes.

    Originally posted by Sabine View Post
    I can only hope that they read the book, and don't glom onto some of the ...more peculiar...threads we have going. How many do you suppose will come to equate primal with potatoes?
    You mean that gummy bears and Coke aren't Primal?

    Originally posted by Owly View Post
    Oh man, sometimes people glom onto all sorts of weird crap. They try to do low fat, they panic over eating a bite of their kid's pear, they latch onto the cold thermogenesis thing...the wave of "Help! Why isn't it working?!" threads begins and you realize that people are eating half a pound of butter a day and wondering why they're not losing or they're trying to subsist on three lettuce leaves and a chicken breast daily.

    Some people come in January, do well, and see success. But it's a crazy time of year.
    Yep people take things to extremes instead of Just. Reading. The. Damn. Book.

    The threads lately that have been bugging me go like this:

    1) I tried VLC and it sucked. I didn't lose any weight.
    2) Granted I did cheat a bit <a bunch> and binge once in a while<all the time>.
    3) I also was eating a gazillion calories a day of fat.
    4) So, since I didn't lose weight, VLC officially sucks.

    And then everybody else piles on with the same rumors and outright nonsense about VLC making your hair fall out and your penis drop dead.

    No, VLC is not right for everyone and some people really do much better with more carbs but it never made anyone's hair fall out. If someone already had a thyroid condition, it could make the symptoms worse but it would not be the root cause. Most of the cases of falling hair etc. are from people taking things to those extremes in terms of sheer malnutrition , lack of adequate calories and/or specific nutrients missing (like when you are living on all butter). Also there are some cases of toxicity caused by overcompensating for not eating real food by scarfing down handfuls of supplements.

    But how many newbies have now been convinced of the "perils" of reducing their carbs? I agree that being afraid to take a bite of fruit is not good but this kind of fear mongering is not good either.

    Eat real food and read the flipping book already.

    Comment


    • for real, that is annoying.

      I'd still like to figure out the protein question though -- where this .7-1g per lean muscle mass came from. I can't find the original source anywhere, though LOTS of people quoting it. Is it in the book (i gave my copy away)?

      Otherwise, we are heading down another rabbit hole in the aging prematurely thread where everyone's going to the RDA amounts (which is .8 g per kilogram, i think), wherein people might get the dizzies. hmm.

      Anyway, calorie counting is so important, too. I've been fine, but my recent lack of exercise and stress eating of dairy, has not been good for my waistline. Happy with the 58 kgs at the doctor's office, but the waist (and I'm near menses too, which doesn't help) is up at 27.

      Oh, and while talking to MIL, she managed to slip in that both DH and I are looking 'fat' -- which is ridiculous but also doesn't help when I'm feeling bloaty as well as bitchy. LOL

      Comment


      • Originally posted by zoebird View Post
        for real, that is annoying.

        I'd still like to figure out the protein question though -- where this .7-1g per lean muscle mass came from. I can't find the original source anywhere, though LOTS of people quoting it. Is it in the book (i gave my copy away)?

        Otherwise, we are heading down another rabbit hole in the aging prematurely thread where everyone's going to the RDA amounts (which is .8 g per kilogram, i think), wherein people might get the dizzies. hmm.

        Anyway, calorie counting is so important, too. I've been fine, but my recent lack of exercise and stress eating of dairy, has not been good for my waistline. Happy with the 58 kgs at the doctor's office, but the waist (and I'm near menses too, which doesn't help) is up at 27.

        Oh, and while talking to MIL, she managed to slip in that both DH and I are looking 'fat' -- which is ridiculous but also doesn't help when I'm feeling bloaty as well as bitchy. LOL
        Yep, the .7/lb lean muscle mass is Mark. It seems like as sensible a place to start as any. He says .7 for "normal" folks and up to 1 for heavy duty athletes.

        And don't let MIL get under your skin. She will be gone soon and you will still be fit and gorgeous.

        Comment


        • Well, I wouldn't think, though, that Mark would just pull a number out of the hat. Apparently the RDA stuff has studies behind it, I can't find the study or logic behind Mark's per se -- whereas everything else is heavily researched. That's what I was looking for, anyway.

          I'm usually around .8-.9 myself. Works out great, really. And I'm not prematurely aging.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post

            You mean that gummy bears and Coke aren't Primal?
            Heehee. There was one lady, can't remember who, who assured all that HER gummy bears were on plan, 'cause they were made with 'natural sugars' and fruit juice. Umm, okay.

            Comment


            • Oh, PB, I agree, that's why I also mentioned the half-pound of butter for the people who think that they can just eat unlimited quantities of fat and be fine, and the chicken breast and lettuce for the people who want to do low carb but can't get over the fear of fat so they try to subsist on lean protein and greens.

              I really wish that people didn't skip over the calories part of the book and that the idea of "eat all you want!" was not so prevalent. The thing I think is best is for people to first switch to eating basic primal foods (no bulletproof coffees, no rice, etc.) and then track their intake while not trying to control macros or anything. This would allow people to adapt to the basics and give them an idea of what their natural inclinations were like and what, for example, a sweet potato with a tablespoon of butter looks like in terms of fat/carbs/calories. Once they get that down and see how that affects them, then it's time to tinker with calorie counts and macros, and if necessary, to try out some of the variants on primal (VLC, IF, increasing starches, whatever).

              But really, until you learn the basics and understand your eating, I don't know how you can decide what to try next. People really seem to have no idea what they're taking in--they'll list their food and then add, "oh, you know, I didn't mention the mango after dinner, the two handfuls of nuts, the bulletproof coffee..." (I swear that stuff gets more people into trouble). How do you make food decisions if you don't understand your food?
              “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

              Owly's Journal

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sabine View Post
                Heehee. There was one lady, can't remember who, who assured all that HER gummy bears were on plan, 'cause they were made with 'natural sugars' and fruit juice. Umm, okay.
                Genius! Does that mean it's okay to put three tablespoons of honey in my coffee?
                “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

                Owly's Journal

                Comment


                • Originally posted by zoebird View Post
                  Well, I wouldn't think, though, that Mark would just pull a number out of the hat. Apparently the RDA stuff has studies behind it, I can't find the study or logic behind Mark's per se -- whereas everything else is heavily researched. That's what I was looking for, anyway.

                  I'm usually around .8-.9 myself. Works out great, really. And I'm not prematurely aging.
                  Well, you can find a reputable study to support just about any level you choose and a guru with THE foolproof plan. I think , as we have been saying, you need to find what works for you.

                  The person who seems to be making the most sense to me these days is Ron Rosedale. I think he really deserves some serious props for having been fighting against the "fat makes you fat and cholesterol is the devil" dietary guidelines for decades, way before there even was an ancestral health movement.

                  Originally posted by Sabine View Post
                  Heehee. There was one lady, can't remember who, who assured all that HER gummy bears were on plan, 'cause they were made with 'natural sugars' and fruit juice. Umm, okay.
                  Yes, and that person only drinks MEXICAN Coke because it is made with regular cane sugar and not HFCS. Well I guess that makes it ok then We roll our collective emoticon eyes at stuff like this but how confused would a newcomer be?

                  Originally posted by Owly View Post
                  Oh, PB, I agree, that's why I also mentioned the half-pound of butter for the people who think that they can just eat unlimited quantities of fat and be fine, and the chicken breast and lettuce for the people who want to do low carb but can't get over the fear of fat so they try to subsist on lean protein and greens.

                  I really wish that people didn't skip over the calories part of the book and that the idea of "eat all you want!" was not so prevalent. The thing I think is best is for people to first switch to eating basic primal foods (no bulletproof coffees, no rice, etc.) and then track their intake while not trying to control macros or anything. This would allow people to adapt to the basics and give them an idea of what their natural inclinations were like and what, for example, a sweet potato with a tablespoon of butter looks like in terms of fat/carbs/calories. Once they get that down and see how that affects them, then it's time to tinker with calorie counts and macros, and if necessary, to try out some of the variants on primal (VLC, IF, increasing starches, whatever).

                  But really, until you learn the basics and understand your eating, I don't know how you can decide what to try next. People really seem to have no idea what they're taking in--they'll list their food and then add, "oh, you know, I didn't mention the mango after dinner, the two handfuls of nuts, the bulletproof coffee..." (I swear that stuff gets more people into trouble). How do you make food decisions if you don't understand your food?
                  Ya. I think a lot of people stopped reading when they got to the word "bacon". The calorie tracking part is not till chapter eight. They had put down the book and gone to the kitchen to fry up a pound of bacon humming, "Happy Day Are Here Again" and never got back around to reading the rest.

                  Originally posted by Owly View Post
                  Genius! Does that mean it's okay to put three tablespoons of honey in my coffee?
                  Yes. And you are supposed to sweeten your milk and OJ too. But you have to be sure the OJ is the no pulp kind or strain it yourself because fiber is dangerous. Reading Ray Peat is like taking a trip through the looking glass.

                  The Peat Bog folks chug sugary drinks, tons of caffeine, and salt by the spoonful and then sit around measuring their high BP and pulses and see that as a sign of good health, they have a "high" metabolism. No, they have an artificially raised BP and heart rate. Not the same thing.

                  Sigh.

                  Comment


                  • That's insane.

                    Of course, I think a lot of the alternative health woo that floats around these boards is insane. The Peat stuff is certainly not the first bit of guru-woo-weirdness that people have latched onto around here (the Kruse-ites come to mind).
                    “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

                    Owly's Journal

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Owly View Post
                      That's insane.

                      Of course, I think a lot of the alternative health woo that floats around these boards is insane. The Peat stuff is certainly not the first bit of guru-woo-weirdness that people have latched onto around here (the Kruse-ites come to mind).
                      Not to mention the Brownstien iodine chuggers.

                      Comment


                      • Or (and this may offend some but whatever) almost anything endorsed by Mercola.
                        “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

                        Owly's Journal

                        Comment


                        • Re: protein intake. I read an interesting article at the Human Food Project, here ---> Do spider monkeys hold the key to why we get fat?. Here's a significant paragraph in that article:

                          "However, the detailed dietary studies in the Bolivian rainforest found that across all age groups and sexes, spider monkeys aim for a target amount of protein, regardless of how few or many calories from carbohydrates and fats they consumed in the process. In other words, the daily protein intake remained remarkably stable throughout the study period, but the overall calories from carbohydrates and fats fluctuated significantly."

                          They call this the protein leverage hypothesis, and studies have found that the results from spider monkeys have been found in studies done with pigs, rodents, bird, and fish--and humans.

                          And then this, from the same article:

                          "Average protein consumption in the U.S. hovers around 15% of total energy consumed. The National Institute of Medicine – whose reports heavily influence the USDA’s dietary guidelines for Americans – suggests a range of 10-35% for protein as a percentage of energy intake. At 15%, the average American is on the low end. Analysis of modern-day and historical hunter gatherer groups around the world suggest a protein intake on the upper limits of that suggested by the lab coats over at the National Institute of Medicine."

                          When I eat WHEN, paleo+limited dairy, I average around 30% protein grams. This is almost exactly what I weigh in pounds, one gram of protein per pound of total body weight. Eating this way, I have plenty of energy and easily maintain my desired weight without cravings (and my carbs are between 50 and 100g/day). This is certainly more protein than recommended by the USDA, and is the upper end of what the NIM recommends. Granted, I'm pretty active and Lift very Heavy Things (for my size, I'm small), several times a week.

                          We're all n=1, though, and I agree that careful nutrition tracking for a period of time (not always) is the sure way to help anyone figure out what works best for them.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Owly View Post
                            Or (and this may offend some but whatever) almost anything endorsed by Mercola.
                            Mercola's show, at one time, used to have some pretty decent content but then it basically devolved into an infomercial for the latest miracle supplement du jour.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Goldie View Post
                              Re: protein intake. I read an interesting article at the Human Food Project, here ---> Do spider monkeys hold the key to why we get fat?. Here's a significant paragraph in that article:

                              "However, the detailed dietary studies in the Bolivian rainforest found that across all age groups and sexes, spider monkeys aim for a target amount of protein, regardless of how few or many calories from carbohydrates and fats they consumed in the process. In other words, the daily protein intake remained remarkably stable throughout the study period, but the overall calories from carbohydrates and fats fluctuated significantly."

                              They call this the protein leverage hypothesis, and studies have found that the results from spider monkeys have been found in studies done with pigs, rodents, bird, and fish--and humans.

                              And then this, from the same article:

                              "Average protein consumption in the U.S. hovers around 15% of total energy consumed. The National Institute of Medicine – whose reports heavily influence the USDA’s dietary guidelines for Americans – suggests a range of 10-35% for protein as a percentage of energy intake. At 15%, the average American is on the low end. Analysis of modern-day and historical hunter gatherer groups around the world suggest a protein intake on the upper limits of that suggested by the lab coats over at the National Institute of Medicine."

                              When I eat WHEN, paleo+limited dairy, I average around 30% protein grams. This is almost exactly what I weigh in pounds, one gram of protein per pound of total body weight. Eating this way, I have plenty of energy and easily maintain my desired weight without cravings (and my carbs are between 50 and 100g/day). This is certainly more protein than recommended by the USDA, and is the upper end of what the NIM recommends. Granted, I'm pretty active and Lift very Heavy Things (for my size, I'm small), several times a week.

                              We're all n=1, though, and I agree that careful nutrition tracking for a period of time (not always) is the sure way to help anyone figure out what works best for them.
                              I think the lack of protein in the SAD is why a lot of people see initial good results just by switching to Primal.

                              Your smaller size and heavier lifting do make a difference in the amount you need as a percentage. I am a larger person who doesn't lift so heavy so I need less.

                              But I think that is an interesting hypothesis about focusing on the protein first as an absolute number and then fitting carb and fat in around the edges and the percentages of those two really don't matter that much. That was basically the conclusion we collectively came to on my monster calorie counting threads.

                              Comment


                              • I agree that i have to find what works for me, but i'm curious as to the science behind what certain numbers are and where they come from.

                                The spider monkey article is an interesting movement in that direction. I also dug up one of mark's blogs that talked about the same organization doing the study.

                                Right now, about 25% of my diet is protein, and I don't feel anything is bad/wrong or what have you. But it's certainly not as low as the RDAs.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X