Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Primal diet - Pros and Cons?

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

  • Originally posted by Zach View Post
    As for the evolutionary perspective. It seems pretty bunk to begin with. We live here and now, nothing at all like our ancestors from 100,000 years ago or even 10,000 years ago. If anything its our last two or three generations that would have the greatest impact on our health. Maybe our DNA is not muched changed but what about our gut microbes, our tastes, even our thoughts. We cant replacate paleo man and maybe it would not even be beneficial to try. There is plenty of evidence to show that as a species we are bigger, stronger, live longer and are smarter then our ancestors even of a few hundred years ago. Maybe it is the excess calories and availability to year round foods that is the driving factor?
    The problem with this statement is that we are not trying to reenact everything. Instead, what we do have is evidence that our bodies have not evolved much since the paleolithic era, and as such, the foods available during that era are healthiest for us.

    This food diversity is MASSIVE. Diets very from high carb to low carb depending upon what is available in the given location of the paleolithic peoples.

    And before anyone says it, yes there is a epidemic of disease, but im not talking about a diet of frankenfoods and seed oils but real foods, high in calories, fats, carbs and protein. Everyone here knows what im saying even if they want to scream bullshit and point to a SAD. (I hate that term, it implys that anyone not on a certain diet is eating horribly and has multiple diseases.)
    Personally, I do not consider refined, white/brown sugar to be a healthy, natural food. It is a highly processed, non-nutritious (but definitely caloric) food.

    I do consume it out of pleasure as part of living in the modern world and because it is a joy. I consider it a pleasure, but not a regular part of my diet. Similarly, paleo man would go to great lengths to get honey -- which was considered a sweet treat, an occasional joy (and people died getting it in the old fashioned way. I've watched some documentaries of traditional honey gathering. Truly fascinating!).

    I guess what im saying is that just because something isnt paleo or doesnt jive with how a person from that era would do things does not automatically mean it is unhealthy in the short or even long term (example, eating high amounts of sugar.). Context always matters.
    We know that eating high amounts of sugar (refined) do lead to health problems -- tooth decay is probably the most risky and obvious that I can think of.

    Loosing one's teeth is a big problem, and while we might say that we have methods of managing it in our modern world (brushing teeth, etc), the reality is that the low-sugar diets lead to much healthier teeth.

    Here, it's quite common for families to have a lot of sugar in their diets -- children receiving a lot of it. That being said, people also do a lot of very healthy foods because things are grown here really nicely (a lot are organic but not certified due to the expense/difficulty, pasture raised eggs/meats/dairy, etc. . .).

    My son, who gets very little sugar compared to other children, eating paleo and such, has far better teeth than most of his counterparts. Our dentist said that he was truly amazed at how healthy DS's teeth are at his age, as he is used to seeing other children his age with terrible teeth. While we know that genetics can play a part in this, the dentist asserted that it is the amount of sugar that most people eat these days -- even just unknowingly -- that is affecting their dental/oral health.

    My son has had zero cavities, but I know many children his age who have already had teeth removed and/or filled due to tooth decay. These are children who eat *mostly* healthy nutritious foods but do have sugar every day (white sugar/brown sugar).

    My son doesn't, and I think it makes a difference.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by zoebird View Post
      We know that eating high amounts of sugar (refined) do lead to health problems -- tooth decay is probably the most risky and obvious that I can think of.
      What makes you so sure it leads to health problems? Malnutrition causes tooth decay, not sugar. By mechanism, sugar, through increasing thyroid health would be protective of teeth.

      Your child probably consumes a much more nutritionally dense diet than most kids his age, simply because you likely cook meals for him instead of throwing hot pockets in the microwave. Has nothing to do with sugar, that's another myth that has been dispelled time and time again.
      Make America Great Again

      Comment


      • I know there is a Peat faction here (Best, Zach, and Derp), but I really don't think it takes all that many studies to say "hey maybe something that has to go through all this.....

        Sugarcane

        Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) is a perennial grass in the family Poaceae. It is cultivated in tropical and sub-tropical regions for the sucrose that is found in its stems. It requires a frost-free climate with sufficient rainfall during the growing season to make full use of the plant's great growth potential. The crop is harvested mechanically or by hand, chopped into lengths and conveyed rapidly to the processing plant. Here it is either milled and the juice extracted with water or the sugar is extracted by diffusion. The juice is then clarified with lime and heated to kill enzymes. The resulting thin syrup is concentrated in a series of evaporators after which further water is removed by evaporation in vacuum containers. The resulting supersaturated solution is seeded with sugar crystals and the sugar crystallizes out, is separated from the fluid and dried. Molasses is a by-product of the process and the fibre from the stems, known as bagasse, is burned to provide energy for the sugar extraction process. The crystals of raw sugar have a sticky brown coating and can either be used as they are or can be bleached by sulphur dioxide or treated in a carbonatation process to produce a whiter product.[40]

        Refining

        Cane sugar requires further processing to provide the free-flowing white table sugar required by the consumer. The sugar may be transported in bulk to the country where it will be used and the refining process often takes place there. The first stage is known as affination and involves immersing the sugar crystals in a concentrated syrup which softens and removes the sticky brown coating without dissolving them. The crystals are then separated from the liquor and dissolved in water. The resulting syrup is either treated by a carbonatation or a phosphatation process. Both involve the precipitation of a fine solid in the syrup and when this is filtered out, a lot of the impurities are removed at the same time. Removal of colour is achieved by either using a granular activated carbon or an ion-exchange resin. The sugar syrup is concentrated by boiling and then cooled and seeded with sugar crystals causing the sugar to crystallize out. The liquor is spun in a centrifuge and the white crystals are dried in hot air, ready to be packaged or used. The surplus liquor is made into refiners' molasses.[42] The International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis sets standards for the measurement of the purity of refined sugar, known as ICUMSA numbers; lower numbers indicate a higher level of purity in the refined sugar.[43]

        .....isn't something I should be eating." Basically kill and strip it of everything that made it a food in the first place.

        Seriously, if you just eat things that don't come in a box that nixes the sugar in a refined state. I remember when I first read Peat back when I thought hey this is the SCD! (specific carbohydrate diet). But, then I realized its not quite. SCD is still utilizing real food like honey and fruit whereas Peat is all hyped up about sucrose.
        Last edited by Neckhammer; 12-26-2012, 05:14 PM.

        Comment


        • Peat recommends fructose over sucrose, and considers sucrose medicinal and supplemental.

          It's not about the sum total of available nutrients, sugar does a lot more than that.
          Make America Great Again

          Comment


          • Originally posted by zoebird View Post
            You are confusing things.

            Paleo is an idea, and doesn't have individual agency to promote anything.

            Simple, the idea of paleo/primal *is* a wide-open system as described. It asserts: don't eat neolithic foods. That's it, really.

            Different groups within this broad idea, then, have their own take. Some are high fat. Some are low fat. Carbs balance based on this. That is all. Simple.

            It's human beings who are practicing paleo who have these ideas. These people might focus on more fat or less fat (and then the carbs balancing that depending upon which way they go). They might be more strict paleo (no dairy, no grains) or less strict paleo (some grains, but no gluten, and some dairy).

            But they are not -- no matter how large the group -- the idea of paleo. They are people who are applying the idea of paleo to the macronutrient profiles that they feel are appropriate for them, and advocate that to others.

            If you actually look at it broadly, you can see that this is so.

            And, in my case, basic -- and by that I mean very basic -- primal blueprint works really well. It is technically high fat the way that I do it (more than 40%), which technically makes me low carb, but I'm certainly not missing anything emotionally or healthy wise, etc.
            The whole point of this thread was that I was interested in honest, objective, overall perspectives on how Paleo was working for people. But what I am seeing is that when something is working for someone, they are more likely to tell others (who it's not working for) that they "don't understand" or are "doing it wrong".

            Repeating that Paleo is not low carb does not make it so. Why do so many people come to it thinking that it is low carb? (Other than us all being wrong, of course). And then when we have difficutlies, we're told to "eat more fat"? These are individual experiences.

            Anyway. I'm not saying this with animosity. I actually like and respect everyone on this forum and this is just splitting hairs. We're in agreement about the most important things - which is that refined food is bad.

            Pros and cons, anyone?!
            "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

            In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

            - Ray Peat

            Comment


            • Originally posted by YogaBare View Post
              The whole point of this thread was that I was interested in honest, objective, overall perspectives on how Paleo was working for people. But what I am seeing is that when something is working for someone, they are more likely to tell others (who it's not working for) that they "don't understand" or are "doing it wrong".

              Repeating that Paleo is not low carb does not make it so. Why do so many people come to it thinking that it is low carb? (Other than us all being wrong, of course). And then when we have difficutlies, we're told to "eat more fat"? These are individual experiences.

              Anyway. I'm not saying this with animosity. I actually like and respect everyone on this forum and this is just splitting hairs. We're in agreement about the most important things - which is that refined food is bad.

              Pros and cons, anyone?!
              I agree that it's refined food that should be avoided, its not the macro nutrient profile of the diet, its what works best for you that's most important. To me, my Paleo approach, is to eat organic, local, pastured, free range and wild as much as possible, I don't really care or pay attention anymore to my carb count. I just focus on cutting out processed food and any added chemicals, avoid transfats, HFC, soy and grains. Probably some people may add dairy to this list. To establish what works for you I suggest doing the Whole 30 program and then slowly add back foods that you want to experiment with and assess your bodies reaction, then adjust your diet accordingly.
              Last edited by canuck416; 12-26-2012, 08:38 PM.
              Recent Blog: http://www.peakperformanceradio.net/...y-john-saville

              https://www.facebook.com/PaleoJourne...?ref=bookmarks

              Comment


              • Originally posted by oxide View Post
                We are forgetting what a tiny minority we still are.

                Mark's post is written from the perspective of talking to a SAD. To a primal, those macros are regular eating. But to a SAD, 80 grams of carb IS low carb dogma, and 100 g of fat IS insisting on high-fat.

                Mark does say to do the math on calories. But IMO on a forum populated with young active men, that got kinda lost. Thankfully, we're figuring it out. The eat-all-you-want meme only works if you assume that eating fat makes you full enough fast enough that you don't want to eat more. I stress fast enough because we can eat faster than our stomach can send out a stop signal. The classic example is bulletproof coffee. 300 cals of liquid fat could be in your stomach before the stomach knows it.


                [rant]
                Paleobird, I'm still wary of using the phrase "whole natural foods," especially when talking to SADs. SADs still think that whole wheat is real and whole and natural. One could argue that wheat bread is less processed than ground beef. When someone asks me about Primal/paleo, the first thing I say is NO GRAINS.

                I'm also pretty wary of stuff like the Irish all-potato diet. I guess that's primal... but...
                [/rant]
                You can't really say it isn't a low carb diet. The whole schtick is about going from a "carb burner" to a "fat burning metabolism". Fat is heavily emphasized and his primary reasons for choosing certain fruits and vegetables is their carb content. 80g of carbs on marks scale IS very low carb if it's coming from vegetables and includes fibre, which the PB does count as carbs. Lets not forget the carb curve and the insidious weight gain that it will apparently lead to.That said, you don't have to follow this as perscribed like other diets call for. Some diets are pretty strict about things like completely excluding all animal products or else.

                Originally posted by BestBetter View Post
                Hmmm...this response seems hypocritical. One minute you're the queen of telling everybody to reduce protein, keep carbs low, and eat a huge percentage of calories from fat. When someone says this didn't work for them, you flip-flop and start pretending that no one ever said to eat high fat. Which is it?
                .
                The number of times I've seen peoples LCHF failings being blamed on "not enough fat/calories". Now apparently it's being blamed on too much fat.
                Originally posted by Sabine View Post
                I view the primal approach as about 'carbohydrate restriction', only in as much, as modern food consumption is no longer anywhere near a normal amount of carbohydrates. We have come to think that 300-400 grams of carbohydrate is normal, so sure, 50-150 sounds restrictive.

                I think 50-150 is probably the 'old normal'. That allows for a 'high-carbohydrate' diet, of 150-250 grams, that would still be healthier than what many people eat now as their 'normal' diet.

                Just like when the medical authorities changed the levels for what constitutes high cholesterol. Suddenly, millions more had 'a problem'. Um, no.

                Originally posted by namelesswonder View Post
                The problem you are going to encounter here is that a healthy SAD diet IS high carb (sugar) and low fat. Most if not all of the people here have had problems losing weight or some kind of health issue because of that kind of diet.

                As far as the "SAD high carb diet", it isn't particularly high carb/low fat. 50%c 15%p 35%f isn't particularly high carb or low fat. I would consider high carb to be like the fruitarians or Mcdougall followers who eat around 75c- 10p- 15f or 80-10-10. As far as the "old normal" before the government advice it was said to be 45% carbs, which is hardly much of a difference to todays 50% carb level. The "healthy SAD diet" which the government recommends isn't high in sugar at all. In fact sugar is up with oils in the "use sparingly" category.
                Last edited by Forgotmylastusername; 12-27-2012, 01:32 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Derpamix View Post
                  What makes you so sure it leads to health problems? Malnutrition causes tooth decay, not sugar. By mechanism, sugar, through increasing thyroid health would be protective of teeth.

                  Your child probably consumes a much more nutritionally dense diet than most kids his age, simply because you likely cook meals for him instead of throwing hot pockets in the microwave. Has nothing to do with sugar, that's another myth that has been dispelled time and time again.
                  You're making the same false claim that Zach is complaining about, now to support a high-sugar (refined) diet. That those kids have a problem due to SAD, not whatever is your 'du jour.'

                  Not so. I also qualified in my post that the children here are often NOT on SAD and eat a generally nutritious diet, but with far more sugar than DS gets. Likewise, most of the children in DS's school are fed variations of WAPF, and many families are entirely sugar-free, and as such also have fewer dental problems than their mainstream, but still healthfully fed, counterparts.

                  It is different here.

                  And here's a little quick description of the understanding of the connection between sugar and cavities.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by canuck416 View Post
                    I agree that it's refined food that should be avoided, its not the macro nutrient profile of the diet, its what works best for you that's most important. .
                    Many people on this forum get a significant portion of their calories from refined oils/fats.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by YogaBare View Post
                      The whole point of this thread was that I was interested in honest, objective, overall perspectives on how Paleo was working for people. But what I am seeing is that when something is working for someone, they are more likely to tell others (who it's not working for) that they "don't understand" or are "doing it wrong".
                      Again, people, not Paleo. Paleo is really hard to get "wrong."

                      Likewise, you are asking one forum of people who sit on one part of the paleo spectrum: the high fat, some neolithic foods allowed site. So if you ask this audience whether or not high fat is working, and then someone says no, then the rest of the people are going to say that, aren't they?

                      I mean, it just stands to reason.

                      Repeating that Paleo is not low carb does not make it so. Why do so many people come to it thinking that it is low carb? (Other than us all being wrong, of course). And then when we have difficutlies, we're told to "eat more fat"? These are individual experiences.
                      I'm not just repeating something to make it true. I'm stating what are facts about the Paleo movement.

                      First, some definitions (again). In order for a diet to be "high" anything, it's commonly understood to be above 40% of the calories from that macronutrient. So, "high fat" is 40% or greater calories from fat and "high carb" is 40% or greater calories from carb.

                      Next, we'll talk about the origins of the Paleo diet.

                      It started in 1975 with Voegtlin, who advocated a carnivorous diet. But then in 1988, you have Eaton, who promoted that the typical Paleolithic macronutrient profile, he asserts, contained 33% of cals from protein, 46% from carbohydrates and 21% from fat. (source). While Eaton's book was a book about Stone Age people's, it was not considered "paleo" as we understand it today because Eaton does not exclude neolithic foods.

                      And from Eaton, you have the inspiration that lead Cordain to write his books. Cordain is largely considered the "father" of Paleo because he eschews neolithic food sources. His macronutrient profiles, though, follow Eaton (source) who focused on protein and carbs, with fat taking up the remainder.

                      Shortly after Cordain, you have Lindburgh, who provided us with his Kitivan Study. This is clearly shows a Paleo diet that is high carb. It says that the foundation of the diet is starches, fruit, veggies, fish and coconut. While not advocating a diet per se, his research is what many paleo folks use to design their diets. These folks are still considered "paleo."

                      Following Cordain or Kitivan-styled diets, you end up with a high-carb, low fat Paleo diet. Thus, it is factual that a paleo diet can be -- and for many people is -- high carb.

                      On the other side of the spectrum, though, you have those like Mark who are in the high fat camp. Honestly, it *is* a spectrum, not an absolute, this is a low carb diet thing.

                      That being said, I think the reason that -- in general -- people think that paleo is "low carb" is because they misunderstand their own diets and what carbs are.

                      As I posted before (when I answered the original question), part of the con that I had in going paleo/primal is that most people didn't understand what I was doing. They would screech: "But you need carbs!" And what they meant was "but you need grains!" People think that "no grains = low carb" -- and that's why they think that paleo = low carb.

                      The reality is that it's easy enough to get however many carbs you want/need with paleolithic foods rather than neolithic -- kitivans obviously do it, and so can we if we want. But, we can also decide to do the high-fat versions of paleo, and go from there.

                      So, the real question isn't whether or not paleo is working for someone. . . but really what version are they doing -- is it working? maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on the person.

                      But paleo is not low carb, and no amount of YOUR repeating that is going ot make it so. Primal usually is. Paleo -- in the big general form -- is not.
                      Last edited by zoebird; 12-27-2012, 01:14 PM. Reason: content error (wrote low carb in reference to Cordain/Kitivan when I meant High Carb."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by zoebird View Post

                        It started in 1975 with Voegtlin, who advocated a carnivorous diet. But then in 1988, you have Eaton, who promoted that the typical Paleolithic macronutrient profile, he asserts, contained 33% of cals from protein, 46% from carbohydrates and 21% from fat. (source). While Eaton's book was a book about Stone Age people's, it was not considered "paleo" as we understand it today because Eaton does not exclude neolithic foods.

                        And from Eaton, you have the inspiration that lead Cordain to write his books. Cordain is largely considered the "father" of Paleo because he eschews neolithic food sources. His macronutrient profiles, though, follow Eaton (source) who focused on protein and carbs, with fat taking up the remainder.

                        Shortly after Cordain, you have Lindburgh, who provided us with his Kitivan Study. This is clearly shows a Paleo diet that is high carb. It says that the foundation of the diet is starches, fruit, veggies, fish and coconut. While not advocating a diet per se, his research is what many paleo folks use to design their diets. These folks are still considered "paleo."

                        Following Cordain or Kitivan-styled diets, you end up with a high-carb, low fat Paleo diet. Thus, it is factual that a paleo diet can be -- and for many people is -- low carb.

                        On the other side of the spectrum, though, you have those like Mark who are in the high fat camp. Honestly, it *is* a spectrum, not an absolute, this is a low carb diet thing.

                        That being said, I think the reason that -- in general -- people think that paleo is "low carb" is because they misunderstand their own diets and what carbs are.

                        As I posted before (when I answered the original question), part of the con that I had in going paleo/primal is that most people didn't understand what I was doing. They would screech: "But you need carbs!" And what they meant was "but you need grains!" People think that "no grains = low carb" -- and that's why they think that paleo = low carb.

                        The reality is that it's easy enough to get however many carbs you want/need with paleolithic foods rather than neolithic -- kitivans obviously do it, and so can we if we want. But, we can also decide to do the high-fat versions of paleo, and go from there.

                        So, the real question isn't whether or not paleo is working for someone. . . but really what version are they doing -- is it working? maybe yes, maybe no. Depends on the person.


                        But paleo is not low carb, Primal usually is. Paleo -- in the big general form -- is not.
                        Excellent post. Thanks for all the info!
                        "I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption.

                        In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."

                        - Ray Peat

                        Comment


                        • It does seem like an oxymoron around here to hear people talking about eating whole foods yet discussing the merits of things processed like bacon, coconut oil, olive oil, ground meat, canned fish, canned or jarred anything, coconut, rice, almond, tapioca flours, Maple syrup. stevia, coconut crystals, canned coconut milk, cocoa powder or bars, coffee, tea, cheese, yogurt, kefir, kimchi, saurkraut, sour cream, hell any dairy except milk straight from the animal, etc. Unless a person is eating only fresh fruits and veggies, local fresh eggs, and local meats (not ground which is processed)and local wild fish/seafood then technically it is processed somehow! Even if the can says Ingredients: Tomato puree and nothing else, it was processed because there is no such thing as a tomato paste plant! And I have never seen a tree with cans of coconut milk dangling from its branches or an olive tree spitting oil out! These foods are processed and manufactured in plants that probably manufacture things we don't want to eat like soy, legumes etc. Shelled nuts are processed, because they do not grow that way. Yet people get freaked out over potatoes which grow as is!

                          Pro's and Cons of learning abut Primal~

                          Pro's-
                          I learned to research and experiment for better health and my IBS is a thing of the past!! I am no longer chained to the medications I once lived on.

                          Cons-
                          I discovered that high fat does not work for me (I gained 60+), moderate fat is not even safe.
                          I discovered that I could easily gain weight(60+) doing paleo, primal, etc..
                          I discovered that just giving up grains, soy, legumes, sugar was not enough.
                          I lost a shit load of hair!!
                          I went from hiking several days a week to zero energy!
                          I became insulin resistant
                          My sleep habits are crap

                          **I don't blame PB for all of this but it happened within a few months of starting the PB method so it makes the list. I finally got a grip, changed things and dug my way mostly out, but it has been a long, hard fight and I still have not fully recovered. Just my n=1 so nothing to beat me up over! I do believe that when Mark comes out with the women's edition of PB most will be shocked at his recommendations for fat consumption for women! I predict it will be much lower than what men can deal with as women are more evolutionary bent towards fat storage and as the 'weaker' sex and foragers we probably ate more mini meals consisting of wild tiny berries and smallish seeds.
                          Last edited by longing2bfit; 12-27-2012, 02:47 AM. Reason: adding stuff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by longing2bfit View Post
                            It does seem like an oxymoron around here to hear people talking about eating whole foods yet discussing the merits of things processed like bacon, coconut oil, olive oil, ground meat, canned fish, canned or jarred anything, coconut, rice, almond, tapioca flours, Maple syrup. stevia, coconut crystals, canned coconut milk, cocoa powder or bars, coffee, tea, etc. Unless a person is eating only fresh fruits and veggies, local fresh eggs, and local meats (not ground which is processed)and local wild fish/seafood then technically it is processed somehow! Even if the can says Ingredients: Tomato puree and nothing else, it was processed because there is no such thing as a tomato paste plant! And I have never seen a tree with cans of coconut milk dangling from its branches or an olive tree spitting oil out! These foods are processed and manufactured in plants that probably manufacture things we don't want to eat like soy, legumes etc. Shelled nuts are processed, because they do not grow like that way. Yet people get freaked out over potatoes which grow as is!

                            Pro's and Cons of learning abut Primal~

                            Pro's-
                            I learned to research and experiment for better health and my IBS is a thing of the past!! I am no longer chained to the medications I once lived on.

                            Cons-
                            I discovered that high fat does not work for me (I gained 60+), moderate fat is not even safe.
                            I discovered that I could easily gain weight(60+) doing paleo, primal, etc..
                            I discovered that just giving up grains, soy, legumes, sugar was not enough.
                            I lost a shit load of hair!!
                            I went from hiking several days a week to zero energy!
                            I became insulin resistant
                            My sleep habits are crap

                            **I don't blame PB for all of this but it happened within a few months of starting the PB method so it makes the list. I finally got a grip, changed things and dug my way mostly out, but it has been a long, hard fight and I still have not fully recovered. Just my n=1 so nothing to beat me up over! I do believe that when Mark comes out with the women's edition of PB most will be shocked at his recommendations for fat consumption for women! I predict it will be much lower than what men can deal with as women are more evolutionary bent towards fat storage and as the 'weaker' sex and foragers we probably ate more mini meals consisting of wild tiny berries and smallish seeds.
                            How the heck did you gain 60+ lbs? You say it was because of high to moderate fat. Are you saying that you kept your total calorie intake and activity level the same and just increased the percentage of your calories from fat? Also, why did you wait so long to make a change? Didn't you know something was pretty wrong after gaining just 5 or 10 lbs?

                            Comment


                            • This thread is hilarious. Eat real food with solid micronutrient density and low toxicity in whatever macronutrient ratios ACTUALLY work for you. If something didn't work, try adding or eliminating a food, do a whole 30, count calories (or stop counting calories), etc. Pay attention to the population trends (vegetable oil = heart disease, etc.), roll with local availability, and freaking RELAX.

                              Eating crappy seed oils gives me gigantic pus-cysts on my face and back, etc. so they're obviously bad for me. It's easy to tell other people these oils are bad for them, but there isn't solid evidence to be honest, so I really shouldn't be making that assertion anymore.

                              I added fruit to my diet and am eating less fat, calories are the same. My abs have disappeared and I've gained 5 pounds. And I keep getting so hungry! And, for the first time in three years, I have SCUM on my teeth. So derp, zach and you other sugar bees can stop pretending sugar is universally beneficial now. I took your advice and it's crap. Fail. I'm glad it worked out for you. Keep on keeping on if you're healthy and happy. But I don't want to be fat, and I'm already at the heavy end of the spectrum thanks to my thick build. The last thing I need is a spare tire, too. So I'm dialing the fruit back and getting back to what was working, perhaps a little less protein than before.
                              Crohn's, doing SCD

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by zoebird View Post
                                You're making the same false claim that Zach is complaining about, now to support a high-sugar (refined) diet. That those kids have a problem due to SAD, not whatever is your 'du jour.'

                                Not so. I also qualified in my post that the children here are often NOT on SAD and eat a generally nutritious diet, but with far more sugar than DS gets. Likewise, most of the children in DS's school are fed variations of WAPF, and many families are entirely sugar-free, and as such also have fewer dental problems than their mainstream, but still healthfully fed, counterparts.

                                It is different here.

                                And here's a little quick description of the understanding of the connection between sugar and cavities.
                                I can't really argue against anecdotal experiences, because I can say I developed a tooth sensitivity from a brief stint on very low carb that went away when I introduced simple sugars back into my diet and you can't really call me a liar for stating my experience.

                                Teeth are like bones. You need proper nutrients driven out by the endocrine system. Having a healthy glucose metabolism ensures good calcium to phosphorus ratios, so that your endocrine system has a proper fluid flow.

                                Other than that, secretion of stress hormones will slow tissue renewal(where sugar comes in keeping those down).

                                You also can't tell whether those kids are using fluoridated toothpaste(deactivates the enzyme adenosine diphosphatase, essential to remineralize teeth) or not.
                                Make America Great Again

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X