I agree that it is the tweaks that are extreme.
I would say that Mark's assertion is quite simple: 1. calculate protein needs; 2. determine carb needs; 3. the rest is fat. This means that the diet could be "low carb" (less than 40% calories from carbs) or "VLC" (less than 50g net carbs per day) or "high fat" (40% or more from fat) or "low fat" (less than 40% calories from fat) or even "very low fat" such that it would be under 30% (which CW says is "low fat").
It's easy enough to adjust to the carb and fat ratios that you want. It's just the protein that basically stays the same.
F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.
Looking at photos and not seeing myself as fat.
Less episodes of reflux
More constant energy
Less working out
Expensive....beans and rice are cheap, as is pizza. Grass fed meats, not so much.
Expensive- constantly buying new clothes
Hard to eat out
Have to cook pretty much every meal - gets old
Check out my blog. Hope to share lots of great recipes and ideas!
FYI here is a typical day for me:
Breakfast - usually IF until about noon - but have a black coffee and a large glass of water at day break.
1st Meal - Brussel sprouts, Kale, onion, red bell peppers, cabbage sauteed in coconut oil and then scrambled with 3 or 4 eggs. A couple of days a week I'll also have 3 or 4 pieces of bacon. Also typically have an avocado.
Mid Afternoon - Can of sardines or tuna or salmon salad mixed with Paleo friendly mayo and chopped onion
Dinner - Meat, Poultry or Fish with a large mixed vegetable salad and a cooked vegetable (rotate cauliflower, yams, beets, kale, spinach, brussel sprouts for variety). Salad dressing is ususally 1 part olive oil/1 part balsamic vinegar mixed with mustard.
Treats - Red Wine and Dark chocolate a couple times a week.
I try to make sure everything is organic, pastuered, free range and local when possible.
Last edited by canuck416; 12-23-2012 at 05:28 PM.
Lost "the last" 10 pounds
No more Prilosec
Neutrals: other people see improvement in this, I did not.
No "boundless energy"
No change in monthly cycle
No change in sex drive
No help with depression
Expensive (I make decent money so it doesn't matter as for me, but it does for others)
Social issues -- I'm really tired of explaining to people that I can only have a little bit of cake.
I have to stay very strict for primal to work.
I do not follow the fitness. I have tried several times to institute a fitness component, but I each time I get sidelined by work stress or some other depressive moods and I just go back to sleep. Overall, it's worth it to stay primal if only to keep off the Prilosec. But at the moment I'm having a very hard time staying strict, and yes, candy binging is becoming a problem.
5'0" female, 44 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently keeping food tracker.
I (try to) follow by-the-book primal as advocated by Mark Sisson, except for whey powder and a bit of cream. I advocate a two-month strict adjustment for newbies. But everybody is different and should tweak Primal to their own needs.
My health declined over several years and several variations of paleo so i cant really give you a typical day. I can give you a timeline of diets and the trends that happened.
Started out with The Zone because of Crossfit. The Zone actually wasnt to bad and i learned a lot about food quantity from it.
Started Paleo/Zone after Robb Wolf came on the scene.
Removed zone aspect and started real Paleo after Wolf left crossfit and stopped pimping Zone.
Added in fasting, leangains and warrior diet
Went to VLC paleo because that was THE thing for health and fat loss
Did strict carnivore for a bit until i felt like i was gunna die.
That was the general timeline although there were other variations and times where i binged. Also tried a more relaxed paleo like PB afterwords but nothing helped until i abandoned it altogether.
The general theme was gradually removing carbs, replacing them with LOTS of protein and fat.
JUst like to say I am finding this thread really enlightening, so please keep posting your pros and cons! It's fascinating how differently everyone is responding to the same basic concept.
It seems to me that people who do best on Primal are those who have issues with glucose metabolism, whereas those who have a genetic predisposition to thyroid problems can't handle low carb.
I'd love to do a whole separate thread on this...
Paleo does have wide room for variety and there is some credence to genetic variance. I think the most easily ascertained information to determine your particular macro predisposition would be to have a look at your amylase copy number:
Diet and the evolution of human amylase gene copy ... [Nat Genet. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI
So looking at this..... "Starch consumption is a prominent characteristic of agricultural societies and hunter-gatherers in arid environments. In contrast, rainforest and circum-arctic hunter-gatherers and some pastoralists consume much less starch.".....may give you indication of your personal disposition.
In general, "low carb" is often understood to be anything below 40% calories from carbs. When people look at primal/paleo, they *assume* that it's "low carb" because we do not eat breads, pastas, etc. This isn't necessarily true.
On this board, "low carb" means below 100g/day, and then "VLC" is less than 50(net)g/day. Many people are doing "low carb" to help with weight loss and VLC for weight loss, ketosis, or special needs (mentioned before). Because people on these various gram amounts (which comes right from Mark's blog), consume a different number of calories per day, it wouldn't add up in the percentages as an "exact percentage."
For example, I eat an average of 1600 calories per day (across a month). If I eat 100 g of carbs, that's 400 calories, or 25% of my diet. If I eat 2000 calories per day and have 100g of carbs, that's 400 calories or 20% of my diet.
Thus, in terms of how this board, in particular, uses terms like "low carb" and VLC, I refer to the gram amounts as per Mark's book/blog since that's usually what *this board* means.
In terms of how this fits into the common percentage understandings, obviously, if I wanted to consume 40% of my 1600 calories from carbs, I would need to get 160g of carbohydrate to meet that amount. It's not that difficult, because according to the internet, that's 4 bananas.
It's also outside of Mark's own "carb curve" -- but if I were more active than I am at the moment, it would probably be no problem. Right now, I put my carbs around 100g (some days it's down near 80, others it's up near 125), because that keeps the "easy to maintain" zone, which I have noticed in my own body.
As such, the two *DO* marry up in terms of how an individual wants to do things.
If you want to do primal/paleo that is not low carb, you can -- in my case, by eating 4 bananas (and no other fruit/veg). So, it's not difficult for me to get 40% of my caloric intake from carbs, and I don't necessarily think that Mark's curve there is gospel, and he even says as much. . . htat individuals will vary.