Page 18 of 29 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 281

Thread: Primal diet - Pros and Cons? page 18

  1. #171
    canuck416's Avatar
    canuck416 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Sebastopol, CA
    Posts
    1,174
    Primal Fuel
    Quote 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 at 07:38 PM.

  2. #172
    Forgotmylastusername's Avatar
    Forgotmylastusername is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    924
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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 at 12:32 AM.

  3. #173
    zoebird's Avatar
    zoebird is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    7,935
    Quote 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.

  4. #174
    Forgotmylastusername's Avatar
    Forgotmylastusername is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    924
    Quote 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.

  5. #175
    zoebird's Avatar
    zoebird is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    7,935
    Quote 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 at 12:14 PM. Reason: content error (wrote low carb in reference to Cordain/Kitivan when I meant High Carb."

  6. #176
    YogaBare's Avatar
    YogaBare is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    . . .
    Posts
    4,543
    Quote 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!

  7. #177
    longing2bfit's Avatar
    longing2bfit is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    587
    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 at 01:47 AM. Reason: adding stuff

  8. #178
    Artbuc's Avatar
    Artbuc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    479
    Quote 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?

  9. #179
    Knifegill's Avatar
    Knifegill is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,409
    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.


    Turquoisepassion:
    Knifegill is christened to be high carb now!
    notontherug:
    the buttstuff...never interested.
    Tremendous worms of a swarthy nature pursue me across the sandy blank sky. I stop to think. What the devil AM I up to?!

    My pony picture thread http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread82786.html

  10. #180
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote 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.
    Time is passing so quickly. Right now, I feel like complaining to Einstein. Whether time is slow or fast depends on perception. Relativity theory is so romantic. And so sad.

Page 18 of 29 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •