Paleo-Diet - anyone here on it?

I've been looking at the Paleo Diet, after it was brought to my attention by Ed Thompson in this discussion.

It looks pretty straightforward - it seems to boil down (pun intented) to eating only food that isn't poisonous or inedible without cooking or processing.

I'm curious to know if anyone here is on the Paleo diet, and what their experience of the diet has been. As I said, the diet appears sound, but before changing to it I want to make sure it's worthwhile, as it would involve giving up on a lot of foods I like a lot.

Post 1

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 5:09am

Duncan, it sounds great, if you can stay on it.

Ultimately, I personally don't like the word diet. I think losing weight and keeping it off is about a mindset and lifestyle change.

Sometimes, when people want to lose weight, and do it quickly they can resort to quite drastic means.
The diet that you sighted will do well, from what I can see, but it will take a lot of discipline.

I have found that when some people go to extremes, they can sometimes sabotage themselves.

There maybe better ways to accomplish your goals. You may want to pickup Bill Phillips Body for life, and his new book Eating for life. The second book provides some great recipes and ideas to add variety.

You may also want to check out Dr. Scott Connelly's book BodyRX, he's the creator of MET-RX .

These are very simple, and will provide you with all you need.

I do suggest some sort of exercise, especially weight training ( go see your doctor first) to hold onto and build more lean muscle, so you can increase your metabolic rate. But, you would gain good results even if you don't weight train, just not as good.

Just thought I would offer that.

Shane

Post 2

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 5:41am

Saw the headline, and thought it was something they eat over at LewRockwell.com. Like mostly nuts. ("You are what you eat.")

Post 3

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 10:39am

Duncan, while I don't follow a stringent Paleo-Diet, I do constantly incorporate evolutionary findings into my menu--and I can tell (low energy, mood) when I don't following these findings.

For instance, as very little liquid calories were available for 99% of human evolution--I avoid full-strength soda or juice (and this point was recently confirmed by a new article which has now pinned down even juice as a culprit in contemporary obesity and diabetes). If ever I drink them, then I will dilute sugary beverages (about half & half) with water.

Another tip is to have double, or triple meat sandwiches (half the bread, twice the meat). If I'm at a convenience store, then I will buy 2 sandwiches, throw out half the bread, and put them together (double-meat, half-bread sandwich-on-the-go).

Keep in mind the importance of glycemic load (how "much" carbohydrates get into you--and how "fast" they enter your bloodstream).

Keep in mind the numerous benefits of higher protein diets. Protein % was always high in our ancestors' diet--and only recently have we first tried to exist on less than 15-20% protein (though contemporary nutritionists would have you believe that we have "started" eating TOO MUCH!).

Also, keep in mind the importance of omega-3 fats (fish, flax, walnuts, free-range beef, omega-rich eggs).

Lastly, keep in mind the importance of fruits and veggies--their minerals (like potassium) will balance out any acidity from the meat you eat.

TIP: Keep some low-sodium V-8 around (veggie cocktail) for days when you can't / won't be getting to fresh fruit and veggies--you can nourish yourself with literally hundreds of milligrams of potassium, with a mere small glass of a veggie cocktail.

The Good
Water, good fats, fruits, veggies, meats, nuts

The Bad
Grains, dairy, certain legumes

The Ugly
White flour products, high-fructose corn syrup, trans fatty acids, and low-protein diets

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 4/26, 10:41am)

Post 4

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 12:13pm

Ed, I sanctioned your message because it is so wonderful to hear good dietary advice in the slog of crappy advice I hear everyday. I do want to point out though that some people can do great on raw dairy (unpasteurized). Pasteurized dairy is bad all around (enzymes killed and proteins changed by homogenization), but I do great on raw dairy. Not all people do though; it is very individual.

Kelly

Post 5

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 2:12pm

A very interesting thread.

I have often hypothesized the following: since our taste buds have evolved over millions of years and since evolution is through natural selection, should it not be true that what tastes good to us be good for our survival?

On the other hand, we know that eating a lot of sugar, for instance, isn't good. So what has, if any, changed?

[I know it isn't a very precise statement, but I hope you get the idea.]

Ed, what do you think?

coaltontrail

Post 6

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 2:31pm

coaltontrail, you asked:

On the other hand, we know that eating a lot of sugar, for instance, isn't good. So what has, if any, changed?

coaltontrail, energy-dense food sources fire our taste buds alright--and, long ago, when energy-rich food WASN'T a given (when folks spent at least half of every waking hour, seeking out food) this would've been a good thing. If food had been scarce at all, then it would've been good to have a sweet tooth to seek out (and stock up on) energy-dense food sources.

What has "changed" is the food availability (both the ease of it, and the abundance). I can now get food to my front door WHILE LYING IN BED and merely dictating to a speaker phone what it is that I will want on my pizza--when it arrives. I can get thousands of calories by simply opening my front door and paying / tipping the pizza delivery guy.

There was a time when "thousands of calories of food" COSTED "thousands of calories of work." Tain't no more--thanks to capitalism, division of labor, etc.

Early hunter-gatherers could get to honey for a few months a year (and for the small price of a few hundred bee-stings!). Early northern Inuit (eskimo) could get to berries for a few months a year as well--but 3 fourths of the time, their subsistence was: meat, blubber, organs, and marrow, plus a certain polar vegetation; though its name escapes me at the moment.

Ed

Post 7

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 6:22pm

Great thread! I read about this a few years back. Perhaps it is a recurring theme.

One note:
Ed Thompson wrote, "... when folks spent at least half of every waking hour, seeking out food ... " Well, we still do spend half of our waking hours "hunting" and "gathering." We do it online, on the assembly line, in line at the cash register, etc., etc. The fact is that so-called "primitive" peoples spend about half their waking lives in leisure, the same as we do.

I am not recommending the life of a Bushman. The logic and machinery and such have allowed us to multiply our efforts. We still make the same effort. And we still hang out at the campfire when there isn't much to do and everyone has been fed.

Post 8

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 7:55pm

One of the prevailing myths is that of the hunter society needing to spend, like many animals, at least fifty percent of their time foraging. Perhaps it was/is so in those primitive tribes of today, which most likely are still primitive because they did NOT do things as our ancestors did. But, according to most anthropologists, both those who delve with bones and those who're culturists, at least by present day standards, hunter/gatherer societies had a lot of leisure time - and indeed this applied as much to the aquatic ape forebearers as to early humankind. Hunting, after all, is NOT a continuous activity, such as wouild be the case with most of us engaging in the "nine-to-five" job type of activities. Hunting is a sporatic activity, with a lot of leisure between the times of the hunt. The same could be said about the gatherers - who by then were the females. This is largely because lushness does not require much effort in obtaining sufficiency. The only major exception to this is the group which ended up occupying the areas across the northern parts of the eurasian land mass. But, for the rest, the pace was such to allow for quite a bit of leisure time and chances to make ample use of the "show me"ism that is characteristic of the apes, moreso of the humans as their cognitive efforts improved over the generations.
(Edited by robert malcom on 4/26, 7:56pm)

Post 9

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:23pm

Ed wrote:"What has "changed" is the food availability (both the ease of it, and the abundance). I can now get food to my front door WHILE LYING IN BED and merely dictating to a speaker phone what it is that I will want on my pizza--when it arrives. I can get thousands of calories by simply opening my front door and paying / tipping the pizza delivery guy."

That brings up another question: such a situation implies the existence of two 'types' of people. Members of one group being aware of the needs of the body and who act accordingly to stay healthy. The other group being either ignorant/unmindful of this and who indulge in, say, over-eating. I am speculating, would natural selection then eventually lead to a species of human beings with more fine tuned senses?

In other words, does/can consciousness and rational choices affect natural selection in the long run?

Sanjay Velamparambil

(There's no need for my alias 'coaltontrail' any more. It's just the name of one of my favorite trails to run.)

Post 10

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 12:39am

Sanjay,

Reason overrides (expands on) the old concept of natural selection. We now REMAKE our environment (we control the factors that would otherwise operate according to the "mindless" nature of our environment).

Robert, I disagree qualitatively with you. Hunting trips would have had to be taken, some lasting several days. Several days walking and stalking (each week or two), add to that a 1 to 2 thirds odds of success--and you have gone into overtime (more than 40 hours per week hunting).

Also, regarding gathering, often done by women, several miles needed to be covered every few days--often while carrying 30-60 lbs of children!

Bone density (which responds BEST to weight-bearing exercise) indicates that these folks worked as hard as most athletes--just to get by.

Ed

Post 11

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 6:27am

Here's how you lose weight.

Eat fewer calories than you burn.

Exercise, moderately or intensely, depending on your taste, to help the cause.

Paleo diet seems reasonable, except to the extent that it refutes or incorrectly directs attention away from the above, unassailable, and absolutely true facts of weight loss.

The reason so many of the fad diets work is misdirection--they are basically inundating the dieter with a bunch of information that obscures the fact that they are eating fewer calories than they are using. So dieters then conclude: "Eat this macronutriet or that macronutriet at 90% and you will lose weight." Nah, the macronutriet ratio doesnt do it--the calorie deficit does it.

You could eat nothing but Edy's ice cream every day, and lose weight, as long as you consumed the correct number of calories. (You might get scurvy if you didn't supplement, tho, cuz I dont think it has any Vit C).

I am currently on a 1500 calorie a day diet, and with smart food choices, I dont really get hungry. Eating alot of Subway, actually, since a 12" turkey, turkey ham, Club, or CHicken Breast sub are all under 700 calories. Switches from coffee to tea (dont take cream with tea, but do with coffee--and decent tea is free at work, to boot), I supplement with a multivitamin daily, and so far, I am losing about 2 lbs per week.

Post 12

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:15am

Robert Malcolm wrote: "Hunting, after all, is NOT a continuous activity, such as wouild (sic) be the case with most of us engaging in the "nine-to-five" job type of activities. Hunting is a sporatic (sic) activity, with a lot of leisure between the times of the hunt."

I strongly disagree with this. I am not sure what Robert's sources are but, from my experience, hunting is a continuous activity. My friends and I go camping and hunting. Most of my friends are serving or have served in the Marines. We are all proficient with rifles, we are all physically fit, and we are all trained to survive in the wilderness. Yet, even with all this going for us, it takes us the whole day to hunt for enough animals to feed us for the night. Hunting is a sport that demands patience and persistence.

Our primitive ancestors did not have the benefit of rifles, motor vehicles, or maps. These men had to hunt for enough food to feed not only themselves but the tribe. You could argue that hunter-gather tribes may have spent a lot of time between hunts, hence depriving the tribe of meat for periods of time, but the hunt itself takes a long time.

Post 13

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:22am

Scott I sent you a PM.

John

Post 14

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:41am

Byron, was referring to 'days of yore', not today's hunting world..... matters are very different now than it was long ago.....

Post 15

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:49am

Scott, I would like to address some things you said above:

"Here's how you lose weight.

Eat fewer calories than you burn.

Exercise, moderately or intensely, depending on your taste, to help the cause.

Paleo diet seems reasonable, except to the extent that it refutes or incorrectly directs attention away from the above, unassailable, and absolutely true facts of weight loss."

Scott, your "absolutely true facts" are guilty of a scope violation (a calorie IS a calorie in a bomb calorimeter--but NOT in a human body with UNIQUE metabolic pathways for the macronutrients). Here is a recent scientific excerpt validating this point:

Fine EJ, Feinman RD. Thermodynamics of weight loss diets. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2004 Dec 8;1(1):15.

BACKGROUND: It is commonly held that "a calorie is a calorie", i.e. that diets of equal caloric content will result in identical weight change independent of macronutrient composition, and appeal is frequently made to the laws of thermodynamics. We have previously shown that thermodynamics does not support such a view and that diets of different macronutrient content may be expected to induce different changes in body mass. Low carbohydrate diets in particular have claimed a "metabolic advantage" meaning more weight loss than in isocaloric diets of higher carbohydrate content. In this review, for pedagogic clarity, we reframe the theoretical discussion to directly link thermodynamic inefficiency to weight change. The problem in outline: Is metabolic advantage theoretically possible? If so, what biochemical mechanisms might plausibly explain it? Finally, what experimental evidence exists to determine whether it does or does not occur? RESULTS: Reduced thermodynamic efficiency will result in increased weight loss. The laws of thermodynamics are silent on the existence of variable thermodynamic efficiency in metabolic processes. Therefore such variability is permitted and can be related to differences in weight lost. The existence of variable efficiency and metabolic advantage is therefore an empiric question rather than a theoretical one, confirmed by many experimental isocaloric studies, pending a properly performed meta-analysis.

Abstract available here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

... by typing the following number into the search box:
15588283

Scott, you also said:

"You could eat nothing but Edy's ice cream every day, and lose weight, as long as you consumed the correct number of calories."

Again Scott, there is a problem of scope. If you ate nothing but "Edy's ice cream", then you would lose vital muscle mass (I don't care how much or what kind of exercise you do). Muscle mass is one of the most metabolically active tissue in the body (it's where most of your resting metabolism comes from--read: most of your ability to burn calories).

Sticking to the contemporary party line (central control of nutrition information / policy ) IS the problem here, Scott.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/27, 10:42am)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/27, 10:43am)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/27, 10:44am)

Post 16

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:56am

A belated thanks, Kelly. Your point on dairy is intriguing, though I am not educated enough to comment.

I do know that most (>50%) folks WORLDWIDE can't drink milk due to a lactase deficiency--though most Scandinavian folks can handle milk just fine.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/27, 10:45am)

Post 17

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:59am

Robert,

I understood that, and the last paragraph of my last post addressed that. I'll repeat my point again. If my friends and I - with all our military training, 21st century weapons and technology, and physical fitness comparable to a professional athlete - can take all day to hunt for meat just for us, I do not see how it can be different for our ancestors with their more primitive technology who have to feed an entire tribe.

Post 18

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:43pm

Byron,

The hunts I've been on have taken place in hilly, wooded terrain with plenty of hiding spots. Terrain where man's upright, bipedal style of movement is a disadvantage. For example: there is no way in hell you can out run a quadruped up a hill - they are four wheel drive for a start and their lower stance enables them to push through the undergrowth better. I submit to you (I don't know for certain because anthropology isn't my thing) that primitive man didn't live and hunt in the same regions we hunt in today for sport. He'd have died of bloody starvation - assuming he didn't break his neck careening down a slope after putting his foot on something that looked solid.

As far as I remember from my pre-history science classes the terrain primitive man (in general) lived in was largely flat, open grasslands. That means he didn't have to search for his prey - just stalk it. That cuts the problem in half.

And as for primitive weapons.

Judging from the skeletal remains of most pre-history hominoid species they were muscular little bastards. Probably likely that they were stronger than modern man. For instance your average male chimp is 3x stronger than the average man - meaning the chimp is quite capable of ripping your arms off and beating you to death with them. I'm betting that a flint edged weapon in the hands of a primitive hominid was something to be scared of. They didn't have PETA running around in those days so wounding the animal and letting it bleed to death wouldn't have worried them too much.

Remember also that later hominoids had fire. Animals run away from fire. Primitive man only had to find a cliff, wait for the right wind and bingo - use fire to drive animals off a cliff and you have pre-tenderized, smoky-flavoured meat. Of course primitive man didn't have pesky things called property rights to worry about.

Trust a medic to think up the surgical answer to the problem, you don't spend much time around artillerymen do you? ;-)

I also think that you underestimate the natural cunning of man. I mean if you domesticate dogs you can use them to stalk and stop the animal. Along the same lines I seem to recall that Trout fishing licences in NZ specifically prohibit the use of tame otters. So I'm not sure that primitive man was terribly disadvantaged for the lack of steel/composite hunting tools.

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 4/27, 8:53pm)

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 4/27, 10:24pm)

Post 19

Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:02am