Paleo / Primal Blueprint type diets (1 Viewer)

[Harry Manback]

I'll admit, the only thing that makes me sad is the loss of ravioli but I haven't had too hard a time of living without rice, bread or potatoes.

I've been good about 3 weeks, with some minor cheating in the form of a wrap and a few chips at a concert. Oh and beer.

 

[Chaka]

Have you literally had no rice/bread/potatoes?

I eat a potato or sweet potato about every other day. I don't eat rice very often, but that's not really on purpose. I don't consider potatoes or rice to be cheats. I definitely consider ordinary bread (sandwich, pizza, whatever) to be cheating. But there are a couple of breads that I eat a couple times a week (as a delivery system for thyme/oregano/sumac/olive oil/salt or for butter/honey/cinnamon) that I don't consider to be much of a cheat.I cheat pretty badly (e.g., alcohol plus pizza or Mexican food) about once every week or two.

I love Julian Bakery. They have two gluten free breads (Purity and Bean Bread) that are quite good too.

 

[None_More_Black]

I also think paleo is about cooking techniques.

Yes, that may not get as much attention as it should. As a general rule, cooking with low, wet heat seems to be superior to cooking with high, dry heat, for example. Eating some portion of your foods (including animal proteins) raw is also likely beneficial.

A major tenet of paleo is getting nutrients from whole foods as opposed to supplements and fortified foods.

The line between foods and supplements can be pretty blurry. Depending on how you categorize them, I either take a lot of supplements or none.If I eat cinnamon, that's a food, right? But what if I eat it in capsule form? I eat cinnamon and cayenne both in capsules because it's easier that way (and am thinking of adding turmeric to the mix). For a while I also took a garlic supplement as a tablet, but now I just eat a clove of garlic every other day or so — generally with honey and apple cider vinegar. Is that a food or a supplement? I try to eat liver about once a week, but on the days I don't eat liver, I often have some freeze-dried liver powder. Is that a food or a supplement? Along the same lines, I take other freeze-dried organs and glands as well. I consider it to be part of trying to eat nose-to-tail; but if they come in capsules, does that automatically make them supplements instead of foods?

Is fermented cod liver oil a food or a supplement? How about bee pollen? Or coconut oil? Or nutritional yeast? Or Swedish bitters?

No I agree it can bee hard to make distinctions. What I was really getting at is that nutrient uptake from whole foods can be much greater,(especially when combined with things like healthy fats) then popping a centrum pill. Standard Weston Price stuff which I know you know about.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Everybody should read this article by Stephen Guyenet.

Gary Taubes did a masterful job of demolishing the idea that saturated fat and dietary cholesterol are responsible for heart disease or for the current obesity epidemic. But his alternative hypothesis — that carbs are the true culprit because they induce elevated insulin levels — appears to be in error. Guyenet explains why. (That's not to say that a low-carb diet can't be extremely beneficial for weight loss. But Taubes seems to have the mechanism wrong.)

 

[Steeler]

Sorry if this question has already been asked and answered... but what is the best option for low-carb or gluten free pasta? Does it even exist?

 

[scoobygang]

Sorry if this question has already been asked and answered... but what is the best option for low-carb or gluten free pasta? Does it even exist?

Well, there are rice noodles, but that's a different kind of product with a different feel. If you want to have spaghetti, I don't think there are any good options. Some Atkins types swear by Dreamfields which supposedly has non-digestible carbs. I don't buy it. I'm sure there are gluten free pastas. I'm reasonably sure they are kind of awful.I acutally go to a great deal of trouble with a julienne peeler to make zuchinni into strips like noodles. That's how my wife wants it. But it doesn't taste like pasta. If I'm alone, I just chop into cubes and make something a lot more ratatouille.

 

[Rick James]

I'm about a month into Mark Sisson's primal blueprint, and...

-I really like this way of eating. It just feels right. It also helps that I still get to eat my favorite foods, and it's pretty easy to adapt to any situation. The guys going out to eat Mexican for lunch? Get the fajitas and don't eat the tortillas. KFC? Grilled chicken, or even some fried every now and then. About the only place I can't go is McDonalds, but I never go there anyway.

-I love sprinting. I feel much stronger in my legs now, and it works my abs as well oddly enough. I guess when I sprint I'm clinching just about every muscle in my core to run as fast as I can. I hate jogging, and these sprints--mixed with walking of course--allow me to cover the same amount of ground (2.5 miles) in about the same time, but with a higher heart beat, and I have more fun doing it.

Question:

I'm 198 lbs. today, and I could stand to lose 20 more. Ideally, I want to be a lean, cut 175. Should I start the strength training now, or lose another 10-15 pounds and then begin? Does it even matter? In my head, I have to lose weight and then start putting on muscle...but is that how it works?

 

[-jb-]

I'm about a month into Mark Sisson's primal blueprint, and...

-I really like this way of eating. It just feels right. It also helps that I still get to eat my favorite foods, and it's pretty easy to adapt to any situation. The guys going out to eat Mexican for lunch? Get the fajitas and don't eat the tortillas. KFC? Grilled chicken, or even some fried every now and then. About the only place I can't go is McDonalds, but I never go there anyway.

-I love sprinting. I feel much stronger in my legs now, and it works my abs as well oddly enough. I guess when I sprint I'm clinching just about every muscle in my core to run as fast as I can. I hate jogging, and these sprints--mixed with walking of course--allow me to cover the same amount of ground (2.5 miles) in about the same time, but with a higher heart beat, and I have more fun doing it.

Question:

I'm 198 lbs. today, and I could stand to lose 20 more. Ideally, I want to be a lean, cut 175. Should I start the strength training now, or lose another 10-15 pounds and then begin? Does it even matter? In my head, I have to lose weight and then start putting on muscle...but is that how it works?

Start now. I waited and regret it.

 

[JFT Ben]

I'm about a month into Mark Sisson's primal blueprint, and...

-I really like this way of eating. It just feels right. It also helps that I still get to eat my favorite foods, and it's pretty easy to adapt to any situation. The guys going out to eat Mexican for lunch? Get the fajitas and don't eat the tortillas. KFC? Grilled chicken, or even some fried every now and then. About the only place I can't go is McDonalds, but I never go there anyway.

-I love sprinting. I feel much stronger in my legs now, and it works my abs as well oddly enough. I guess when I sprint I'm clinching just about every muscle in my core to run as fast as I can. I hate jogging, and these sprints--mixed with walking of course--allow me to cover the same amount of ground (2.5 miles) in about the same time, but with a higher heart beat, and I have more fun doing it.

Question:

I'm 198 lbs. today, and I could stand to lose 20 more. Ideally, I want to be a lean, cut 175. Should I start the strength training now, or lose another 10-15 pounds and then begin? Does it even matter? In my head, I have to lose weight and then start putting on muscle...but is that how it works?

Start now, get Mark Sisson/MDA fitness e-book and scale the bodyweight exercises as needed, 2x per week. I hit as prescribed or close to them and find them very challenging! Add a weight session as you get stronger or to mix it up.

 

[Rick James]

I'm about a month into Mark Sisson's primal blueprint, and...

-I really like this way of eating. It just feels right. It also helps that I still get to eat my favorite foods, and it's pretty easy to adapt to any situation. The guys going out to eat Mexican for lunch? Get the fajitas and don't eat the tortillas. KFC? Grilled chicken, or even some fried every now and then. About the only place I can't go is McDonalds, but I never go there anyway.

-I love sprinting. I feel much stronger in my legs now, and it works my abs as well oddly enough. I guess when I sprint I'm clinching just about every muscle in my core to run as fast as I can. I hate jogging, and these sprints--mixed with walking of course--allow me to cover the same amount of ground (2.5 miles) in about the same time, but with a higher heart beat, and I have more fun doing it.

Question:

I'm 198 lbs. today, and I could stand to lose 20 more. Ideally, I want to be a lean, cut 175. Should I start the strength training now, or lose another 10-15 pounds and then begin? Does it even matter? In my head, I have to lose weight and then start putting on muscle...but is that how it works?

Start now, get Mark Sisson/MDA fitness e-book and scale the bodyweight exercises as needed, 2x per week. I hit as prescribed or close to them and find them very challenging! Add a weight session as you get stronger or to mix it up.

Did this last week. Pretty good workout. Kinda lame that I have to start out doing the girl pushups…oh, and the planking….ugh…I don't know how I'm ever going to advance in that category

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Start now, get Mark Sisson/MDA fitness e-book and scale the bodyweight exercises as needed, 2x per week. I hit as prescribed or close to them and find them very challenging! Add a weight session as you get stronger or to mix it up.

Did this last week. Pretty good workout. Kinda lame that I have to start out doing the girl pushups…oh, and the planking….ugh…I don't know how I'm ever going to advance in that category

I also started this recently. I'm doing the girl pushups too and even that is really tough for me. I have to scale down every one of the exercises. I am so weak.Have you done the sprinting thing yet? That was brutal.

 

[JFT Ben]

I also started this recently. I'm doing the girl pushups too and even that is really tough for me. I have to scale down every one of the exercises. I am so weak.Have you done the sprinting thing yet? That was brutal.

Sprinting is brutal, I usually do a jog warm-up (0.5-1 mile) then one or two reps at 50%/75% then depending how I feel can usually knock out 5-8 reps (100 yards or so). I did hill repeats last Friday and it was brutal as it used some muscles that are different than flat sprints. I still scale down the pushups and pullups, doing as many regular as prescribed then knee pushups/pull-up negatives as necessary.

 

[Rick James]

Start now, get Mark Sisson/MDA fitness e-book and scale the bodyweight exercises as needed, 2x per week. I hit as prescribed or close to them and find them very challenging! Add a weight session as you get stronger or to mix it up.

Did this last week. Pretty good workout. Kinda lame that I have to start out doing the girl pushups…oh, and the planking….ugh…I don't know how I'm ever going to advance in that category

I also started this recently. I'm doing the girl pushups too and even that is really tough for me. I have to scale down every one of the exercises. I am so weak.Have you done the sprinting thing yet? That was brutal.

Sprinting is hard, but I enjoy it much more than regular jogging for 30 minutes. It's really improved my leg strength, and I can feel it in my lower abdominal muscles as well.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Kurt Harris has revised his diet guide.

The current version:

The Archevore Diet - A pastoral whole foods diet that can improve your health by more closely emulating the evolutionary metabolic milieu and avoiding the hazards of industrial foodways.

The diet minimizes putative neolithic agents of disease, ensures adequate micronutrition, and may minimize food reward effects.

Go as far down the list as you can in whatever time frame you can manage. The further along the list you stop, the healthier you are likely to be. Earlier steps, in my clinical experience, will give more bang for the buck.

There is no counting, measuring, or weighing. Calories count, but why count them?*

0. Get plenty of sleep and deal with any non-food addictions. If you're drinking 12 beers a day, or smoking 2 packs, diet may help but is hardly your first priority.

1. Eliminate sugar (including fruit juices and sports drinks) and all caloric drinks, including milk. Drink water, tea or coffee.

2. Eliminate gluten grains. No cake, cookies or pastries. No bread or pasta, whole grain or otherwise.

This rule and rule #1 pretty much eliminate anything that comes in a box.

White rice and whole meal corn products are reasonable sources of starch if tolerated, but not as nutritious as plant storage organs (root vegetables).

3. Eliminate seed oils - grain and seed derived oils (cooking oils). Eat or fry with with ghee, pastured butter, animal fats, or coconut oil. Avoid temperate plant oils like corn, soy, canola, flax, walnut, etc. Go easy on the nuts, especially soy and peanuts.

4. Two or three meals a day is best. No snacking. You're not a herbivore. Whole foods prepared at home should be the rule. Low meal frequency is a powerful tool if you have weight to lose.

5. Favor grass-fed ruminants like beef, lamb and bison for your red meat. These meats have excellent n-6/n-3 ratios and their saturated and monounsaturated fats are a great fuel source. Wild game is good if you can process it yourself- but commercial venison and bison is too lean and is expensive. Eat fish a few times a week and pastured eggs if you like them.

6. Eat offal for the vitamins and choline. Some fresh beef liver 1-2 times a week is plenty. Mix it with your ground hamburger if you prefer. Pastured butter is good source of K2.

7. Animal fats are an excellent dietary fuel and come with lots of fat soluble vitamins. It can work very well to simply replace your sugar and wheat calories with animal fats. If you are not diabetic and you prefer it, you can eat more starch and less animal fat.

Plant storage organs like potatoes and sweet potatoes are nutrient laden and well tolerated by most people. The soluble fiber in these foods is very likely beneficial, unlike the insoluble fiber in bran.

8. Make sure you are Vitamin D replete. Get daily midday sun in season or consider supplementation if you never get outside.

9. Fruits and vegetables - Besides starchy plants for fuel and micronutrients, eat a variety of different colored plants of whatever you like and tolerate. Think hormesis. Some is better than none, but neither big salads nor fruit to excess will save your life.

10. Get proper exercise. Both resistance and "aerobic" exercise have benefits, including mental. Think hormesis again — the recovery periods are where you get the benefit. If you're going to life weights every day, or run marathons at all, do it for fun, not for your health.

11. Most modern fruits aren't really just bags of sugar. That was hyperbole, people, a rhetorical technique. It's hard to get too much fructose too fast eating normal quantities of fruit, but don't make it your staple and don't go nuts with watermelon and agave, which are nearly pure fructose. [i disagree here. I'd say watermelon is nearly pure water, not nearly pure fructose. —MT]

I do think a diet based on beef and potatoes is healthier than one based on granny smiths for most people.

12. If you are allergic to milk protein or concerned about theoretical risks of casein, you can stick to butter and avoid milk, cream and soft cheeses. Aged cheeses 6 months and older may not have beta-casomorphin and are good sources of K2.

No counting, measuring or weighing is required, nor is it encouraged.

I am agnostic on macronutrient ratios outside of very broad parameters.

Archevore eaters typically range from 5-35% carbohydrate, from 10-30% protein and from 50 to 80% fat (mostly from animals) but wider ranges are entirely possible if you are not dieting and you are meticulous about the quality of your animal food sources.

If you are trying to lose weight, really minimizing fructose and eating 50-70g a day of carbohydrate as starch is recommended. Skipping breakfast or at least no carbs for breakfast can be very helpful.

If you are at your desired weight and healthy, 20% of calories as carbs is plenty for most very active people.

Archevore diets tend to be lower carbohydrate than the standard american diet (SAD) because you can only eat so much, and eating animals gives you lots of fat. But it is emphatically not a "low carb" diet as you do not count anything, you just avoid certain foods that happen to contain carbohydrate.

It is perfectly acceptable if you don't gain fat with it to eat more starch and less animal fat.

Note that the 19th century categories called "Fat" and "Carbohydrate" are each broad macronutrient categories that contain both good and bad.

Saturated and monounsaturated fat is generally good. A lot more than 4% of calories from PUFA (whether n-3 or n-6) is likely bad.

For healthy non-diabetics, starch is good. Excess fructose (added sugar) may be bad.

In wheat, the carbohydrate starch is probably not the major problem. It is the gluten proteins and wheat germ agglutinin that come along with the starch that are suspect.

So forget "carbs vs fat".

It is neolithic agents of disease versus everything else. And consider that the way food is prepared and its cultural context (food reward) may itself prove to be a NAD.

Most Archevores only know macronutrient metrics in retrospect, as they don't target numbers just like wild humans didn't target numbers.

Your mileage may vary!

So eat what you want. This is simply free advice that has worked very well for me and at least hundreds of patients and readers. I'm not trying to save the world, as I find it generally does not want saving.

Note: The order of the steps is arrived at by balancing my best guess at the noxiousness of each neolithic agent or food with the prevalence of each agent in the North American diet and the effort/reward ratio of the step. If your culture has a different diet the order of the steps might change. For instance, Chinese who fry everything they eat in soybean oil and don't eat much wheat would move step three up to the step two position.

* If you prefer to suffer with a calculator and scale without trying this first, knock yourself out, but why not try it first? If it doesn't work, go to 70g of carbs a day and take out whatever foods you are "enjoying" the most. If that doesn't work, then you might indeed have to count calories. You might have lost the genetic lottery or it may just be too late.

 

[Rick James]

man....does anyone know anything about nutrition? Are we just shooting in the dark here? You read articles about how to eat, then a few months go by and it turns out you've been eating the wrong things, or excluding the wrong things.

 

[scoobygang]

Kurt Harris has revised his diet guide.

The current version:

They can pry my whole milk from my cold, dead hands. Hey, maybe he's right, but it just seems a bit weird to me to promote that all the way up to the #1 command. Particulary, even for those who don't have weight to lose. I think the rest of the guide makes a lot of sense, although I'm not sure I buy eliminating what I "enjoy" the most. I haven't tinkered with the food reward stuff, and I'm not sure I ever want to. If I'm going to eliminate the pleasure I get from food, I might as well count calories.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Kurt Harris has revised his diet guide.

The current version:

The Archevore Diet - A pastoral whole foods diet that can improve your health by more closely emulating the evolutionary metabolic milieu and avoiding the hazards of industrial foodways.

The diet minimizes putative neolithic agents of disease, ensures adequate micronutrition, and may minimize food reward effects.

Go as far down the list as you can in whatever time frame you can manage. The further along the list you stop, the healthier you are likely to be. Earlier steps, in my clinical experience, will give more bang for the buck.

There is no counting, measuring, or weighing. Calories count, but why count them?*

0. Get plenty of sleep and deal with any non-food addictions. If you're drinking 12 beers a day, or smoking 2 packs, diet may help but is hardly your first priority.

1. Eliminate sugar (including fruit juices and sports drinks) and all caloric drinks, including milk. Drink water, tea or coffee.

2. Eliminate gluten grains. No cake, cookies or pastries. No bread or pasta, whole grain or otherwise.

This rule and rule #1 pretty much eliminate anything that comes in a box.

White rice and whole meal corn products are reasonable sources of starch if tolerated, but not as nutritious as plant storage organs (root vegetables).

3. Eliminate seed oils - grain and seed derived oils (cooking oils). Eat or fry with with ghee, pastured butter, animal fats, or coconut oil. Avoid temperate plant oils like corn, soy, canola, flax, walnut, etc. Go easy on the nuts, especially soy and peanuts.

4. Two or three meals a day is best. No snacking. You're not a herbivore. Whole foods prepared at home should be the rule. Low meal frequency is a powerful tool if you have weight to lose.

5. Favor grass-fed ruminants like beef, lamb and bison for your red meat. These meats have excellent n-6/n-3 ratios and their saturated and monounsaturated fats are a great fuel source. Wild game is good if you can process it yourself- but commercial venison and bison is too lean and is expensive. Eat fish a few times a week and pastured eggs if you like them.

6. Eat offal for the vitamins and choline. Some fresh beef liver 1-2 times a week is plenty. Mix it with your ground hamburger if you prefer. Pastured butter is good source of K2.

7. Animal fats are an excellent dietary fuel and come with lots of fat soluble vitamins. It can work very well to simply replace your sugar and wheat calories with animal fats. If you are not diabetic and you prefer it, you can eat more starch and less animal fat.

Plant storage organs like potatoes and sweet potatoes are nutrient laden and well tolerated by most people. The soluble fiber in these foods is very likely beneficial, unlike the insoluble fiber in bran.

8. Make sure you are Vitamin D replete. Get daily midday sun in season or consider supplementation if you never get outside.

9. Fruits and vegetables - Besides starchy plants for fuel and micronutrients, eat a variety of different colored plants of whatever you like and tolerate. Think hormesis. Some is better than none, but neither big salads nor fruit to excess will save your life.

10. Get proper exercise. Both resistance and "aerobic" exercise have benefits, including mental. Think hormesis again — the recovery periods are where you get the benefit. If you're going to life weights every day, or run marathons at all, do it for fun, not for your health.

11. Most modern fruits aren't really just bags of sugar. That was hyperbole, people, a rhetorical technique. It's hard to get too much fructose too fast eating normal quantities of fruit, but don't make it your staple and don't go nuts with watermelon and agave, which are nearly pure fructose. [i disagree here. I'd say watermelon is nearly pure water, not nearly pure fructose. —MT]

I do think a diet based on beef and potatoes is healthier than one based on granny smiths for most people.

12. If you are allergic to milk protein or concerned about theoretical risks of casein, you can stick to butter and avoid milk, cream and soft cheeses. Aged cheeses 6 months and older may not have beta-casomorphin and are good sources of K2.

No counting, measuring or weighing is required, nor is it encouraged.

I am agnostic on macronutrient ratios outside of very broad parameters.

Archevore eaters typically range from 5-35% carbohydrate, from 10-30% protein and from 50 to 80% fat (mostly from animals) but wider ranges are entirely possible if you are not dieting and you are meticulous about the quality of your animal food sources.

If you are trying to lose weight, really minimizing fructose and eating 50-70g a day of carbohydrate as starch is recommended. Skipping breakfast or at least no carbs for breakfast can be very helpful.

If you are at your desired weight and healthy, 20% of calories as carbs is plenty for most very active people.

Archevore diets tend to be lower carbohydrate than the standard american diet (SAD) because you can only eat so much, and eating animals gives you lots of fat. But it is emphatically not a "low carb" diet as you do not count anything, you just avoid certain foods that happen to contain carbohydrate.

It is perfectly acceptable if you don't gain fat with it to eat more starch and less animal fat.

Note that the 19th century categories called "Fat" and "Carbohydrate" are each broad macronutrient categories that contain both good and bad.

Saturated and monounsaturated fat is generally good. A lot more than 4% of calories from PUFA (whether n-3 or n-6) is likely bad.

For healthy non-diabetics, starch is good. Excess fructose (added sugar) may be bad.

In wheat, the carbohydrate starch is probably not the major problem. It is the gluten proteins and wheat germ agglutinin that come along with the starch that are suspect.

So forget "carbs vs fat".

It is neolithic agents of disease versus everything else. And consider that the way food is prepared and its cultural context (food reward) may itself prove to be a NAD.

Most Archevores only know macronutrient metrics in retrospect, as they don't target numbers just like wild humans didn't target numbers.

Your mileage may vary!

So eat what you want. This is simply free advice that has worked very well for me and at least hundreds of patients and readers. I'm not trying to save the world, as I find it generally does not want saving.

Note: The order of the steps is arrived at by balancing my best guess at the noxiousness of each neolithic agent or food with the prevalence of each agent in the North American diet and the effort/reward ratio of the step. If your culture has a different diet the order of the steps might change. For instance, Chinese who fry everything they eat in soybean oil and don't eat much wheat would move step three up to the step two position.

* If you prefer to suffer with a calculator and scale without trying this first, knock yourself out, but why not try it first? If it doesn't work, go to 70g of carbs a day and take out whatever foods you are "enjoying" the most. If that doesn't work, then you might indeed have to count calories. You might have lost the genetic lottery or it may just be too late.

Sorry if I missed this, Maurile, but what's your opinion on this?The toughest thing in my opinion is determining who to listen to.

J

 

[guderian]

I agree that it's hard to figure out who to listen to and there's a lot of shaky science in nutrition, so I recommend that people go to a professional nutritionist. I was diagnosed with diabetes a year ago and had the unique problem (for a diabetic) of needing to put on/maintain weight. I had a bunch of medical tests run and took them to a professional nutritionist and after listening to their advice I'm off diabetes meds, my glucose stays in the 'normal' range and I've been able to maintain my weight.

Before going, I was feeling like my diet was the center point of a Venn diagram--where I couldn't eat carbs or most fats. However, the medical tests also revealed some good news that opened up some ways to get calories back into my diet. It cost $220 out of pocket, but it was money well spent.

 

[JFT Ben]

Kurt Harris has revised his diet guide.

The current version:

Sorry if I missed this, Maurile, but what's your opinion on this?The toughest thing in my opinion is determining who to listen to.

J

I think with the growing popularity and attention people like Cordain, Mark Sitton, Rob Wolf, Taubes, Eades and William Davis are bringing to Peleo/Primal eating as well as what books like Wheat Belly (#5 on NY Best Sellers), documentaries like Fat Head and CrossFit popularity (which promotes Paleo eating) also bring to the table, I see a shift coming on how people start thinking about food. There seems to only be limited studies done yet on this Paleo/Primal style of eating, but as these hypotheses are gathering steam, I would expect to see more clinical studies. The anecdotal evidence is pretty strong as it relates to reduction of various diseases (diabetes, high cholestorol) and other random ailments (arthitis, acne). Part of the problem is the huge amount of money the cereal/food companies have invested to keep the general public eating cheap corn and wheat products as their profits are huge (I saw an awesome blog post on this subject but I can't find it right now) compared to beef/chicken/veggies. This influence on doctors, dietary guidelines and so forth is huge, but I think the truth will prevail eventually. The article MT linked was pretty solid, but I eat and tolerate dairy. Other than that it seems pretty primal. In our house, we're not perfect but generally follow these few rules while throwing in cheese, whole milk and heavy cream into the mix as well:-No Bread, Flour, etc. We have limited amount of cereal we are weening the kids from, but really limit whole grains, standard sweets.

-Eat meat, eggs, fat. Lots of grass fed beef, pork, free-range eggs, organic chicken, wild salmon, beef jerkey, coconut oil.

-Berries, veggies in abundance - also have a farm share

-supplements: whey protein, fish oil, multivitamin

-exercise (lots of slow stuff like hiking, jogs, biking, weight lifting, sprinting once/week).

That's about it. I was a vegetarian for a year before switching to Primal and feel much better and healthier now than before. We feel the "diet" is pretty easy to follow and don't miss the bread or pasta (substitute zucchini a lot of times for pasta with meat/marinara sauce).

 

[Random]

I agree that it's hard to figure out who to listen to and there's a lot of shaky science in nutrition, so I recommend that people go to a professional nutritionist. I was diagnosed with diabetes a year ago and had the unique problem (for a diabetic) of needing to put on/maintain weight. I had a bunch of medical tests run and took them to a professional nutritionist and after listening to their advice I'm off diabetes meds, my glucose stays in the 'normal' range and I've been able to maintain my weight. Before going, I was feeling like my diet was the center point of a Venn diagram--where I couldn't eat carbs or most fats. However, the medical tests also revealed some good news that opened up some ways to get calories back into my diet. It cost $220 out of pocket, but it was money well spent.

ApoE2?

 

[Joe Bryant]

We feel the "diet" is pretty easy to follow and don't miss the bread or pasta (substitute zucchini a lot of times for pasta with meat/marinara sauce).

Thanks. Can you elaborate more on this?J

 

[GDogg]

We feel the "diet" is pretty easy to follow and don't miss the bread or pasta (substitute zucchini a lot of times for pasta with meat/marinara sauce).

Thanks. Can you elaborate more on this?J

Not to hijack the response, but what my wife and I do is use spaghetti squash. Cut it in half, put it in the microwave for 8-12 minutes while our sauce is simmering and then use a fork to remove the spaghetti squash. It comes out like strands of pasta. Put it on a plate, add a little olive oil to the "pasta," and pour the sauce over it. It's not the same, but it's an excellent substitute.

 

[Chaka]

We feel the "diet" is pretty easy to follow and don't miss the bread or pasta (substitute zucchini a lot of times for pasta with meat/marinara sauce).

Thanks. Can you elaborate more on this?J

Zucchini pastaDifferent recipe.

 

[scoobygang]

We feel the "diet" is pretty easy to follow and don't miss the bread or pasta (substitute zucchini a lot of times for pasta with meat/marinara sauce).

Thanks. Can you elaborate more on this?J

I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread. A lot of low carbers (not just paleo folks) use either a spiralizer or a julienne peeler to make zuchinni noodles for pasta dishes. I do this sometimes because my wife likes it that way, but I don't think it really tastes or feels like "pasta". I often prefer to just cube up some vegetables and make a chunky ratatouille or italian stew with those flavors. As a noodle substitute, I think cabbage actually comes somewhat closer, particularly in asian preparations.

I also find myself eating a lot of italian ingredients in less adulterated forms. I slice up tomatoes and eat them with just a little salt and olive oil. Or I make a caprese salad. Or some antipasti (rarely, as I'm not huge on nitrates).

 

[JFT Ben]

I think I mentioned this earlier in the thread. A lot of low carbers (not just paleo folks) use either a spiralizer or a julienne peeler to make zuchinni noodles for pasta dishes. I do this sometimes because my wife likes it that way, but I don't think it really tastes or feels like "pasta". I often prefer to just cube up some vegetables and make a chunky ratatouille or italian stew with those flavors. As a noodle substitute, I think cabbage actually comes somewhat closer, particularly in asian preparations.

I also find myself eating a lot of italian ingredients in less adulterated forms. I slice up tomatoes and eat them with just a little salt and olive oil. Or I make a caprese salad. Or some antipasti (rarely, as I'm not huge on nitrates).

That's what we do too. We've had tons of tomatoes, zucchinis, onions, summer squash, potatoes and the like in our farm share and my wife made a killer ratatoille with those ingrediants and some ground beef with italian spices a few nights ago. Dinner tonight will be zucchinni medalians with basic red sauce and ground beef since I'm cooking and need something quick.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Kurt Harris has revised his diet guide.

Sorry if I missed this, Maurile, but what's your opinion on this?The toughest thing in my opinion is determining who to listen to.

Nobody's right about everything, but I think Dr. Harris is always worth listening to.

Regarding his step #1, I don't agree that people should cut out all caloric drinks. It depends on one's goals. A bodybuilder, an endurance athlete, and an obese person trying to lose weight will all fit into different categories. The first two can make great use of caloric drinks. The third one may or may not be able to, depending on individual quirks. I don't think a one-size-fits-all rule is appropriate there. (I also wouldn't lump fresh-squeezed fruit juice in with other sugary drinks.)

His step #2 is also an individual thing. I think pretty much everybody would do well to reduce or eliminate consumption of modern wheat. But plenty of people have eaten a lot of rye, barley, and other gluten grains while remaining in great health — especially if the grains are sprouted and/or sourdoughed.

I'm fully on board with his step #3. Corn oil and soy oil seem to be poisonous for pretty much everybody, as far as I know. (And to a lesser extent, canola oil and other seed oils.)

I don't know how important step #4 is. I've personally found it helpful, but a lot of people seem to do well on six meals a day as well. Maybe it's an individual thing; maybe it's just not all that important in general.

I think the rest of his advice is generally pretty good. In this revision, Dr. Harris has become a lot more supportive of starches (e.g. potatoes and sweet potatoes) and fruits, which is a change I agree with.

 

[snitwitch]

some mainstream paleo coverage here, with a little crossfit thrown in (they espouse paleo eating). This Sisson chap is interviewed briefly.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Very good article here, by someone I'd never heard of until right now. I'll be adding his blog to my RSS feed.

The Five Failings of Paleo

by DARRIN on OCTOBER 14, 2011

Unless you've been living under a 24 Hour Fitness, you've probably noticed that this whole Paleo thing is blowing up in a big way.

From the New York Times to ABC Nightline and the Atlantic to Dr. Oz, eating like a caveman has never been more in the public eye, and it shows no sign of slowing down any time soon.

The good news is that meat and eggs are back on the table. The bad news is that, like many other diets, highly-processed stuff is out, as well as less-refined foods such as grains, legumes, and (sometimes) dairy.

I hopped onto the Paleo bandwagon several years ago, before it really started to take off. (As both a health nut and a scientist, it was inevitable that I'd eventually research the diet that humans evolved eating.)

I expected to find something resembling a raw vegan diet based on readings I had done previously when I was a vegetarian, but what I found instead was pro-meat and the easiest diet I had ever followed. It also gave me the best results as far as my health and fitness were concerned. Suffice it to say I am a BIG Paleo fan, and predict it will keep growing for the foreseeable future.

But I've got some beefs with it–as I do with every other diet–and it's time to get a few things off my chest.

Arguments That Hold No Water

First off, there's a couple of objections that often come up when debating the health merits of replicating our ancestors's diet:

1. Cavemen died at 30 years old. Our modern diet allows us to live much longer.

2. Food was scarce for our ancestors. They had to burn a lot of calories to get relatively low-calorie food.

I've addressed both of these claims elsewhere on this site, but here's a brief refresher.The idea that our caveman forebears died at a much earlier age than us is undeniable. But of the millions (or billions?) of things that have changed in our lives since then, why give all the credit to diet?

It is far more likely that the unbelievable advances in medicine and medical care are the major causes of our dramatically increased lifespans. Before this technology was available what today are everyday injuries and illnesses would prove fatal… or worse!

And among modern hunter-gatherers, we see that the average lifespan is brought down by factors such as infant mortality, and that those who are lucky enough to avoid the injuries and illnesses so easily cured by modern medicine live to an old age without the "inevitable" mental and physical decline we now take for granted.

That we evolved under mainly famine conditions is a "just-so story" that has no scientific merit. The idea of living off the land horrifies most inhabitants of industrialized societies, which is where this idea originates from. Again, when we look at modern hunter-gatherers, we see that they spend far less time getting food each week than most of us spend at our day jobs.

Humans, like all successful species, have had to weather famine conditions at one point or another. But if this were to have been a permanent environment, we would have either gone extinct or adapted to a different food source. That's how the brute force of evolution works.

Instead, we are adapted to both times of famine and times of plenty. To claim otherwise would mean that we are an outlier in this sense from the animal kingdom, and would require supporting evidence that is simply not there.

But enough with the lame criticisms of Paleo, let's move on to the REAL problems.

Fail #1: We Don't REALLY Know What Our Ancestors Ate

By studying the unique characteristics of the human body, modern hunter-gatherers, and our closest primate relatives, we can figure out with a high degree of accuracy what the diet of our ancestors prior to the advent of agriculture was.

In short, we are best adapted to run on two sources of fuel:

1. Animal Fat

2. Plant Starches

Prehistoric humans almost certainly ate a diet high in meat and vegetables, with some eggs, fruit, nuts, and seeds when available. And this is, in basic terms, the kind of diet I think most of us should eat.

But when it comes down to it, we can't know with 100% accuracy how we ate. We have yet to find a magic phone booth that will transfer us back through time–Bill and Ted notwithstanding–to directly observe how our great-times-450-grandparents lived. Yes, we've found animal bones with knife scrape marks on them, and fossilized poop with plant matter, but we'll never be able to go all National Geographic and directly study our caveman forebears in detail.

Although we clearly couldn't have eaten dairy, grains, and legumes in large volumes, there is plenty of evidence that some of our ancestors consumed a little bit. It's hard to believe that they disposed of the mammary glands of female aurochs when modern tribes such as the Hadza characteristically make use of every last bit of the animal.

A recent study has even suggested that we were grinding flour up to 30,000 years ago! (Shock! Horror!) [Note: that's not wheat flour. It'd be more like potato starch flour. -MT]

And if all that wasn't enough, even if we knew exactly what we ate back then, most of those species of animals and plants likely no longer exist today. They have all almost certainly either:

[*]Gone extinct, or

[*]Drastically changed as the result of domestication.

We might have a pretty good idea of how our ancestors ate, but not a good enough idea to say that all people would be better off if they avoided grains, legumes, and dairy completely. It's much better to test these types of food out on yourself to see how you do before you decide to completely avoid them.

Fail #2: There Is No ONE Paleo Diet

By the time the Paleolithic era had ended, about 10,000 years ago, humans had already spread across the entire planet. With the exception of some very hard-to-get-to places, we were hanging out everywhere from the frigid arctic to the sweltering tropics and from coastal areas to remote mountaintops.

There is no ONE diet, with strict macronutrient ratios and lists of things not to eat, that could have conceivably sustained the human population at this point. Instead, we would have had to learn how to thrive in environments with vastly different food sources. Some of us would have eaten hardly any plants during our lifetimes, while others would have rarely tasted meat.

Focusing solely on the Paleolithic to analyze the optimal human diet is more than a little bit arbitrary, and is likely to be the result of marketing efforts just as much as science.

Most modern anthropologists agree that the earliest primates ate primarily fruits and insects. The first "true humans" (Homo Habbilis) then started scavenging meat, which allowed us to start standing upright and grow the massive brains that now consume 20% of our energy.

There is no one magic diet for humans.Throughout the history of our species, we have proved ourselves remarkably adept omnivores, thriving off a wide variety of foods.

Fail #3: Yes, We HAVE Evolved Since the Paleolithic

One of the basic tenets of Paleo diets is that our genome is optimally designed to a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and that evolution moves so slow that it has not been able to evolve to suit our modern environments.

As it turns out, recent scientific evidence suggests that, not only have we been evolving since the advent of agriculture, we are doing so at a rate that is about 100 times greater than during the Paleolithic!

This can be most evident in the physical characteristics of different races. Humans scattered all over the globe and slowly evolved to suit their environments better, and we can now see the vast physical differences that characterize us. For example, those of us who remained in the tropics kept the dark skin that would prevent sunburn while those of us that moved to cooler destinations got paler skin that could more easily synthesize vitamin D from limited sunlight.

One well-studied phenomenon is the pattern of lactose tolerance. Most mammals lose the enzyme necessary to break down the sugar in milk as they grow up, but there is a minority of humans that still produce this enzyme their entire life and are able to consume dairy with no major issues. These people are almost invariably descended from people in chillier climates, where dairy would have been a crucial form of food due to the lack of vegetation.

Although we are very much a product of preagricultural evolutionary forces, the rapid evolution that has occurred since then should not be ignored. From the standpoint of diet, it suggests that many of us, depending on our ethnic roots, should expect to handle the Neolithic foods of dairy, grains, and legumes much more effectively than others.

Fail #4: What Is Natural Is Not Necessarily Optimal

The argument known as the Naturalistic Fallacy states that it is illogical to claim that something is good or right just because it is natural.

In other words, just because we probably didn't consume very much dairy, grains, and legumes during the bulk of our evolution doesn't mean they are inherently unhealthy for us.

Similarly, just because we didn't eat frozen pizza, microwave mac and cheese, and White Castle burgers during our evolution doesn't mean they are inherently unhealthy to us!

Note that the opposite is not necessarily true. This doesn't prove that these types of foods ARE inherently healthy. It just means that you need to draw your conclusions from different sources.

It makes a ton of intuitive sense that foods new to our diet are detrimental to our health. But from a scientific perspective, this observation is only the first part of the scientific method: formulating a hypothesis that must then be tested.

Fail #5: Nutritionism Is a Horrible Basis For a Healthy Diet

Perhaps the biggest threat facing Paleo today, the one most likely to get it thrown into the “fad diet bin” by most people, is the insistence of most of its practitioners to justify it on the basis of nutritionism.

In the late 90′s and early 00′s, the Paleo diet was a low-carb, low-fat, and high-protein diet. This has been lovingly labeled the “Faileo” diet by many today due to the incredible difficulty of eating little more than salads and chicken breasts (not to mention the silliness of thinking that our ancestors actually ate like this.)

More recently, Paleo shook off the low-fat title and went strictly low-carb. This is the version of the diet most followed during its current explosion. It has been popularly dubbed as the second coming of Atkins and has been criticized on the same points.

The hypothesis that a traditional diet of meat, vegetables, fruit, eggs, nuts, and seeds causes us to be more healthy and fit meshes perfectly with all observations, but it still needs to be tested in order to meet strict scientific scrutiny.

I hate to break it to you, but our ancestors didn't eat a strict low-carb diet. The power of Paleo comes from focusing on food quality rather than food quantity.

Most diets attempt to earn their authority by demonizing some nutrient(s) while holding other nutrient(s) up on a pedestal, all the while quoting different scientific studies they claim support their hypothesis. So you've got low-carb/high-fat diets, high-fat/low-carb diets, high-polyunsaturated fat/low-saturated fat diets and just about every other combination you can think of. This nutritionism may be a great way to cause a sensation and sell books, but it is a horrible way to create and defend a good diet.

As I have bemoaned before, nutritionism is a very young science and as a result many (if not most) of the findings are inherently flawed and will eventually be superceded by more accurate information. This is similar to how early astronomy viewed the Earth as the center of the world until more rigorous testing found that it orbited the sun, which was a part of the Milky Way Galaxy, which is a tiny part in a much larger universe.

Just as you shouldn't let observations be the only basis for how you eat, you shouldn't let scientific studies either. These two things are ultimately most beneficial for separating the wheat from the chaff and doing the most important thing of all: testing things out on yourself to see what works. You should always try things out for yourself–for at least 28 days–to give yourself the best idea of what you should and shouldn't do in regards to your health and fitness.

The Future of Paleo

So where do I see Paleo going in the future? To be honest, I think it hasn't even started to peak yet. It seems to be popping up in the media more and more, and lots of regular folk (i.e. non-health nuts) are giving it a shot each and every day.

I see more and more mainstream media attention coming in the future. The bulk of the articles so far have simply derided it for its emphasis on meat, to point and make laugh at the "modern cavemen," or to compare it disparagingly to the Atkins diet. As more and more people succeed with it, you can expect the media's view to shift from "look at these silly cavemen killing themselves with arterycloggingsaturatedfat" to "holy hell, look how healthy these people are despite not eating healthywholegrains!"

People will start capitalizing off of it. The bookstores will become flooded with crappy Paleo books (as opposed to the small handful of excellent ones currently available). You'll see Paleo microwave dinners and supplements start creeping in. But after a certain point the wave will crest and it will no longer be the big thing.

But it won't die out completely. Like vegetarianism, Paleo is a diet that will be around for a LONG time if for no other reason than that it is fundamentally based on much more than a scattering of half-assed scientific studies.

At the end of the day, I think Paleo is the most intelligent and effective diet that has ever been advocated. Focusing on the types of food that our ancestors evolved on is an excellent hack to making health and fitness as automatic as possible.

On the other hand, I don't think we should be too hasty to outright hate on all grains, legumes, and dairy products. Although they are far from essential parts of our diet, I think they can still have their place if you go about it intelligently. (Hint: 7-11 servings per day is craziness for almost everyone!)

Although I agree that our modern diet is to blame for the wave of obesity and other diseases of civilization, I think it's far more likely to be the result of such things as sugar, flour, and highly-processed vegetable oils–the things that NO ONE has eaten in large amounts until relatively recently.

And so, most of the criticism leveled at Paleo-style diets are completely asinine and based on really bad science. Which is not to say that Paleo is above the fray. There are some failings in the ways that Paleo is commonly practiced and justified, but these things likely won't stop its momentum.

We’re definitely entering the age of Paleo, and despite its problems, I couldn't be happier.

 

[shader]

Everybody should read this article by Stephen Guyenet.

Gary Taubes did a masterful job of demolishing the idea that saturated fat and dietary cholesterol are responsible for heart disease or for the current obesity epidemic. But his alternative hypothesis — that carbs are the true culprit because they induce elevated insulin levels — appears to be in error. Guyenet explains why. (That's not to say that a low-carb diet can't be extremely beneficial for weight loss. But Taubes seems to have the mechanism wrong.)

I'm not on board with Guyenet in this instance. Taubes newest book is pretty awesome too. I'm fairly convinced that Taubes knows what he's talking about, though I will continue researching it.Taubes response:

http://garytaubes.com/2011/09/catching-up-on-lost-time-ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-carbohydrates-kettles-pots-other-odds-ends-part-i/

 

[Senor Schmutzig]

Just stumbled across Mark's Daily Apple and am :intrigued:.

What's this RSS feed Maurile speaks of?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

#3 and #4 have been my major problems with the Church of Paleo ever since I first read about it (though the author expressed it far better than I did).

 

[culdeus]

Everybody should read this article by Stephen Guyenet.

Gary Taubes did a masterful job of demolishing the idea that saturated fat and dietary cholesterol are responsible for heart disease or for the current obesity epidemic. But his alternative hypothesis — that carbs are the true culprit because they induce elevated insulin levels — appears to be in error. Guyenet explains why. (That's not to say that a low-carb diet can't be extremely beneficial for weight loss. But Taubes seems to have the mechanism wrong.)

I'm not on board with Guyenet in this instance. Taubes newest book is pretty awesome too. I'm fairly convinced that Taubes knows what he's talking about, though I will continue researching it.Taubes response:

http://garytaubes.com/2011/09/catching-up-on-lost-time-ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-carbohydrates-kettles-pots-other-odds-ends-part-i/

I don't get why he had to write 1500 word response of mostly fluff to get to 1960's era research on Type 1 Diabetics.

Much of what was removed was the rubbing back and forth. I would present an observation – high levels of insulin, for instance, in obese subjects first observed in the early 1960s – and then I would explain how it was interpreted to support the conventional wisdom (we get fat because we overeat and being fat then causes insulin resistance and so increases insulin levels) and why that wasn’t necessarily the correct interpretation and how the same observation supported alternative hypotheses as well. And I would go back and forth with arguments and counterarguments.

You ever see what happens to an insulin dependent diabetic when they quit taking insulin. If they can manage to stay conscious for a few weeks they end up dying like a holocaust victim. There are tons that say it isn't as simple as "insulin response" = fat. Sometimes the laws of thermodynamics hold. Which is why except for a few periods of plateaus your weight loss with accurate calorie counting can predict your weight within 2 pounds.

 

[urbanhack]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/10/27/141666659/the-paleo-diet-not-the-way-to-a-healthy-future?sc=fb&cc=fp

 

[Smack Tripper]

Kurt Harris has revised his diet guide.

The current version:

Sorry if I missed this, Maurile, but what's your opinion on this?The toughest thing in my opinion is determining who to listen to.

J

I think with the growing popularity and attention people like Cordain, Mark Sitton, Rob Wolf, Taubes, Eades and William Davis are bringing to Peleo/Primal eating as well as what books like Wheat Belly (#5 on NY Best Sellers), documentaries like Fat Head and CrossFit popularity (which promotes Paleo eating) also bring to the table, I see a shift coming on how people start thinking about food. There seems to only be limited studies done yet on this Paleo/Primal style of eating, but as these hypotheses are gathering steam, I would expect to see more clinical studies. The anecdotal evidence is pretty strong as it relates to reduction of various diseases (diabetes, high cholestorol) and other random ailments (arthitis, acne). Part of the problem is the huge amount of money the cereal/food companies have invested to keep the general public eating cheap corn and wheat products as their profits are huge (I saw an awesome blog post on this subject but I can't find it right now) compared to beef/chicken/veggies. This influence on doctors, dietary guidelines and so forth is huge, but I think the truth will prevail eventually. The article MT linked was pretty solid, but I eat and tolerate dairy. Other than that it seems pretty primal. In our house, we're not perfect but generally follow these few rules while throwing in cheese, whole milk and heavy cream into the mix as well:-No Bread, Flour, etc. We have limited amount of cereal we are weening the kids from, but really limit whole grains, standard sweets.

-Eat meat, eggs, fat. Lots of grass fed beef, pork, free-range eggs, organic chicken, wild salmon, beef jerkey, coconut oil.

-Berries, veggies in abundance - also have a farm share

-supplements: whey protein, fish oil, multivitamin

-exercise (lots of slow stuff like hiking, jogs, biking, weight lifting, sprinting once/week).

That's about it. I was a vegetarian for a year before switching to Primal and feel much better and healthier now than before. We feel the "diet" is pretty easy to follow and don't miss the bread or pasta (substitute zucchini a lot of times for pasta with meat/marinara sauce).

Where does peanut butter fit in?

 

[Statcruncher]

http://www.npr.org/b...ure?sc=fb&cc=fp

An article that vaguely recites worn mantras/misconceptions of decades past that paint the paleo diet as bad. Let me tell you, I was shocked when I saw the author was a largely vegetarian anthropologist. Shocked I tell you.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/10/27/141666659/the-paleo-diet-not-the-way-to-a-healthy-future?sc=fb&cc=fp

Thanks for posting that; I hadn't seen it.The author started out with a few misconceptions about paleo dieting that she corrected in the course of researching her article (such as that a paleo diet involves eating a lot of factory-farmed meat).

She is left with two remaining criticisms:

1. There's no such thing as a uniform diet shared by all of our paleolithic ancestors: common conceptions of the paleo diet are based on an arbitrarily selected period of our ancestral past; and in any case, no matter which period we're talking about, human diets varied by region and by season.

2. Human dietary choices are not shaped simply by our genes; they are shaped also by culture and tradition.

Her first point is a very good one, and I think she gets less mileage out of it than she could have. Her second point misses the mark.

Taking those points in turn:

1. This is not a criticism of the nutritional precepts of the paleo diet. It is instead a question about its underlying logic. It identifies a potential miconception of paleo-dieters: that our paleolithic ancestors ate anything resembling a uniform diet (that we can now emulate). They didn't. Two responses come immediately to mind. First, any such misconception is not widespread. For the most part, everybody already knows that human diets have always varied quite a bit. And second, even among people who hold that misconception, it has limited practical significance. While the diets of our paleolithic ancestors varied quite a bit, they all had a number of features in common, and it is these shared features that matter to paleo dieters. For example, none of our paleolithic ancestors ate large amounts of high-fructose corn syrup (and other refined sugars), refined flour from domesticated grains, or industrially processed vegetable oils. While the huge majority of ancestral human diets had plenty of other features in common as well, avoiding just those three neolithic agents of disease gets us a long way toward eating a diet that accords with our evolutionary heritage (and therefore with our metabolic infrastructure).

But there's another aspect to this criticism that I think is generally underappreciated in the paleo community and merits further consideration. The author says: "Our ancestors began to eat meat in large quantities around 2 million years ago, when the first Homo forms began regular use of stone tool technology. Before that, the diet of australopithecines and their relatives was overwhelmingly plant-based, judging from clues in teeth and bones. I could argue that the more genuine 'paleo' diet was vegetarian."

Indeed. If it's always best to eat what our ancestors ate, then how did early humans thrive by incorporating meat into their diets in the first place? Put another way, if switching from a generally vegetarian diet to a thoroughly omnivorous diet was an improvement, then who's to say that switching from a meat-and-vegetable–heavy diet to a grain-heavy diet can't also be an improvement?

This fallacy is somewhat common in the paleo community: "Dairy wasn't eaten in the paleolithic era, so you shouldn't eat butter." "Rice wasn't eaten in the paleolithic era, so it must be bad for you." And so on.

That's not how the universe works. What we can say with some confidence is that foods that have long been common in our ancestral diets are safe for us: we are adapted to them.* It does not follow, however, that foods that have not long been common in our ancestral diets are unsafe for us. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. To find out, we need to see what happens when we eat them. We need the scientific method — we need experiments — not just stories about our ancestral past.

As it turns out, and as we should expect, most foods that we haven't fully adapted to are problematic in a number of ways. Modern wheat, for example, contains phytates and enzyme inhibitors and potential gut irritants that make it less optimal for most humans than a similar amount of broccoli would be. But that's not something we can divine from our prehistory; it's something we must conclude only from careful observation. Paleo-dietary principles do not, therefore, constitute unyielding conclusions; they merely supply testable hypotheses.

Its hypotheses have generally held up quite well when tested — but with exceptions. I think paleo dieters who avoid butter on prehistorical grounds, for example, are making a mistake.

2. The author has the reasoning underlying a paleo diet backwards here. The claim isn't that our ancestral dietary choices were shaped by our genes; the claim is that our genes were shaped by our ancestral dietary choices. Modern koala bears are adapted to eating eucalyptus leaves because that's what their ancestors have eaten for many generations; humans are likewise adapted to eating the types of foods that our ancestors have eaten for many generations. Turned around in the right direction, this reasoning is sound.

_______

*This is one reason why the idea that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol are harmful to us should be highly suspect until it is supported by good empirical evidence — which it isn't.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

LOL at the Dr. Oz version of the "prehistoric" diet.

 

[Chaka]

LOL at the Dr. Oz version of the "prehistoric" diet.

I know he has to simplify things to cater to his audience but I am surprised he is pushing soy.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

LOL at the Dr. Oz version of the "prehistoric" diet.

I know he has to simplify things to cater to his audience but I am surprised he is pushing soy.

Is there a list of sponsors for the Dr. Oz Show somewhere?In response to the NPR article, J. Stanton pointed out that NPR's sponsors include Cargill, Kashi Company, and Dow Chemical. Cargill and Dow Chemical are both into processing soy foods (Dow Chemical is one of the largest soy processors in the world), and Kashi promotes soy as well (as most of its products contain soy protein). Maybe Dr. Oz has a similar lineup of sponsors?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I may try out this diet.

My link

 

[Chaka]

I may try out this diet.

My link

Good luck.ETA: A bit on fluctuating cholesterol levels.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Worthwhile lecture here by Dr. Terry Wahls (the mother of Zach Wahls). After being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, she was confined to a wheelchair and on her way to being bedridden until she started researching and self-experimenting with a paleo-type diet.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks Maurile,

I've kind of dropped out of the discussion here on this. For the basic "get most of it right in your opinion" look, do you think Mark Sisson's book is still a good choice to follow?

J

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/10/27/141666659/the-paleo-diet-not-the-way-to-a-healthy-future?sc=fb&cc=fp

Thanks for posting that; I hadn't seen it.The author started out with a few misconceptions about paleo dieting that she corrected in the course of researching her article (such as that a paleo diet involves eating a lot of factory-farmed meat).

She is left with two remaining criticisms:

1. There's no such thing as a uniform diet shared by all of our paleolithic ancestors: common conceptions of the paleo diet are based on an arbitrarily selected period of our ancestral past; and in any case, no matter which period we're talking about, human diets varied by region and by season.

2. Human dietary choices are not shaped simply by our genes; they are shaped also by culture and tradition.

Her first point is a very good one, and I think she gets less mileage out of it than she could have. Her second point misses the mark.

Taking those points in turn:

1. This is not a criticism of the nutritional precepts of the paleo diet. It is instead a question about its underlying logic. It identifies a potential miconception of paleo-dieters: that our paleolithic ancestors ate anything resembling a uniform diet (that we can now emulate). They didn't. Two responses come immediately to mind. First, any such misconception is not widespread. For the most part, everybody already knows that human diets have always varied quite a bit. And second, even among people who hold that misconception, it has limited practical significance. While the diets of our paleolithic ancestors varied quite a bit, they all had a number of features in common, and it is these shared features that matter to paleo dieters. For example, none of our paleolithic ancestors ate large amounts of high-fructose corn syrup (and other refined sugars), refined flour from domesticated grains, or industrially processed vegetable oils. While the huge majority of ancestral human diets had plenty of other features in common as well, avoiding just those three neolithic agents of disease gets us a long way toward eating a diet that accords with our evolutionary heritage (and therefore with our metabolic infrastructure).

But there's another aspect to this criticism that I think is generally underappreciated in the paleo community and merits further consideration. The author says: "Our ancestors began to eat meat in large quantities around 2 million years ago, when the first Homo forms began regular use of stone tool technology. Before that, the diet of australopithecines and their relatives was overwhelmingly plant-based, judging from clues in teeth and bones. I could argue that the more genuine 'paleo' diet was vegetarian."

Indeed. If it's always best to eat what our ancestors ate, then how did early humans thrive by incorporating meat into their diets in the first place? Put another way, if switching from a generally vegetarian diet to a thoroughly omnivorous diet was an improvement, then who's to say that switching from a meat-and-vegetable–heavy diet to a grain-heavy diet can't also be an improvement?

This fallacy is somewhat common in the paleo community: "Dairy wasn't eaten in the paleolithic era, so you shouldn't eat butter." "Rice wasn't eaten in the paleolithic era, so it must be bad for you." And so on.

That's not how the universe works. What we can say with some confidence is that foods that have long been common in our ancestral diets are safe for us: we are adapted to them.* It does not follow, however, that foods that have not long been common in our ancestral diets are unsafe for us. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. To find out, we need to see what happens when we eat them. We need the scientific method — we need experiments — not just stories about our ancestral past.

As it turns out, and as we should expect, most foods that we haven't fully adapted to are problematic in a number of ways. Modern wheat, for example, contains phytates and enzyme inhibitors and potential gut irritants that make it less optimal for most humans than a similar amount of broccoli would be. But that's not something we can divine from our prehistory; it's something we must conclude only from careful observation. Paleo-dietary principles do not, therefore, constitute unyielding conclusions; they merely supply testable hypotheses.

Its hypotheses have generally held up quite well when tested — but with exceptions. I think paleo dieters who avoid butter on prehistorical grounds, for example, are making a mistake.

2. The author has the reasoning underlying a paleo diet backwards here. The claim isn't that our ancestral dietary choices were shaped by our genes; the claim is that our genes were shaped by our ancestral dietary choices. Modern koala bears are adapted to eating eucalyptus leaves because that's what their ancestors have eaten for many generations; humans are likewise adapted to eating the types of foods that our ancestors have eaten for many generations. Turned around in the right direction, this reasoning is sound.

_______

*This is one reason why the idea that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol are harmful to us should be highly suspect until it is supported by good empirical evidence — which it isn't.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've kind of dropped out of the discussion here on this. For the basic "get most of it right in your opinion" look, do you think Mark Sisson's book is still a good choice to follow?

In a word, yes.As the paleo/primal-style diet has gained more traction and attracted more public attention, it has become the subject of greater scrutiny by scientifically literate critics. This has led to some changes in the way the diet is commonly conceived. (For example, dietary saturated fat has become more widely embraced than it was in some of the earliest conceptions of the diet.) But the advice in Sisson's book has held up well.Sisson does repeat the mantra that "carbohydrate controls insulin; insulin controls fat storage," which has been persuasively criticized by a number of experts on metabolism. But even so, Sisson was never as carb-phobic as certain other paleo gurus. He says that he doesn't consider his diet to be a "low-carb" diet, but an "eliminate bad carbs" diet — i.e., he says to eat lots of fruits and vegetables while avoiding or minimizing grains (and, of course, refined sugars). That's still well regarded advice in the paleo world.If Sisson came out with a new edition of the book that incorporated the most recent thinking on the topics it covers, I think very little would be changed.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Maurile, thanks for linking to this blog earlier. Great stuff. And she's cute too.

Yeah, she is one of the best things about the Internet.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I've kind of dropped out of the discussion here on this. For the basic "get most of it right in your opinion" look, do you think Mark Sisson's book is still a good choice to follow?

In a word, yes.As the paleo/primal-style diet has gained more traction and attracted more public attention, it has become the subject of greater scrutiny by scientifically literate critics. This has led to some changes in the way the diet is commonly conceived. (For example, dietary saturated fat has become more widely embraced than it was in some of the earliest conceptions of the diet.) But the advice in Sisson's book has held up well.Sisson does repeat the mantra that "carbohydrate controls insulin; insulin controls fat storage," which has been persuasively criticized by a number of experts on metabolism. But even so, Sisson was never as carb-phobic as certain other paleo gurus. He says that he doesn't consider his diet to be a "low-carb" diet, but an "eliminate bad carbs" diet — i.e., he says to eat lots of fruits and vegetables while avoiding or minimizing grains (and, of course, refined sugars). That's still well regarded advice in the paleo world.If Sisson came out with a new edition of the book that incorporated the most recent thinking on the topics it covers, I think very little would be changed.

Perfect. Thanks. As usual with you, that was exactly the information I was looking for.J

 

[Chaka]

What the world eats

 

[Chaka]

What the world eats

The german family spends $500/week on food. Wow.

There is a good amount of beer on that table.

 

[regularguy]

Has anybody here bought this new Paleo cookbook?

Well Fed: Paleo Recipes for People who Love to Eat

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Stephan Guyenet's TED talk.