When I wind up in a nutrition thread in the lounge, I usually end up trolling the hell out of people and bringing up the paleolithic diet. It seems a lot of people are unfamiliar with the concept.

What's a paleolithic diet? It consists of foods available before the start of agriculture: meat, fowl, fish, vegetables, fruit, and nuts. Absent are grains, dairy, legumes (beans, peanuts, etc.), alcohol, processed foods (obviously), artificial anything (obviously). There's no agreement on the best mix and proportions of foods. Modern fruit, for instance, is often referred to as "bags of sugar" and people often opt for small berries. Nuts are kind of looked at skeptically for a few reasons. People sometimes turn a blind eye to dairy, but it can cause problems for many (the majority of people on this planet are lactose intolerant; THE MAJORITY).

Now, your first response is probably going to be along the lines of:
-Hunter gatheres had short, ugly lives... Not true; they often had leisurely lives that could be healthy and long lasting if they could escape death in infancy: http://www.mnforsustain.org/food_ag_worst_mistake_diamond_j.htm
-Societies couldn't have flourished without grains... Irrelevant.
-I like bread... Too fucking bad.

Questions?

12/31/2010 10:05:55 AM

why exactly does one need to go on this diet?

12/31/2010 10:25:13 AM

A friend of mine is on this diet. I did some googling and found some pretty damning takedowns not of the theory of the diet, but of the methods (basically, data and history analysis) those pushing the diet use to support their conclusions.

12/31/2010 10:29:20 AM

^Ok, let's hear it.

My position is that it is, virtually by definition, the healthiest diet possible. Why? Because it's the diet we adapted to over 2 million years.

Having said that, it's not reenactment. There is legitimate science backing it up, both anthropological and biochemical. And experimenting with it myself, there's no question I do better without grains, legumes, and dairy. There's certainly no need for any of those foods.

12/31/2010 10:31:29 AM

But since people don't have active lifestyles such as they did in the Paleolithic era how is this comparable?

12/31/2010 10:35:20 AM

Everyone should have an active lifestyle. Not having an active lifestyle doesn't permit you to eat foods you are maladapted to.

Because I sit on my ass, does that give me magical powers? Am I now able to smoke cigarettes without getting lung cancer?

If you read the article I posted, you will see that many hunter gatherers actually worked less than your typical 9-5er today:

Quote :

"It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn’t emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, “Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?”"

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 10:43 AM. Reason : d]

12/31/2010 10:38:36 AM

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 10:42 AM. Reason : .]

12/31/2010 10:42:21 AM

paging PackMan92.


and my $.02 - i agree pretty much with the OP.



[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 10:52 AM. Reason : meh-i m sure yall didnt want to hear all that ]

12/31/2010 10:48:27 AM

Buy my newsletter!

12/31/2010 10:48:57 AM

^^crossfit? fuck yea (I don't do crossfit, but I'm in love with robb wolf)

^^^Touché.

I should also point out that one of the most suspect foods of modern society is industrial seed oil (corn, soybean, canola). They are loaded with omega 6 fatty acids; this screws up your omega 6/omega 3 ratio causing inflammation and obesity. Most americans have a ratio of 20:1. Our ancestors had about a 2:1 ratio. Seed oils are not paleo. Corn oil is probably the worst thing you can consume on the planet.

12/31/2010 10:53:57 AM

Plenty of people live to be 80 while enjoying those years eating whatever they want.

So that's what I'm shooting for. No need to punish yourself by depriving yourself of tasty pleasures.

12/31/2010 10:54:11 AM

^that was the gist of the 2nd part of my post

^^no, PackMan92 is a very avid paleolithic eater



[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 10:56 AM. Reason : adesad]

12/31/2010 10:55:31 AM

^ah yea. I was going to say crossfit is tied in tightly with paleo (or sometimes the zone).

^^If you're one of those people, great. I'm not just arguing for longevity. The people I know are looking to improve the quality of their lives now.

12/31/2010 10:59:48 AM

power to ya, but you don't need to do those things to improve the quality of your life.

12/31/2010 11:01:53 AM

Improve the quality of your life now by significantly reducing the quality (tastiness) of your food!


As mentioned, plenty of people live healthy and long lives without having drastic diets.

12/31/2010 11:05:01 AM

Quote :

"Improve the quality of your life now by significantly reducing the quality (tastiness) of your food!"

[NO]

12/31/2010 11:07:49 AM

you can find "studies" supporting any diet on the internet, as well as studies that disprove it.

i wa vegan for a while. strict vegan. and i remember feeling the best i had ever felt....but part of me wonders how much of that was a self fulfilling prophecy.
and that can happen with any diet.

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 11:18 AM. Reason : but like i said, this diet is one that i approve of the most ]

12/31/2010 11:09:13 AM

some nutrition/health books I'm working on (I've finished only one so far)

12/31/2010 11:18:35 AM

Quote :

""It turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal, and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania. One Bushman, when asked why he hadn’t emulated neighboring tribes by adopting agriculture, replied, “Why should we, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?”""

Are there plenty of Mongongo nuts everywhere, or did it just work out well for a group of people living a particular lifestyle in a particular place?

Further from the link:

Quote :

"It’s almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s."

Doesn't population density also count for something? Economic and political policies in Ireland at the time? Bushmen are like 17 people per square kilometer, and Ireland at the time of the Great Famine was something like 90. Irish people were treated pretty harshly, and it certainly makes a difference if there's a lot more people and everyone is just scrounging around for food.










I mean, grind it down and the diet is basically 'eat healthy food'. Which is a great idea. The justification leaves out a lot of important stuff. Calling it a Caveman diet is just marketing.

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 11:22 AM. Reason : []

12/31/2010 11:19:33 AM

Quote :

"I mean, grind it down and the diet is basically 'eat healthy food'. Which is a great idea. The justification leaves out a lot of important stuff. Calling it a Caveman diet is just marketing."

That's ridiculous. Every diet says "eat healthy food" and then gives it's definition of what "healthy food" is.

This diet has a different definition than others: most foods invented in the last 10,000 years are unhealthy. Do you want to disagree or not?

12/31/2010 11:24:02 AM

http://outsideonline.com/outside/bodywork/201001/diets-fitness-nutrition-wellness-intro.html

http://a880.g.akamai.net/7/880/1365/1f9882323a686e/away.com/images/outside/201001/the-shape-of-my-life-graph.pdf

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 11:51 AM. Reason : s]

12/31/2010 11:49:44 AM

^interesting. regarding paleo, the guy read "the paleo diet for athletes." I have no idea what that consitutes but the description in the article says "Lots of game meats, raw produce, no refined anything except during endurance sports, then bars, bagels, gels, etc."

Bagels during endurance exercise. Umm... what?

Anyway, the guy was hungry and wanted more carbs. OK... well, a paleo diet doesn't have to be low carb at all. You can have (depending on who you ask): fruit, root vegetables (I could name a dozen kinds I eat), all varieties of squash.

Regardless, out of all the diets, he had the best HDL:LDL and the lowest bodyfat on paleo. He also said the food was delicious.

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 12:12 PM. Reason : asdfasdf]

12/31/2010 12:10:47 PM

extremely low body fat =/= healthy.

although you could make the argument that lower bodyfat in todays standards would be healthier since we don't really have periods of fasting anymore, but i don't know how much i put into that.

i mean is it really healthy to have 3-4% bodyfat?

i could be very wrong, i would love to see some unbiased studies on this
and even then all the things you see in anatomy and physiology books represents about 75% of the population {this was according to my bio professor}, and im not talking about minor difference, im talking shit like horseshow kidneys and the like. huge differences! ...
it goes to show that some things will not work for everyone

i may make a thread about that actually

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 12:20 PM. Reason : dfgdf]

12/31/2010 12:20:19 PM

True. I think HDL:LDL is pretty damn important for health though.

Quote :

"although you could make the argument that lower bodyfat in todays standards would be healthier since we don't really have periods of fasting anymore, but i don't know how much i put into that. "

Intermittent fasting is really popular in (and outside) the paleo community.

12/31/2010 12:23:19 PM

^i'm not talking about intermittent fasting, i do that because it helps me study.

im talking about months and months of very little food. (which is the argument of why higher bf percentages are "unhealthy" we don't have to worry about this anymore)

Quote :

"HDL:LDL is pretty damn important for health though"

AGREED!!!


[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 12:33 PM. Reason : ]

12/31/2010 12:29:21 PM

low body fat can definitely be misleading in ectomorphs as far as overall health is concerned.

oh well, Joie loves the six pack....who am I to take it away from her .

12/31/2010 12:33:23 PM

12/31/2010 12:36:12 PM

So it's basically Atkins + fruit

12/31/2010 12:42:14 PM

and also:

Quote :

"the majority of people on this planet are lactose intolerant; THE MAJORITY"

yes. i hate milk and i hate that i love cheese so much.
(in my personal opinion of course) humans were not meant to drink milk....i mean you have to ween babies on it! (now of course i will introduce my child to cheese and milk and whatnot-yes i know thats hypocritical )


[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ett answered it for me ]

12/31/2010 12:54:52 PM

This guy is doing a piss poor job of selling his newsletter.


This diet isn't better than any of the other 45454 diets out there.

12/31/2010 12:56:43 PM

Quote :

"So it's basically Atkins + fruit"

- dairy + root vegetables

and probably other things I can't think of. it's not a necessarily a low carb diet. you'll certainly lose more weight on a low carb or ketogenic diet

12/31/2010 12:59:48 PM

So, what are the nutshell points against grains and what is the evidence that supports these points?

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 1:43 PM. Reason : pun not intended]

12/31/2010 1:39:03 PM

Quote :

"Q. Aren't whole grains good sources of fiber, minerals, and B vitamins? How can I get these nutrients if I cut down or eliminate grains from my diet? A: On a calorie-by-calorie basis, whole grains are lousy sources of fiber, minerals, and B vitamins when compared to the lean meats, seafood, and fresh fruit and veggies that dominate The Paleo Diet. For example, a 1,000-calorie serving of fresh fruits and vegetables has between two and seven times as much fiber as does a comparable serving of whole grains. In fruits and veggies most of the fiber is heart-healthy, soluble fiber that lowers cholesterol levels -- the same cannot be said for the insoluble fiber that is predominant in most whole grains. A 1,000-calorie serving of whole grain cereal contains 15 times less calcium, three times less magnesium, 12 times less potassium, six times less iron, and two times less copper than a comparable serving of fresh vegetables. Moreover, whole grains contain a substance called phytate that almost entirely prevents the absorption of any calcium, iron, or zinc that is found in whole grains, whereas the type of iron, zinc, and copper found in lean meats and seafood is in a form that is highly absorbed. Compared to fruits and veggies, cereal grains are B-vitamin lightweights. An average 1,000 calorie serving of mixed vegetables contain 19 times more folate, five times more vitamin B6, six times more vitamin B2 and two times more vitamin B1 than a comparable serving of eight mixed whole grains. On a calorie-by-calorie basis, the niacin content of lean meat and seafood is four times greater than that found in whole grains."

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/faqs/

tl;dr:

1. grains are low in nutrients compared to fruits and vegetables
2. grains are high in anti-nutrients; in fact, the anti-nutrients in grains prevent you from absorbing the few nutrients present AND nutrients in other foods you eat.... this is really bad
3. from #2 you get things like tooth decay, leaky gut, digestive issues, inflammation, autoimmune diseases, allergies...

A great read on the second point is "How to Keep Feces Out of Your Bloodstream":
http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2010/09/19/paleo-diet-solution/

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 1:58 PM. Reason : d]

12/31/2010 1:57:33 PM

Out of all the diets, this one is the one I would love to follow the most, for the rest of my life.

However, logistical difficulties make it nearly impossible to follow it perfectly.

[One thing I would add to it if I were to follow it is yogurt, and any other fermented food product with healthy bacteria, as such products have been shown to be universally healthy, and yogurt is easily digestible by those who have lactose intolerances]

Logistical difficulties?

First of all, if you want to follow it in the true spirit, it will be quite expensive. You can't just go to your supermarket and buy meat, chicken, and eggs from there. You need to be friends with an independent farmer who truly has free-range and naturally-fed cattle, sheep, goats, deer, chickens, ducks, etc. They should be allowed to stay out on the pasture and eat natural grass, nuts, seeds, worms, insects, etc, all day long. Perhaps they sell such meat at Whole Foods and other such stores. Or you can go to http://www.blackwing.com or http://www.grasslandbeef.com or one of other such sites, but either way, you have to get your hands on such meat and fowl, and either way, to consume it regularly, it will break the bank (unless you are rich). Fish is also more expensive than your typical supermarket beef and chicken. I actually believe that we should consume only such pure and natural meats, no matter what 'diet' or lifestyle we follow, but it is not easy.

Second thing is, if you have a child, it becomes much much harder to follow that diet and stick with it. Children grow up, they go to school, and families go out for outings. If you want to grab a quick snack from a restaurant or fast food place (even healthy ones), they almost always have some grain product and corn/sunflower seed/safflower/soybean oil.

Third, time considerations. I maybe wrong, but I think it would take more time out of your day to follow this diet than any other healthy diet. This is a consequence of living in a technologically advanced world. You can buy bags of brown rice, dry beans, lentils, whole grains, canned beans, packaged porridge grains, etc, but you can't buy meat/fowl/fish in bulk and store it like that (unless you have a deep freezer, but then you are not getting the freshness). Also, it is more labor intensive and attention-demanding to cook flesh than lentils/beans/grains.

Like I said, I would love to follow it till I die, but not possible now. Maybe one day, when my wife and I are retired (and rich?!), we could, but definitely not now trying to juggle jobs and a child.

BUT, I am off to have a paleolithic dinner: steak, broccoli, zucchini, banana, tangerine, cashews, prunes [in yogurt].

Quote :

"most foods invented in the last 10,000 years are unhealthy. Do you want to disagree or not?"

Most yes, but that necessarily means there are some foods which have been universally shown to be healthy, don't cause allergies/intolerance in anybody, and even taste great! Our ancestors didn't have the technology or know-how to make them.

- Cocoa (pure cocoa powder... I guess you could make hot choc. with water, and you can add honey instead of sugar)
- Dark chocolate (but it contains small amounts of sugar)
- Yogurt
- Fermented Japanese foods (vegetables, fruits, beans)
- Olive/avocado/nut/coconut oils (they didn't think of pressing those foods to get oil)

So, if I were to the diet, I would still include the foods above.

12/31/2010 2:16:22 PM

Quote :

"So, if I were to the diet, I would still include the foods above."

Other than the fermented foods, I'm right there with you. Coconut oil is like the poster child for a neolithic food that paleo peeps consider healthy. The paleo community is obsessed with because it's like 90% saturated fat.

As far as your other points, they apply to a lot diets. If you can buy the best meats (and I certainly can't), that doesn't mean you have to give up the rest of the diet.

12/31/2010 2:27:20 PM

Is this diet assuming you would eat meat every day? Seems unlikely that back in the day there would be a steady supply of year-round meat.

12/31/2010 2:38:49 PM

Well, considering that your sources of protein are animal flesh and nuts, yeah, you would need to eat animal flesh most days of the week.

12/31/2010 2:57:41 PM

I've never felt better, slept better, looked better, lifted heavier, or had more energy as when I was doing strict paleo.

Do I think that's realistic for me 24/7...365? Hell no. I try to aim for strict paleo during the week with a "cheat meal" or 2 on the weekends. Calories still stay under control, but I let myself have whatever I might be craving. I try to do 2-3 strict 30 day periods throughout the year, with the majority of the time being about 80/20.

Tomorrow starts another 30 day (STRICT) paleo challenge...I'm actually looking forward to it.

12/31/2010 3:14:17 PM

Maybe I'm mistaken here, but wasn't the human life expectency in the paleolithic era in the low 20?

12/31/2010 3:24:48 PM

^ discussed in the thread.

that had nothing to do with their diet. you know, in those days, there were no antibiotics or vaccines. a throat infection, a cut on your leg, measles, etc, meant death. and also, you could be eaten by animals. or hunted by your fellow man.

12/31/2010 4:09:07 PM

^^ You don't have to go back to cave man days to question this particular diet. Do people live longer on the paleo diet now? What other metrics are they using to show that this is a diet better than others? Then you have to throw in other metrics such as how practical and easy is it to follow this diet.

I would say the baseline diet for comparison is simply eat whatever the fuck you want but in small portions. If you can show better results than that baseline, then you might have something.

Otherwise, it's pretty easy to take a diet that works, make a minor modification to it, and call it a new diet. Doesn't mean the minor modification is the reason the new diet works.

THE PALEO DIET: FAD, RELIGION, OR SOLUTION?
http://www.leighpeele.com/the-paleo-diet-fad-religion-or-solution

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 4:22 PM. Reason : ,]

12/31/2010 4:20:22 PM

I basically follow this diet, other than wine. Btw, is quinoa allowed as part of this diet? It's a pseudocereal. Not really a grain, but often mistaken as one.

12/31/2010 4:36:12 PM

^ It all depends on if paleolithic humans ate! What you eat are the seeds... I don't know if it would be allowed or not. Depends on the person you ask. There is no Paleo Diet organization to set rules for such foods.

12/31/2010 4:51:32 PM

Everyone should have a unique diet that is designed by the person who resides in the body he/she is trying to maintain.


Reading about diets is stupid.

"Strawberries are good for you" ... yet they're deadly to the person who is allergic to them
"nuts are good for you" ... yet they're deadly to the person who is allergic to them

You see, for every food out there, there is someone somewhere that has an adverse affect to it. Therefore it is impossible to advocate diets for all people.

One thing is for sure...

The amount of food you eat affects your weight.
The amount of exercise you eat affects you weight.

If those don't work, then you go to a diet.
If diets don't work, there is something definitely is mechanically fucked up with you.

[/thread]

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2010 4:55:38 PM

Quote :

"Is this diet assuming you would eat meat every day? Seems unlikely that back in the day there would be a steady supply of year-round meat."

You don't have to. Personally, I like to have meat everyday.

Quote :

"Maybe I'm mistaken here, but wasn't the human life expectency in the paleolithic era in the low 20?"

Don't worry, skokiaan answered this for you:

Quote :

"Humans by Era - Average Lifespan at Birth Upper Paleolithic: 33 Neolithic: 20"

So basically, human lifespan went DOWN when we shifted to agriculture. In the article I posted in the OP, Diamond talks about height going down significantly too. It wasn't until the last couple centuries that we got back to where we were before agriculture.

Quote :

"I would say the baseline diet for comparison is simply eat whatever the fuck you want but in small portions. If you can show better results than that baseline, then you might have something."

So if, isocalorically, paleo beats out a diet of pure high fructose corn syrup... we can deem paleo a breakthrough?

^^^^There's not much I find convincing in that article. I see a lot of strawmen. So isolated groups might have ate wild grasses at 20,000 years ago? So what? Did everyone eat that? Did it form the bulk of the diet like it does now? I don't think so. Even if it did, evolution is slow (even slower when you have civilizations); I don't think the author understands that one bit.

Overall, he can't even begin to comprehend the diet because he thinks using the diet as a tool means throwing away civilization:

Quote :

"I also can’t help but find it a regression to go faux hunting in the park with vibram five finger shoes. I am for progression, on all fronts."

Quote :

"There are extremely beneficial, researched, health benefits to whole grains and their use in the large population. This is not limited to digestion and diabetes. Excess should not be confused with consumption."

I'd like to see it. Every whole grain study I have ever seen compares whole grains to refined grains and then declares that whole grains are healthier. Like comparing filtered cigarettes to unfiltered cigarettes and declaring filtered cigarettes healthy.

Quote :

"Btw, is quinoa allowed as part of this diet? It's a pseudocereal. Not really a grain, but often mistaken as one."

From an article I posted earlier in the thread:

Quote :

"Quinoa is botanically not a grain, but because it has evolved in a similar biological niche, Quinoa has similar properties to grains, including chemical defense systems that irritate the gut. In the case of Quinoa, it contains soap-like molecules called saponins. Unlike gluten, which attaches to a carrier molecule in the intestines, saponins simply punch holes in the membranes of the microvilli cells. Yes, that’s bad. Saponins are so irritating to the immune system that they are used in vaccine research to help the body mount a powerful immune response."

[Edited on December 31, 2010 at 5:01 PM. Reason : d]

12/31/2010 4:56:35 PM

Quote :

"So basically, human lifespan went DOWN when we shifted to agriculture. In the article I posted in the OP, Diamond talks about height going down significantly too. It wasn't until the last couple centuries that we got back to where we were before agriculture."

And we have proven controlled studies to determine this isn't actually correlation? As modern humans, we are arrogant as hell in how detailed we think we know what happened in the past.

12/31/2010 4:58:37 PM

Of course we don't know for sure. But if your theory is that a hunter gatherer diet would decrease lifespan, wouldn't you expect a dramatic increase when we adopted agriculture instead of a dramatic decrease?

12/31/2010 5:11:12 PM

Quote :

"But if your theory is that a hunter gatherer diet would decrease lifespan, wouldn't you expect a dramatic increase when we adopted agriculture instead of a dramatic decrease?"

I would expect to see the lifespan comparison controlled for the countless number of things that can go into lifespan other than diet. When trying to google for this type of info, I just keep landing on pro-paleo diet websites and, well, I doubt they are hardly unbiased.

12/31/2010 8:01:02 PM

I don't want to live to be 80. I want to enjoy my food now.

12/31/2010 8:07:33 PM

In the words of Tim Ferriss, I plan on living until 120 while eating the best ribeyes I can find.

12/31/2010 8:51:49 PM