9 ms·

Confessions of a Paleo Diet Pioneer

52 points by adamqureshi 11y ago

ComteDeLaFere 11y ago
This is a thoughtful article, but as usual with this subject, the comments after it are in many cases angry and conflicting. Once again, I'm reminded to never, ever write a blog post about nutrition and/or exercise. I'll do as the author suggests, and quietly "pick my own poison".
jmnicolas 11y ago
> Most humans have to avoid dairy; many must avoid wheat. Find out if you’re one of them. And how do I find out if I have to avoid dairy or wheat ? Last year I stopped eating them for a couple of months but didn't see a notable difference in my general well being.
- locacorten 11y ago
  I think you found out. You're one of the lucky ones.
- nkrisc 11y ago
  If you noticed no difference, that seems like a good sign it might be alright for you. That said, based on people I know, those who should not be eating dairy or wheat get various levels of intestinal distress if they do; it's pretty obvious. But most importantly, consult a doctor or other medical professional if you need more information.
  - stinos 11y ago
    it's pretty obvious this is what I don't get: author says most should avoid dairy, you (and others) say it's easy to recognize problems with eating it. Yet the vast majority of all people I know have no problems with dairy whatsoever. So is the author wrong, does he mean something else, do I live with people who can't recognize problems originating from dairy use or do I live with a special subgroup of people who all happen to have no problem with dairy?
    - nothrabannosir 11y ago
      It took me 26 years to realize dairy was the problem. It's hard to see the cloud from within.
    - scott_s 11y ago
      From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance, "The frequency of lactose intolerance ranges from 5% in Northern European to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries." It seems to depend on the region of the world your ancestors are from. Those cultures which used milk as a food source for adults tend to have lower incidences of lactose intolerance.
    - fluxion 11y ago
      Approximately 65% of the worlds population suffers from a diminished ability to digest dairy after childhood, see http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/lactose-intolerance http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/lactose-intolerance. That said lactose intolerance usually doesn't occur in people of European descent so I would imagine you happen to live in s special subgroup who has no such problem.
    - apendleton 11y ago
      For dairy in particular, it's the last one. Globally, lactose persistence (the opposite of lactose intolerance) is a minority trait that appears to have arisen in populations that raised domesticated cattle, but not elsewhere. Most African and southeast Asian adults, for example, are lactose intolerant. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence
      - nkrisc 11y ago
        I just wanted to point out that African and Asian adults would certainly constitute "most" people, based on population. As I understand it, populations that can consume dairy tend to be centered on Northern Europe, a very small fraction of the global population. I'll only speak for myself, but I was first thrown off by the "most" part as well, until I realized I had a pretty Euro-centric view of it. "Most people I know have no problem with dairy," I thought to myself. Then I remembered most people I know have European ancestry.
- itp 11y ago
  Lactose intolerance is typically pretty easy to determine -- most people who are lactose intolerant will quickly notice when they suffer from gas, bloating, diarrhea etc. shortly after consuming dairy foods. Wheat is a bit more complicated since there different potential issues that present differently. There's a good overview of celiac vs. gluten sensitivity vs. wheat allergy at http://gastro.ucla.edu/site.cfm?id=281 http://gastro.ucla.edu/site.cfm?id=281 if you're interested. Sounds like you're in the clear, though.
- criddell 11y ago
  So you are probably fine eating them. I think the most genius part of the paleo diet movement was the naming of it.
- adamqureshi 11y ago
  The problem is simple carbs and addiction to sugar. Try ween of simple carbs and excess sugar. Veggies and meat / fish. Takes about 6 months to get off and get used not eating or very little amounts of simple carbs and little sugar. Also try intermitting fasting. Works for me. I feel great and workout / cross fit daily with my first meal around 2pm and last meal around 7-8pm
  - pc86 11y ago
    Your answer to "how do I find out if I have to avoid dairy or wheat?" is to ween off of simple carbs and sugar?
    - goodJobWalrus 11y ago
      and do cross-fit!
    - adamqureshi 11y ago
      lol. Crap i went off on a tangent! Answer to your question: I honestly don't know, but i suppose testing would be your best bet. Yeah and try crossfit, or calisthenics!
tkyjonathan 11y ago
Whole-food plant-based vegan here. Life is good. Energy is high.
- skyyler 11y ago
  Do you spend more on food than you did as a non-vegan? What made you take up veganism? I've been considering it for a while, I had a realization while eating a slice of salami a few weeks ago and I realized something had to die for me to eat it and it made me feel bad.
  - 91bananas 11y ago
    Plants have to die too in order for you to eat them generally.
    - noondip 11y ago
      Especially when the animals are fed them in amounts many times greater than could be fed to humans directly.
      - pasquinelli 11y ago
        animals have to die for agriculture too.
      - pluma 11y ago
        Also, modern agriculture kills lots of little critters (including lots of fluffy rodents). Just ask anyone who's ever worked on a farm. The only 100% moral solution obviously is not to eat.
        noondip 11y ago
        Lots? I'm sure it's nothing compared to the premeditated killing of 150 billion animals born and bred into captivity on purpose, every year. Seeing as how not eating is infeasible, I'm not sure your solution is reasonable.
noondip 11y ago
The evidence for plant-based, low-fat vegan diets seems more convincing to me. Is there a paleo version of http://nutritionfacts.org http://nutritionfacts.org - complete with direct links or citations to research supporting the proposed way to eat? I'm not trying to be snarky, but rather genuinely curious what scientific basis this diet really has. The article says we're wise to limit saturated fat intake and increase fibre intake, but isn't that antithetical to eating meat and animal products?
- clumsysmurf 11y ago
  If you like nutritionfacts.org, you may be interested to know Greger wrote a book which is well referenced: http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/dp/1250066115/ http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/dp... Also, there was a recent article on Vox talking about why nutrition research is so hard to do: http://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10760622/nutrition-science-complicated http://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10760622/nutrition-science-comp...
  - twistedanimator 11y ago
    And if you have an Android phone, I created an app for the section of the book about the Daily Dozen foods you should be eating every day. Here is a link if you are interested: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.slavick.dailydozen https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.slavick.da...
- legulere 11y ago
  > The evidence for plant-based, low-fat vegan diets seems more convincing to me. There are several nutrients you can easily be undersupplied with if you're not watching out really carefully: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Nutrients https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Nutrients Those can be easily supplied by eating a small amount of meat and other animal products without loosing the benefits of a mostly plant based diet.
  - tkyjonathan 11y ago
ideonexus 11y ago
I've always appreciated Michael Pollan's essay (and books) on this subject. His advice can be summed up as "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." [1] In his books he argues strongly against the nutritionist strategy of trying to separate out the healthy components of foods from the foods themselves. For example, I know many nutritionists who take vitamins, but Pollan points out when you take the Vitamin C without the orange we normally get it from, you loose all that dietary fiber. This is what he means by "eat food." Along these lines, while I have many quibbles with the paleo diet's recommendations, my biggest complain is calling it "paleo." The paleolithic era of human history lasted from 2.5 million years ago to 10,0000 years ago [2], when agriculture took over and we adapted to an entirely new diet. Almost nothing we eat today existed 3,000-10,000 years ago: corn was just grass, tomatoes were berries, lettuce was weeds, and all animal-food sources were free-range, tough to chew, and gamey in flavor. One of the starkest examples of this for me is the peach, which was mostly just a pit with no meat until generations of farmers spent 6,000 years turning it into the meaty succulent fruit we know today [3]. Our paleolithic ancestors spent all day nibbling on seeds, berries, various leaves, and insects trying to just stay alive; our agrarian ancestors transformed the Earth into the relative paradise of bountiful fruits, vegetables, and livestock that theologians would later attribute to gods. This said, I appreciate that this author is speaking out against the high-carb, high-sugar foodstuffs corporations are pouring into us by adding sugar and salt to EVERYTHING. The key quote in this essay is, "Recent data on these issues make me more comfortable today saying what not to eat." I think we all need to start pushing back as consumers against the sugar, salt, and simple carbohydrates the food manufacturers engineer into everything we eat to addict our brains and keep us coming back for more. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic [3] https://jameskennedymonash.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/artificial-vs-natural-peach/ https://jameskennedymonash.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/artifici...
- legulere 11y ago
  Sadly I can't cite a source, but I once read that farming didn't increase the lifespan or health, but actually greatly reduced it (note that we today have a totally different diet from the first days of farming). However it made an extremely higher population density possible. A real paleo diet would be so land consuming that it wouldn't be possible for more than a negligible fraction of today's population.
devy 11y ago
Does the below excerpt alleviate the belief that GMO foods are harmful? In 1985 scientists believed that few genetic changes had occurred since we were all hunting and gathering, say 10,000 years ago. Now we know that lots of genes have changed. One fascinating new finding is that within the last few thousand years Eskimos evolved genes for enzymes to process the fatty acids in Arctic fish.
- enqk 11y ago
  Only if you believe the process followed by GMO engineering is the same as the process of selective breeding
  - devy 11y ago
    So your point is ... the same or not?
    - enqk 11y ago
      Well I am careful because I am not a specialist. One would however expect GMO engineers to use techniques that are atypical of the way nature explores the possibility space. It is telling that they call it engineering, which requires intent and goals. Therefore I don't think knowing that selectively bred organisms have been safe so far says anything about the safety of GMOs.
  - pluma 11y ago
    In a way selective breeding is a subcategory of GMO engineering. There's nothing fishy about fish genes that are added to crops, for example -- it's just taking the element of chance necessary for mutations to develop out of it, really.
- sgt101 11y ago
  I can't see why it would. I am sure some people would argue that any GMO food is somehow evil and deadly, but I think that thinking of that sort can be discarded. However some GMO foods achieve pest and disease resistance by causing the plant to secrete toxins - pesticides, and these are what some experiments have shown troubling results for. On the other hand farmers spray these toxins on crops in any case. Personally I grow my own and eat organic when I can, but that's fine if you can afford it and live in the country.
bfrancom01 11y ago
"Clean eating is about feelings, not reality." https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-clean-eating-delusion/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-clean-eating-delusi...
bunkydoo 11y ago
The only person I know who did this diet ended up staying 350 pounds with persisting respitory issues. (Obviously present before the diet) he sat on me the other day and just about crushed my rib cage. But I'm still at a cool 135 lbs just eating whatever I want (which is surprisingly almost entirely organic foods) I'm here to tell you, Paleo probably doesn't do shit besides stroke your fucking ego into thinking you're a caveman or some dumbass shit.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  One anecdote, one data point. Paleo isn't magic, but it is consistent with previous advice. High in fruits, veggies, seafoods, nuts, and unprocessed meats. Low in sugars, other processed foods, grains, and dairy. I'm sure someone could do Paleo and stay 350 pounds, but that would be hard as eating almost 3000 calories a day from fruits, veggies, seafoods, nuts, and unprocessed meats is hard since they're so filling per weight (as opposed to sugar in particular which is not at all filing per weight). To be honest you can simplify Paleo thusly: Drop sugar from your diet as completely as possible.
legulere 11y ago
> Recent data on these issues make me more comfortable today saying what not to eat. Our ancestors had no ... Isn't that yet another fallacy? Just because our ancestors didn't have it, doesn't automatically mean it's bad for us. If we can learn anything at all from our ancestors, then it's that the human body is pretty adoptable to different food sources. So if we want to know what's bad for us we should simply do studies today. It's not that I disagree with the recommendations, but I find the way of reasoning flawed.
- woodandsteel 11y ago
  In the case of refined carbohydrates, there is abundant evidence that they are bad for us.
kyrre 11y ago
we know what the current mainstream high-carb diet will lead to: epidemic levels of obesity and type 2 diabetes. bon appétit.
tkyjonathan 11y ago
Whoa.. way more vegan hackers than I ever imagined!
JennyGrayson 11y ago
I know most of us start a diet just to lose weight (I know I did), but paleo has really become a lifestyle, and a life changing decision for me. Losing weight was just an added bonus, but the true benefits were great for my health in general. I'm using the paleo grub cookbook, you can check it out at http://lookingupstuff.com/weightloss/2015/04/23/paleo-grubs/ http://lookingupstuff.com/weightloss/2015/04/23/paleo-grubs/

52 points by adamqureshi 11y ago

This is a thoughtful article, but as usual with this subject, the comments after it are in many cases angry and conflicting. Once again, I'm reminded to never, ever write a blog post about nutrition and/or exercise. I'll do as the author suggests, and quietly "pick my own poison".

jmnicolas 11y ago

> Most humans have to avoid dairy; many must avoid wheat. Find out if you’re one of them. And how do I find out if I have to avoid dairy or wheat ? Last year I stopped eating them for a couple of months but didn't see a notable difference in my general well being.

locacorten 11y ago
I think you found out. You're one of the lucky ones.
nkrisc 11y ago
If you noticed no difference, that seems like a good sign it might be alright for you. That said, based on people I know, those who should not be eating dairy or wheat get various levels of intestinal distress if they do; it's pretty obvious. But most importantly, consult a doctor or other medical professional if you need more information.
- stinos 11y ago
  it's pretty obvious this is what I don't get: author says most should avoid dairy, you (and others) say it's easy to recognize problems with eating it. Yet the vast majority of all people I know have no problems with dairy whatsoever. So is the author wrong, does he mean something else, do I live with people who can't recognize problems originating from dairy use or do I live with a special subgroup of people who all happen to have no problem with dairy?
  - nothrabannosir 11y ago
    It took me 26 years to realize dairy was the problem. It's hard to see the cloud from within.
  - scott_s 11y ago
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance, "The frequency of lactose intolerance ranges from 5% in Northern European to more than 90% in some African and Asian countries." It seems to depend on the region of the world your ancestors are from. Those cultures which used milk as a food source for adults tend to have lower incidences of lactose intolerance.
  - fluxion 11y ago
    Approximately 65% of the worlds population suffers from a diminished ability to digest dairy after childhood, see http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/lactose-intolerance http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/lactose-intolerance. That said lactose intolerance usually doesn't occur in people of European descent so I would imagine you happen to live in s special subgroup who has no such problem.
  - apendleton 11y ago
    For dairy in particular, it's the last one. Globally, lactose persistence (the opposite of lactose intolerance) is a minority trait that appears to have arisen in populations that raised domesticated cattle, but not elsewhere. Most African and southeast Asian adults, for example, are lactose intolerant. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence
    - nkrisc 11y ago
      I just wanted to point out that African and Asian adults would certainly constitute "most" people, based on population. As I understand it, populations that can consume dairy tend to be centered on Northern Europe, a very small fraction of the global population. I'll only speak for myself, but I was first thrown off by the "most" part as well, until I realized I had a pretty Euro-centric view of it. "Most people I know have no problem with dairy," I thought to myself. Then I remembered most people I know have European ancestry.
itp 11y ago
Lactose intolerance is typically pretty easy to determine -- most people who are lactose intolerant will quickly notice when they suffer from gas, bloating, diarrhea etc. shortly after consuming dairy foods. Wheat is a bit more complicated since there different potential issues that present differently. There's a good overview of celiac vs. gluten sensitivity vs. wheat allergy at http://gastro.ucla.edu/site.cfm?id=281 http://gastro.ucla.edu/site.cfm?id=281 if you're interested. Sounds like you're in the clear, though.
criddell 11y ago
So you are probably fine eating them. I think the most genius part of the paleo diet movement was the naming of it.
adamqureshi 11y ago
The problem is simple carbs and addiction to sugar. Try ween of simple carbs and excess sugar. Veggies and meat / fish. Takes about 6 months to get off and get used not eating or very little amounts of simple carbs and little sugar. Also try intermitting fasting. Works for me. I feel great and workout / cross fit daily with my first meal around 2pm and last meal around 7-8pm
- pc86 11y ago
  Your answer to "how do I find out if I have to avoid dairy or wheat?" is to ween off of simple carbs and sugar?
  - goodJobWalrus 11y ago
    and do cross-fit!
  - adamqureshi 11y ago
    lol. Crap i went off on a tangent! Answer to your question: I honestly don't know, but i suppose testing would be your best bet. Yeah and try crossfit, or calisthenics!

tkyjonathan 11y ago

Whole-food plant-based vegan here. Life is good. Energy is high.

skyyler 11y ago
Do you spend more on food than you did as a non-vegan? What made you take up veganism? I've been considering it for a while, I had a realization while eating a slice of salami a few weeks ago and I realized something had to die for me to eat it and it made me feel bad.
- 91bananas 11y ago
  Plants have to die too in order for you to eat them generally.
  - noondip 11y ago
    Especially when the animals are fed them in amounts many times greater than could be fed to humans directly.
    - pasquinelli 11y ago
      animals have to die for agriculture too.
    - pluma 11y ago
      Also, modern agriculture kills lots of little critters (including lots of fluffy rodents). Just ask anyone who's ever worked on a farm. The only 100% moral solution obviously is not to eat.
      - noondip 11y ago
        Lots? I'm sure it's nothing compared to the premeditated killing of 150 billion animals born and bred into captivity on purpose, every year. Seeing as how not eating is infeasible, I'm not sure your solution is reasonable.

noondip 11y ago

The evidence for plant-based, low-fat vegan diets seems more convincing to me. Is there a paleo version of http://nutritionfacts.org http://nutritionfacts.org - complete with direct links or citations to research supporting the proposed way to eat? I'm not trying to be snarky, but rather genuinely curious what scientific basis this diet really has. The article says we're wise to limit saturated fat intake and increase fibre intake, but isn't that antithetical to eating meat and animal products?

clumsysmurf 11y ago
If you like nutritionfacts.org, you may be interested to know Greger wrote a book which is well referenced: http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/dp/1250066115/ http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/dp... Also, there was a recent article on Vox talking about why nutrition research is so hard to do: http://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10760622/nutrition-science-complicated http://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10760622/nutrition-science-comp...
- twistedanimator 11y ago
  And if you have an Android phone, I created an app for the section of the book about the Daily Dozen foods you should be eating every day. Here is a link if you are interested: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.slavick.dailydozen https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.slavick.da...
legulere 11y ago
> The evidence for plant-based, low-fat vegan diets seems more convincing to me. There are several nutrients you can easily be undersupplied with if you're not watching out really carefully: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Nutrients https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Nutrients Those can be easily supplied by eating a small amount of meat and other animal products without loosing the benefits of a mostly plant based diet.
- tkyjonathan 11y ago

ideonexus 11y ago

I've always appreciated Michael Pollan's essay (and books) on this subject. His advice can be summed up as "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." [1] In his books he argues strongly against the nutritionist strategy of trying to separate out the healthy components of foods from the foods themselves. For example, I know many nutritionists who take vitamins, but Pollan points out when you take the Vitamin C without the orange we normally get it from, you loose all that dietary fiber. This is what he means by "eat food." Along these lines, while I have many quibbles with the paleo diet's recommendations, my biggest complain is calling it "paleo." The paleolithic era of human history lasted from 2.5 million years ago to 10,0000 years ago [2], when agriculture took over and we adapted to an entirely new diet. Almost nothing we eat today existed 3,000-10,000 years ago: corn was just grass, tomatoes were berries, lettuce was weeds, and all animal-food sources were free-range, tough to chew, and gamey in flavor. One of the starkest examples of this for me is the peach, which was mostly just a pit with no meat until generations of farmers spent 6,000 years turning it into the meaty succulent fruit we know today [3]. Our paleolithic ancestors spent all day nibbling on seeds, berries, various leaves, and insects trying to just stay alive; our agrarian ancestors transformed the Earth into the relative paradise of bountiful fruits, vegetables, and livestock that theologians would later attribute to gods. This said, I appreciate that this author is speaking out against the high-carb, high-sugar foodstuffs corporations are pouring into us by adding sugar and salt to EVERYTHING. The key quote in this essay is, "Recent data on these issues make me more comfortable today saying what not to eat." I think we all need to start pushing back as consumers against the sugar, salt, and simple carbohydrates the food manufacturers engineer into everything we eat to addict our brains and keep us coming back for more. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic [3] https://jameskennedymonash.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/artificial-vs-natural-peach/ https://jameskennedymonash.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/artifici...

legulere 11y ago
Sadly I can't cite a source, but I once read that farming didn't increase the lifespan or health, but actually greatly reduced it (note that we today have a totally different diet from the first days of farming). However it made an extremely higher population density possible. A real paleo diet would be so land consuming that it wouldn't be possible for more than a negligible fraction of today's population.

devy 11y ago

Does the below excerpt alleviate the belief that GMO foods are harmful? In 1985 scientists believed that few genetic changes had occurred since we were all hunting and gathering, say 10,000 years ago. Now we know that lots of genes have changed. One fascinating new finding is that within the last few thousand years Eskimos evolved genes for enzymes to process the fatty acids in Arctic fish.

enqk 11y ago
Only if you believe the process followed by GMO engineering is the same as the process of selective breeding
- devy 11y ago
  So your point is ... the same or not?
  - enqk 11y ago
    Well I am careful because I am not a specialist. One would however expect GMO engineers to use techniques that are atypical of the way nature explores the possibility space. It is telling that they call it engineering, which requires intent and goals. Therefore I don't think knowing that selectively bred organisms have been safe so far says anything about the safety of GMOs.
- pluma 11y ago
  In a way selective breeding is a subcategory of GMO engineering. There's nothing fishy about fish genes that are added to crops, for example -- it's just taking the element of chance necessary for mutations to develop out of it, really.
sgt101 11y ago
I can't see why it would. I am sure some people would argue that any GMO food is somehow evil and deadly, but I think that thinking of that sort can be discarded. However some GMO foods achieve pest and disease resistance by causing the plant to secrete toxins - pesticides, and these are what some experiments have shown troubling results for. On the other hand farmers spray these toxins on crops in any case. Personally I grow my own and eat organic when I can, but that's fine if you can afford it and live in the country.

bfrancom01 11y ago

"Clean eating is about feelings, not reality." https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-clean-eating-delusion/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-clean-eating-delusi...

bunkydoo 11y ago

The only person I know who did this diet ended up staying 350 pounds with persisting respitory issues. (Obviously present before the diet) he sat on me the other day and just about crushed my rib cage. But I'm still at a cool 135 lbs just eating whatever I want (which is surprisingly almost entirely organic foods) I'm here to tell you, Paleo probably doesn't do shit besides stroke your fucking ego into thinking you're a caveman or some dumbass shit.

Someone1234 11y ago
One anecdote, one data point. Paleo isn't magic, but it is consistent with previous advice. High in fruits, veggies, seafoods, nuts, and unprocessed meats. Low in sugars, other processed foods, grains, and dairy. I'm sure someone could do Paleo and stay 350 pounds, but that would be hard as eating almost 3000 calories a day from fruits, veggies, seafoods, nuts, and unprocessed meats is hard since they're so filling per weight (as opposed to sugar in particular which is not at all filing per weight). To be honest you can simplify Paleo thusly: Drop sugar from your diet as completely as possible.

legulere 11y ago

> Recent data on these issues make me more comfortable today saying what not to eat. Our ancestors had no ... Isn't that yet another fallacy? Just because our ancestors didn't have it, doesn't automatically mean it's bad for us. If we can learn anything at all from our ancestors, then it's that the human body is pretty adoptable to different food sources. So if we want to know what's bad for us we should simply do studies today. It's not that I disagree with the recommendations, but I find the way of reasoning flawed.

woodandsteel 11y ago
In the case of refined carbohydrates, there is abundant evidence that they are bad for us.

kyrre 11y ago

we know what the current mainstream high-carb diet will lead to: epidemic levels of obesity and type 2 diabetes. bon appétit.

tkyjonathan 11y ago

Whoa.. way more vegan hackers than I ever imagined!

JennyGrayson 11y ago

I know most of us start a diet just to lose weight (I know I did), but paleo has really become a lifestyle, and a life changing decision for me. Losing weight was just an added bonus, but the true benefits were great for my health in general. I'm using the paleo grub cookbook, you can check it out at http://lookingupstuff.com/weightloss/2015/04/23/paleo-grubs/ http://lookingupstuff.com/weightloss/2015/04/23/paleo-grubs/