18 ms·

Palaeolithic diet: Should we all eat like cavepeople?

49 points by tokenadult 12y ago

cromulent 12y ago
The people that I know that are on the Paleo diet have lost weight and feel healthier. I am skeptical about the rationale behind the Paleo diet and attribute most of the benefits to them paying attention to their food intake and general health (and eschewing junk food) rather than the theory. The outcome is the important thing.
- 1stop 12y ago
  It's ketosis that causes the weight loss (Liver producing ketons that break down fat cells). And it's been around for a while (i.e since Atkins days). When you cut out processed foods, and grains, you are left only with pretty much only healthy foods, so it's no wonder they feel better. But that isn't the same as saying all grains and processed foods are bad for you.
  - Healplz 12y ago
    Yes and no. Most mainstream paleo isn't low carb enough to keep you in ketosis. Sisson's Primal Blueprint is probably the closest to advocating for keto. In reality the mechanism for weight loss is most likely increased satiety from higher P&F intake vs Carb intake (without dropping below ~50g C/day for keto).
    - 1stop 12y ago
      Maybe I've confused paleo with primal. But on paleo given you can't have grains. What is the majority of carb intake?
      - Healplz 12y ago
        Root vegetables mostly. But the whole paleo community is just all over the place.
      - ben_straub 12y ago
        Fruits and vegetables. Starchy roots are heavy on the carbs, and so are apples and strawberries. Primal allows dairy if you're not intolerant, and milk has lactose (a sugar).
- acconrad 12y ago
  It's the same argument for vegetarians/vegans as well. When you have an unlimited supply of food (and variety of foods), you can eat without thinking, and eating without thinking leads to poor food choices. When you specifically and consciously limit that variety, you have to become much more creative and active in how to enjoy the foods you eat while staying vegan/paleo/whatever. The problem is that the people following these diets attribute it to the diet itself, when in actuality it's the methodology of food selection from a subset of healthier foods that was the real attributor to their success.
  - Dewie 12y ago
    I'm not convinced. Vegans have to be mindful of what kind of vegan food that they eat in order to get enough proteins, and perhaps also B12. This is something that is usually easily/trivially satisfied by a regular omnivore diet. So it's not just a question of eating varied vegan food as a side-effect of not getting bored with it, but getting enough vegan food that has proteins in it. Does paleo suffer the same deficiency, i.e. is it simple to be lacking in some specific substances that are pretty vital when following a paleo diet?
    - joshred 12y ago
      Fiber?
    - Borkdude 12y ago
      I have followed a vegan whole foods diet for over more than 2 years (and lost 50 lbs of fat). Protein is the least of my problems on such a diet. When you eat enough calories from whole plant foods (whole grains, legumes, vegetables), you get plenty of protein. When your calories consist of vegetable oils, sodas and white flour products, that's where you might get into trouble.
    - latch 12y ago
      I think a vegan would intentionally need to try to avoid protein, or a specific amino acid, to run into any issues (or be uneducated about basic nutrition, in which case any diet could be dangerous). B12 is a different issue. I cheat and eat Corn Flakes and plain Cheerios with various types of fortified "milks".
firasd 12y ago
I’ve been doing Paleo and low-carb for about an year. It’s been unquestionably effective. However, in the course of trying various adjustments over this time, I’ve basically concluded that any sort of “eliminationist” diet — Paleo, low carb, gluten free, vegan, you decide what’s best for you — can work well, as long as it’s generally safe and you pay attention to how your selections affect how you look and feel. Such an approach is what I’d recommend over generic calorie counting. Food is such a potent input into your body; picking and choosing what you put in can make all the difference.
hownottowrite 12y ago
Actual study: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v68/n3/full/ejcn2013290a.html http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v68/n3/full/ejcn2013290a.... Interesting note in the conclusion: "Adherence to protein intake was poor in the PD group." I wondered if this would impact skeletal muscle mass, but the author's previous research indicates that does not appear to be the case. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12048/abstract;jsessionid=91F6C0F390137F3D6151347F2934533C.f03t02 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12048/abstra...
akavel 12y ago
Thanks, nice to read an article about food that is weighed and quotes some scientific studies, especially seeing there the following phrase: "a long-term randomised controlled trial" ! The tl;dr seems to be: "What happened? Both groups lost weight, but after six months the women on the Palaeolithic diet had lost more, and their waists now measured less than those on the Nordic diet. It seemed as though this diet was better, but then things changed. After two years there was no difference in weight between the two groups. The only difference was in levels of the harmful blood fats, triglycerides, but even then they were at what would be considered safe, normal levels in the people on the Nordic diet too. Both groups found the diets difficult to manage and most people didn’t achieve the targets of eating the right amounts of each food group." and, from the closing paragraph: "When it comes to losing weight, the advice is pretty dull – eat less and exercise more."
- gadders 12y ago
  The closing sentence might just have said "calories in vs calories out".
feld 12y ago
No. Just stop eating so many processed foods. That's all it takes. You don't need to jump on the latest diet trend to be healthy.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- markild 12y ago
  Though I would necessarily say it's that simple, the article kinda seem to end up with a similar conclusion > So, there’s no hard and fast evidence yet that we should be eating like cavepeople. It is of course unhealthy to eat a diet which mainly consists of highly processed foods like white bread and sugary cereals, but this doesn’t mean that all dairy products and grains need to be avoided unless you have a specific problem with them.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
narag 12y ago
It's possible to eat much less, tastier and healthier than a lot of people does now. Overeating looks very much like a legal drug. Now you don't need to go far away in time to find cultures with healthy food habits. Do you?
latch 12y ago
The bar is low enough that simply getting people to eat less processed foods is a win. We can debate how the liver breaks down sugar, or whether milk should be avoided, but that seems inconsequential when people are eating "hamburgers" where the buns are made from two deep fried chicken breasts. That said, virtually every major health agency recommends a diet where carbohydrates (from vegetables, fruits and grains) represent the majority of calories. For an individual, under the guidance of a doctor, it can make sense to alter this. For everyone else, just follow the guidelines.
- phkahler 12y ago
  http://www.choosemyplate.gov/downloads/mini_poster_English_final.pdf http://www.choosemyplate.gov/downloads/mini_poster_English_f... It's still the square meal from the 1970's with some small adjustments. Eat a small plate that looks like that. The meat portion should be 4 ounces or so.
- bluedevil2k 12y ago
  eating "hamburgers" where the buns are made from two deep fried chicken breasts You're referring to KFC's Double Down I assume, but if you look at it's nutrition facts (1) it's not as bad as you think, especially for a Paleo/Atkins based diet. And it's delicious. 1 - http://fast-food-nutrition.findthebest.com/l/1377/KFC-Original-Recipe-Double-Down http://fast-food-nutrition.findthebest.com/l/1377/KFC-Origin...
  - erkkie 12y ago
    Unfortunately macro ratios only don't matter a whole lot in isolation, there are studies with any imaginable result out there for macro ratios so it's easy to pick-and-choose to represent any world view which makes the signal/noise ratio shit. The easiest take-away is to start with avoiding heavily processed food, regardless of the macro ratios.
  - scottjad 12y ago
    It is very nutrient poor and it is very calorically dense, almost as dense as bread. | food (100g prepared) | cals | |----------------------+------| | KFC double down | 224 | | whole wheat bread | 259 | | brown rice | 110 | | corn | 86 | | carrots | 41 | | cantaloupe | 34 | But I guess if you love saturated fat and get your nutrition advice from bloggers and journalists it's awesome!
logicchains 12y ago
While I personally believe in the effectiveness of the paleo diet, I think there's too much focus on whether or not it allows people lose weight without eating less. The average American dietary intake per day is around 3,700 kilocalories[1], compared to a recommended value of around 2,000 kilocalories, so it's no mystery why people are getting fatter. I hence think an effective topic of study would be how effective various diets are at making people consume less calories, and the paleo diet seems to be great at this, due to involving many foods that produce greater satiety. Even if the body treated all calories equally, automatically storing all excess energy as fat, the paleo diet could still have an advantage purely because of its interactions with human physiology somehow reducing appetite and hence reducing total calories consumed. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energ...
- natejenkins 12y ago
  Something is off in these numbers. There are 9000 calories in a kilogram of fat. If Americans were really eating 1700 calories more than required each day they would be gaining around 1.3kg/week (about 3 pounds). Of course, given the same amount of physical activity, the heavier you are the more calories are required to maintain your current weight, so that eventually this 1.3kg/week would level off. From personal experience, I would say the average weight gain per year in the US is a few kilograms, let's say 2. This is 18000 calories in excess, which is just about 50 calories a day, or basically one apple too many. The clear lesson to be learned is to cut back on the apples. There are some studies that agree with my anecdotal evidence: http://www.livestrong.com/article/142567-average-increase-weight-adults/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/142567-average-increase-we...
  - logicchains 12y ago
    Well the numbers are from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and I can't think what reason they'd have to produce flawed statistics, but then again I can't find the original study methodology so there's no way to be sure.
kbrower 12y ago
Paleo diets happen to be high protein and low carb. Protein is the most satiating macronutrient and carbs are the least. This type of diet is effective because macronutrient ratio it makes it easier to have a calorie deficit and not be hungry.
- baal80spam 12y ago
  I am quite sure that fat is the most satiating macro, not protein.
  - will_work4tears 12y ago
    Well, not necessarily. It's the most calorie dense, perhaps, but not always the most satiating. For instance, the best index put together so far lists potatoes as the most satiating. And the number two is a very lean fish. [0] - (pdf) http://www.ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EDWText/TextElemente/Ernaehrungswissenschaft/Naehrstoffe/Saettigung_Lebensmittel_Satiety_Index.pdf http://www.ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload...
  - scottjad 12y ago
    I am quite sure that carbs is the most satiating macro, not fat. :) j/k It's the energy density and palatability, not macronutrient content. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/130/2/268.long http://jn.nutrition.org/content/130/2/268.long "In studies of satiation, it is important to match the palatability of the foods when they are compared. If it is not, the fact that one food tastes better than another could override any effects of the nutrient composition on amount consumed (Drewnowski 1998). In addition, to study the specific effects of macronutrients, they must be manipulated independently of energy density." "These three studies indicate that the amount of fat in the diet did not influence satiation when the energy density was held constant." "These results provide clear evidence that the energy density of food can affect satiation independently of macronutrient content and palatability."
acconrad 12y ago
Do we all have this blind optimism that someday, one day, we can actually wake up and read the news that there finally is a magic pill to solve our problems? All of these articles read the same - link bait title convincing you that the magic bullet might be here, followed by an article analyzing the diet, and a conclusion that there is still no magic bullet; that diet and exercise have (and continue to be) the tried-and-true (boring) methods for longevity, weight management and overall health. How is it that we still get sucked in?
vixin 12y ago
I'd need some convincing. http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1...
- atom-morgan 12y ago
  Are you referring to lifespans? Of course modern medicine has been great. I don't think anybody would deny that. But the question is, where could that number be today with a better diet?
ScottWhigham 12y ago
I've been paleo for about a year now and, while I like the results, we're talking about a 35 woman study (70 total women divided into two groups). That's the basis for an alpha study, not a conclusive result. I'd love to say that "this is the proof we paleos have been wanting to show everyone!" but the sample size is just too small. Yes, it's encouraging but let's not blow it out of proportion.
wavefunction 12y ago
"Cave people" ate whatever they could get their hands on: it's time to put this diet fad to rest. Now, should you eat mostly vegetables, a little fruit, lean protein and some healthy fats while skipping the processed foods and sugars? Yeah, but stop acting like you're getting back to something from the "cave days."
- wil421 12y ago
  I believe once people learned to cultivate plants and process grains is when they started forming cities instead on being nomadic or cave dwellers. Also if you look at places like North Korea you will see what improper nutrition will do to a population's height. Once we made the switch to a non-paleo diet is when we really started to advance beyond hunter/gatherers.
- monochr 12y ago
  "Now, should you eat mostly vegetables, a little fruit, lean protein and some healthy fats while skipping the processed foods and sugars? Yeah, but stop acting like you're getting back to something from the "cave days."" Literally none of that is true, these are just old diet fads that have become folk knowledge. People have managed to survive for thousands of years in the arctic circle eating nothing but fatty foods, people have survived in the fertile crescent for thousands of years eating nothing but cereals for thousands of years. The human body can adapt to just about any sort of food. What people nowhere have adapted to do is sit in a chair for 14 hours a day and not move.
  - blisterpeanuts 12y ago
    Agreed that the human body is adaptable, but I would argue that it's also adaptable to an idle lifestyle of 14 hrs/day in a chair. There are many examples of individuals with indolent lifestyles or office jobs who are living well into their 70s and beyond. My own father is an example - never walked, never exercised, smoked for 50 years - and is pushing 90, albeit not in great health but mentally still sound. I think most of us would enjoy a better quality of life if we ate optimally and stayed active, but genetics seems to be a key factor nonetheless; luck of the draw.
dirktheman 12y ago
The Paleo diet is all the rage here in The Netherlands as well. While I applaud people being conscious about their nutrition, I find the caveman-parabole hilarious. Most cavemen didn't live to see 40, and there's the little thing called evolution, too. People can adapt to different eating habits even within their own lifespan, let alone in +10,000 years. The magic bullet for diets: a moderate intake of food from a diverse diet consisting mostly of fresh fruit, vegetables and some form of protein, paired with ample exercise. Wether you call it 'Paleo' and leave out 'modern' ingredients, leave out the carbs and call it Atkins, or focus on good carbs and good fat (South Beach), it doesn't matter. My wife lost a good amount of weight by eating until she didn't feel hungry anymore, and exercising regularly.
- Dewie 12y ago
  > Most cavemen didn't live to see 40, Didn't they? Is that based on the median age, or the average? Because the average age tends to be skewed by infant mortality. > , and there's the little thing called evolution, too. The central argument is that our bodies haven't changed significantly in the time between "cavemen" and present day. So evolution is central to the argument of its usefulness. Whether it is correct that the evolutionary forces is relatively insignificant is, perhaps, up for debate.
- monochr 12y ago
  This thread is incredibly depressing. All the people complaining about this diet being a fad are just regurgitating the fads from their childhood as facts. Vegetables and fresh fruit needn't form anywhere near a majority of a diet for you to be healthy, there are enough traditional societies for this. The problem for the modern diet is that we have the appetites of an animal that should burn about ~4000 calories a day yet only expend around ~3000 on average. Now if you want to be healthy as well as skinny instead of lowering your calorie intake you're much better off increasing your exercise.
  - a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
    Reconstructions of what medieval people ate indicate they were often downing over 4500 calories a day. And their food was probably a lot more nutrient dense than ours in terms of minerals and vitamins. I think with typical modern foods it is somewhat difficult to get adequate micronutrient intake on a sub 3000 calorie diet. This is where the calorie in/out idea falls down. If you undereat you are going to tank your metabolism and also have some deficiency problems. Not only are we made to be walking around getting exercise for much of the day, it is critically important to realize we are made to be doing it outside. Sun light exposure is a huge deal for health. People who spend time outside live longer. Just light exposure on its own boosts metabolism.
hellbreakslose 12y ago
Another Reporter that tries to explain nature... Good luck. She mentions Heart Disease and other things ... HMM Dear Reporter do you even know that paleolithic people were living up to the age of 25-30? What are you talking about? Do you even understand that's that how they spend their days? Food for them was the purpose of life. Not getting in a car going to work ordering online going back and watch the kids watching TV... It's weird you should go and watch some of your own BBC documentaries.
hellbreakslose 12y ago
Another Reporter that tries to explain nature... Good luck. She mentions Heart Disease and other things ... HMM Dear Reporter do you even know that paleolithic people were living up to the age of 25-30? What are you talking about? Do you even understand that's that how they spend their days? Food for them was the purpose of life. Not getting in a car going to work ordering online going back and watch the kids watching TV... It's weird you should go and watch some of your own BBC documentaries. And my opinion in that, you can't actually follow. Pre-historic diet, you'd be STARVED to DEATH! It means you eat once a month pretty much! I am a big fan of eating healthy thought, and yes you can achieve that. BALANCE is the key. You can have your mcd's or whatever it is you crave in the world we living but 1-2 times a month? Eat your sweets etc 1-2 times a week? Eat salads, nicely cooked meat etc etc. I am against of precooked food thats bad stuff for your self. Generally Cook your own food is the best solution in life I guess.
spodek 12y ago
The biology of the human body and food is so complex, science is nowhere close to understanding it helpfully enough to design a diet, even if you call it an old diet. I'd bet you'd find a high correlation between unhealthy diet and degree of "scientific" perspective people had on their diet. I offer the United States as exhibit one.
- ben_straub 12y ago
  > The biology of the human body and food is so complex, science is nowhere close to understanding it helpfully enough to design a diet To me, this is an argument for eating real foods, and a reason to be skeptical of things like soylent. But I don't think you can get from there to saying it doesn't matter what you eat, or that anybody with a rationale behind their food choices is delusional.
  - erkkie 12y ago
    To me, too, this is the biggest argument in favor of avoiding specific fads and eating "real" food, there's been too many reversals of x is good / x is bad in the recent decades to try to even pretend we know. (not to mention there are still new phytochemicals being found in fruits and vegetables all the time, things we wouldn't even know to artificially add in things like soylent)
- cheery 12y ago
  The fucktards fail to realize that science has been applied to equally complex things before. Consider newtonian physics vs. relativistic light equations. Anyway, the only thing you have for understanding the things is science after all. There's fair amount of evidence that carbohydrate restriction works. Good thing I won't have to listen hacker news on this subject anymore, I have solved what my diet should be.
1stop 12y ago
I feel like rather than diet fads, for weight loss. People just need to learn about Ketosis[0] and how to trigger it in your body (hint: have a tiny amount of carbs).[2] Your body turns into a fat burning machine. Any way you can achieve it without feeling like you are starving is going to be an effective weight loss strategy. Paleo, Atkins, Lemon/Honey/Coffee/whatever detox, etc. You cut out carbs, your liver starts burning fat. But beware: They (the scientific community) haven't reached consensus on whether you should do this long term[1]. It seems to be trending towards "it's probably okay" though. I think it puts more strain on your kidney's (because of the ketons) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis [1] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=long+term+ketosis&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=long+term+ketosis&btnG=&... [2] Disclaimer: I'm not a dr. I most likely am wrong about more than 1 thing I've said :-)
whistlerbrk 12y ago
I hate this articles conclusion, I truly hate it. Every single body is different and you need to find out what works for you. That requires wading through an unbelievable amount of false and misinformation in order to find the truth - for you. I followed a (modified) ketogenic diet very successfully for the winter and lost 20 lbs. That diet will absolutely NOT work for everyone but it will work for many people. As will paleo, as will atkins, as will south beach. Find out what works for you. Experiment. Finding a magic bullet for dieting is like finding a magic bullet for fashion. There is NO one size, one style fits all solution.
monochr 12y ago
BRB, looking for a mammoth.
lugg 12y ago
Couple of questions I have for anyone in the know about this. While we may have not evolved a great deal over the last 30 thousand or so years, our bacteria may well have. That would cover our entire digestion systems mouth to anus. I suspect those bacteria have evolved in many ways that may mean we can eat a more modern diet without doing any harm or perhaps doing better. Has this been covered by any of the studies? I have to question the avoidance of things like bread. Even in Paleolithic times we had crude forms of processed grains and bread. Are proponents of palaeo saying to cut these out completely or just cut out the highly refined kinds?
- mariusz79 12y ago
  Paleo Diet is not really a best name to the describe this diet. Better name would be "hunter-gatherer diet" but that's not too marketable. The whole premise of this diet can be summarized as this: - eat what you can kill - eat what you can gather - eat only stuff that can be eaten raw (that includes meat and fish)
- ben_straub 12y ago
  Todays grains are actually a highly-processed food that you can't really digest when they're raw. There's no one simple rule for food on paleo/primal, but one rule of thumb is "feel free to cook, but only eat things you could eat raw."
coriny 12y ago
There's a lot of poor science behind the paleodiet hypothesis - though it may well work as a healthy diet. The one point I'm going to make is that our ancestors of a million years ago ate a very wide range of diets that were entirely ecosystem & lifestyle dependent (as we still observe in the modern world). So there is no such thing as "the diet" our ancestors ate, they ate many diets, some were better than others. I also find the assertion that our digestion - even in terms of commensal gut bacteria - hasn't changed in that time a bit odd. We observe rapid adaptations to diet (e.g. in a handful of generations) in other species.
wil421 12y ago
>Proponents argue modern disorders like heart disease, diabetes and cancer have arisen primarily from the incompatibility between our current forms of diet and our prehistoric anatomy. I would argue these problems have been around forever they just may be more identifiable today. Now the rate at which we get things like heart disease is probably going up because of the rise in obesity. A diet is not exactly the problem its more of the rate and quantities in which a lot of people eat.
peterwwillis 12y ago
As is common with articles that end with a question mark, the answer is by default a "No."
md2be 12y ago
No! The reason "water". Water can't be hacked. Or maybe it can. :)
s_baby 12y ago
My problem with Paleo people is the dogmatic language they use. They draw some very convincing conclusions but then turn their speculation into rigid rules. It's hard to have a conversation about the diet without throwing the baby out with the bath water.
netman21 12y ago
I have been grain free for 6 months. 25 pounds down and within 4 pounds of dropping below 25 BMI. (55 yr old male) I am convinced that the best way to "eat less" is eliminate all grains. Within three weeks I lost all cravings for carbs. I can walk into a Starbucks at the airport and not even look at the pastries. The breadbasket before dinner at the restaurant invokes a meh response. It takes about three weeks to get over what feels like a carb addiction. Read the first chapter of Wheat Belly for inspiration. Read Grain Brain next.
- st3fan 12y ago
  Congrats! Same here! I went low carb a few months ago and I will reach 25 pounds down next week probably.
  - netman21 12y ago
    Well there you go. Dieting and personal health is the new enlightenment. Who needs scientific statistical studies of samples when what matters is our own reaction to treatment. Only we can do an experiment that is verifiable, repeatable, and trustworthy. :-)
- jaredmcateer 12y ago
  Longest I've been able to resist is about 6 months, sometimes I just crave a good sandwich for which there is no substitute to two slices of bread or oven baked mac & cheese or pho with it's delicious rice noodles. It's such a slippery slope, I have one sandwich and next thing you know I'm in some run down motel itching for my next fix, haven't seen light for days other than the crack through which the delivery guy slides in a large pizza or baked lasagna. Kicking my grain addiction is harder than anything I have ever done.
- victorhooi 12y ago
  I think ultimately it's what works for you. I have friends who've been all over the whole low-carbohydrate and grain-free fad. They're still fat. That's probably partly due to the quantity of what they're eating, plus there's a lot of junk food that doesn't contain carbohydrates. Myself, I like my carbohydrates, and I eat a fairly large amount. And most of the other triathletes I train with, or endurance guys - they also eat a stackload of carbohydrates, and are pretty darn healthy looking. Also, most professional cyclists/runners are probably also quite carbohydrate heavy. So I don't get it when people say carbohydrates are evil, and you'll get fat eating them. I don't think we know enough about the science to go one way or the other on something like this. If it works for you, sure. But I suspect a lot of it's just due to being more attentive to what you're eating, and having good self-control. Eat less and exercise more - that's been the line since the 1970's, so it's hardly anything revolutionary. Heck, our ancestors probably figured out if you ate less, you'd lose weight...
Borkdude 12y ago
I have the feeling the paleo diet is more popular among programmers / nerds than for example a whole foods vegan diet (which I'm following). Why could this be?
- scottjad 12y ago
  Programmers read a lot of blogs and use reddit, and paleo bloggers and /r/paleo are much more popular than vegan bloggers and /r/vegan. Of course the causation could go in the other direction, so I'm just guessing here.
PerfectElement 12y ago
You should follow the Paleo diet if you don't want to live past your 60's like the Inuit and the Masai, who have been on a low carb diet for generations and have very low life expectancy. Just research what science (not blogs) has to say about spending your life in ketosis. Plus, there's nothing Paleolithic about the Paleo diet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8
elfcard 12y ago
Bread is a heavily processed food, and it's essentially sugar, and it's so easily broken down into glucose, this process is so easy, it first starts in your mouth as amalayse (sp?) begins digestion while you masticate. A common intro bio lesson is to chew a soda cracker until it begins to get sweet. Whole wheat breads are sugar with soluble and insoluble materials that aids in moving food material through the gut because we evolved eating a lot of crap that we couldn't digest. So to suggest that I've evolved in 7000 years to digest milk, but not evolved to no longer require fibre requires genetic proof, and I've not seen that study. Evolution doesn't work that way regardless, and certainly not over as little as 200 generations that were geographically locked genetically for all but the last few hundred years. That said, just because it's processed, doesn't immediately make it bad for us. Olive oil, yoghurt, etc... all have some observable health benefits. And products like cheeses and bacon are absolutely processed, and show little to no health benefit, but if you took them out of my diet, I may suffer depression, so I unscientifically say they cure depression (in me).
- erkkie 12y ago
  there's lots of vitamin k in (real) cheese, I hear you with bacon though :)
rohanpai 12y ago
If it was not marketed at "eat like a caveman" I think it would have more adoption. Paleo is really just about eating more natural foods (less processed foods). It works well.

49 points by tokenadult 12y ago

The people that I know that are on the Paleo diet have lost weight and feel healthier. I am skeptical about the rationale behind the Paleo diet and attribute most of the benefits to them paying attention to their food intake and general health (and eschewing junk food) rather than the theory. The outcome is the important thing.

1stop 12y ago
It's ketosis that causes the weight loss (Liver producing ketons that break down fat cells). And it's been around for a while (i.e since Atkins days). When you cut out processed foods, and grains, you are left only with pretty much only healthy foods, so it's no wonder they feel better. But that isn't the same as saying all grains and processed foods are bad for you.
- Healplz 12y ago
  Yes and no. Most mainstream paleo isn't low carb enough to keep you in ketosis. Sisson's Primal Blueprint is probably the closest to advocating for keto. In reality the mechanism for weight loss is most likely increased satiety from higher P&F intake vs Carb intake (without dropping below ~50g C/day for keto).
  - 1stop 12y ago
    Maybe I've confused paleo with primal. But on paleo given you can't have grains. What is the majority of carb intake?
    - Healplz 12y ago
      Root vegetables mostly. But the whole paleo community is just all over the place.
    - ben_straub 12y ago
      Fruits and vegetables. Starchy roots are heavy on the carbs, and so are apples and strawberries. Primal allows dairy if you're not intolerant, and milk has lactose (a sugar).
acconrad 12y ago
It's the same argument for vegetarians/vegans as well. When you have an unlimited supply of food (and variety of foods), you can eat without thinking, and eating without thinking leads to poor food choices. When you specifically and consciously limit that variety, you have to become much more creative and active in how to enjoy the foods you eat while staying vegan/paleo/whatever. The problem is that the people following these diets attribute it to the diet itself, when in actuality it's the methodology of food selection from a subset of healthier foods that was the real attributor to their success.
- Dewie 12y ago
  I'm not convinced. Vegans have to be mindful of what kind of vegan food that they eat in order to get enough proteins, and perhaps also B12. This is something that is usually easily/trivially satisfied by a regular omnivore diet. So it's not just a question of eating varied vegan food as a side-effect of not getting bored with it, but getting enough vegan food that has proteins in it. Does paleo suffer the same deficiency, i.e. is it simple to be lacking in some specific substances that are pretty vital when following a paleo diet?
  - joshred 12y ago
    Fiber?
  - Borkdude 12y ago
    I have followed a vegan whole foods diet for over more than 2 years (and lost 50 lbs of fat). Protein is the least of my problems on such a diet. When you eat enough calories from whole plant foods (whole grains, legumes, vegetables), you get plenty of protein. When your calories consist of vegetable oils, sodas and white flour products, that's where you might get into trouble.
  - latch 12y ago
    I think a vegan would intentionally need to try to avoid protein, or a specific amino acid, to run into any issues (or be uneducated about basic nutrition, in which case any diet could be dangerous). B12 is a different issue. I cheat and eat Corn Flakes and plain Cheerios with various types of fortified "milks".

firasd 12y ago

I’ve been doing Paleo and low-carb for about an year. It’s been unquestionably effective. However, in the course of trying various adjustments over this time, I’ve basically concluded that any sort of “eliminationist” diet — Paleo, low carb, gluten free, vegan, you decide what’s best for you — can work well, as long as it’s generally safe and you pay attention to how your selections affect how you look and feel. Such an approach is what I’d recommend over generic calorie counting. Food is such a potent input into your body; picking and choosing what you put in can make all the difference.

hownottowrite 12y ago

Actual study: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v68/n3/full/ejcn2013290a.html http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v68/n3/full/ejcn2013290a.... Interesting note in the conclusion: "Adherence to protein intake was poor in the PD group." I wondered if this would impact skeletal muscle mass, but the author's previous research indicates that does not appear to be the case. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12048/abstract;jsessionid=91F6C0F390137F3D6151347F2934533C.f03t02 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12048/abstra...

akavel 12y ago

Thanks, nice to read an article about food that is weighed and quotes some scientific studies, especially seeing there the following phrase: "a long-term randomised controlled trial" ! The tl;dr seems to be: "What happened? Both groups lost weight, but after six months the women on the Palaeolithic diet had lost more, and their waists now measured less than those on the Nordic diet. It seemed as though this diet was better, but then things changed. After two years there was no difference in weight between the two groups. The only difference was in levels of the harmful blood fats, triglycerides, but even then they were at what would be considered safe, normal levels in the people on the Nordic diet too. Both groups found the diets difficult to manage and most people didn’t achieve the targets of eating the right amounts of each food group." and, from the closing paragraph: "When it comes to losing weight, the advice is pretty dull – eat less and exercise more."

gadders 12y ago
The closing sentence might just have said "calories in vs calories out".

feld 12y ago

No. Just stop eating so many processed foods. That's all it takes. You don't need to jump on the latest diet trend to be healthy.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
markild 12y ago
Though I would necessarily say it's that simple, the article kinda seem to end up with a similar conclusion > So, there’s no hard and fast evidence yet that we should be eating like cavepeople. It is of course unhealthy to eat a diet which mainly consists of highly processed foods like white bread and sugary cereals, but this doesn’t mean that all dairy products and grains need to be avoided unless you have a specific problem with them.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

narag 12y ago

It's possible to eat much less, tastier and healthier than a lot of people does now. Overeating looks very much like a legal drug. Now you don't need to go far away in time to find cultures with healthy food habits. Do you?

latch 12y ago

The bar is low enough that simply getting people to eat less processed foods is a win. We can debate how the liver breaks down sugar, or whether milk should be avoided, but that seems inconsequential when people are eating "hamburgers" where the buns are made from two deep fried chicken breasts. That said, virtually every major health agency recommends a diet where carbohydrates (from vegetables, fruits and grains) represent the majority of calories. For an individual, under the guidance of a doctor, it can make sense to alter this. For everyone else, just follow the guidelines.

phkahler 12y ago
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/downloads/mini_poster_English_final.pdf http://www.choosemyplate.gov/downloads/mini_poster_English_f... It's still the square meal from the 1970's with some small adjustments. Eat a small plate that looks like that. The meat portion should be 4 ounces or so.
bluedevil2k 12y ago
eating "hamburgers" where the buns are made from two deep fried chicken breasts You're referring to KFC's Double Down I assume, but if you look at it's nutrition facts (1) it's not as bad as you think, especially for a Paleo/Atkins based diet. And it's delicious. 1 - http://fast-food-nutrition.findthebest.com/l/1377/KFC-Original-Recipe-Double-Down http://fast-food-nutrition.findthebest.com/l/1377/KFC-Origin...
- erkkie 12y ago
  Unfortunately macro ratios only don't matter a whole lot in isolation, there are studies with any imaginable result out there for macro ratios so it's easy to pick-and-choose to represent any world view which makes the signal/noise ratio shit. The easiest take-away is to start with avoiding heavily processed food, regardless of the macro ratios.
- scottjad 12y ago
  It is very nutrient poor and it is very calorically dense, almost as dense as bread. | food (100g prepared) | cals | |----------------------+------| | KFC double down | 224 | | whole wheat bread | 259 | | brown rice | 110 | | corn | 86 | | carrots | 41 | | cantaloupe | 34 | But I guess if you love saturated fat and get your nutrition advice from bloggers and journalists it's awesome!

logicchains 12y ago

While I personally believe in the effectiveness of the paleo diet, I think there's too much focus on whether or not it allows people lose weight without eating less. The average American dietary intake per day is around 3,700 kilocalories[1], compared to a recommended value of around 2,000 kilocalories, so it's no mystery why people are getting fatter. I hence think an effective topic of study would be how effective various diets are at making people consume less calories, and the paleo diet seems to be great at this, due to involving many foods that produce greater satiety. Even if the body treated all calories equally, automatically storing all excess energy as fat, the paleo diet could still have an advantage purely because of its interactions with human physiology somehow reducing appetite and hence reducing total calories consumed. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energ...

natejenkins 12y ago
Something is off in these numbers. There are 9000 calories in a kilogram of fat. If Americans were really eating 1700 calories more than required each day they would be gaining around 1.3kg/week (about 3 pounds). Of course, given the same amount of physical activity, the heavier you are the more calories are required to maintain your current weight, so that eventually this 1.3kg/week would level off. From personal experience, I would say the average weight gain per year in the US is a few kilograms, let's say 2. This is 18000 calories in excess, which is just about 50 calories a day, or basically one apple too many. The clear lesson to be learned is to cut back on the apples. There are some studies that agree with my anecdotal evidence: http://www.livestrong.com/article/142567-average-increase-weight-adults/ http://www.livestrong.com/article/142567-average-increase-we...
- logicchains 12y ago
  Well the numbers are from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and I can't think what reason they'd have to produce flawed statistics, but then again I can't find the original study methodology so there's no way to be sure.

kbrower 12y ago

Paleo diets happen to be high protein and low carb. Protein is the most satiating macronutrient and carbs are the least. This type of diet is effective because macronutrient ratio it makes it easier to have a calorie deficit and not be hungry.

baal80spam 12y ago
I am quite sure that fat is the most satiating macro, not protein.
- will_work4tears 12y ago
  Well, not necessarily. It's the most calorie dense, perhaps, but not always the most satiating. For instance, the best index put together so far lists potatoes as the most satiating. And the number two is a very lean fish. [0] - (pdf) http://www.ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/EDWText/TextElemente/Ernaehrungswissenschaft/Naehrstoffe/Saettigung_Lebensmittel_Satiety_Index.pdf http://www.ernaehrungsdenkwerkstatt.de/fileadmin/user_upload...
- scottjad 12y ago
  I am quite sure that carbs is the most satiating macro, not fat. :) j/k It's the energy density and palatability, not macronutrient content. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/130/2/268.long http://jn.nutrition.org/content/130/2/268.long "In studies of satiation, it is important to match the palatability of the foods when they are compared. If it is not, the fact that one food tastes better than another could override any effects of the nutrient composition on amount consumed (Drewnowski 1998). In addition, to study the specific effects of macronutrients, they must be manipulated independently of energy density." "These three studies indicate that the amount of fat in the diet did not influence satiation when the energy density was held constant." "These results provide clear evidence that the energy density of food can affect satiation independently of macronutrient content and palatability."

acconrad 12y ago

Do we all have this blind optimism that someday, one day, we can actually wake up and read the news that there finally is a magic pill to solve our problems? All of these articles read the same - link bait title convincing you that the magic bullet might be here, followed by an article analyzing the diet, and a conclusion that there is still no magic bullet; that diet and exercise have (and continue to be) the tried-and-true (boring) methods for longevity, weight management and overall health. How is it that we still get sucked in?

vixin 12y ago

I'd need some convincing. http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1a.shtml http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/angel-1984/angel-1984-1...

atom-morgan 12y ago
Are you referring to lifespans? Of course modern medicine has been great. I don't think anybody would deny that. But the question is, where could that number be today with a better diet?

ScottWhigham 12y ago

I've been paleo for about a year now and, while I like the results, we're talking about a 35 woman study (70 total women divided into two groups). That's the basis for an alpha study, not a conclusive result. I'd love to say that "this is the proof we paleos have been wanting to show everyone!" but the sample size is just too small. Yes, it's encouraging but let's not blow it out of proportion.

wavefunction 12y ago

"Cave people" ate whatever they could get their hands on: it's time to put this diet fad to rest. Now, should you eat mostly vegetables, a little fruit, lean protein and some healthy fats while skipping the processed foods and sugars? Yeah, but stop acting like you're getting back to something from the "cave days."

wil421 12y ago
I believe once people learned to cultivate plants and process grains is when they started forming cities instead on being nomadic or cave dwellers. Also if you look at places like North Korea you will see what improper nutrition will do to a population's height. Once we made the switch to a non-paleo diet is when we really started to advance beyond hunter/gatherers.
monochr 12y ago
"Now, should you eat mostly vegetables, a little fruit, lean protein and some healthy fats while skipping the processed foods and sugars? Yeah, but stop acting like you're getting back to something from the "cave days."" Literally none of that is true, these are just old diet fads that have become folk knowledge. People have managed to survive for thousands of years in the arctic circle eating nothing but fatty foods, people have survived in the fertile crescent for thousands of years eating nothing but cereals for thousands of years. The human body can adapt to just about any sort of food. What people nowhere have adapted to do is sit in a chair for 14 hours a day and not move.
- blisterpeanuts 12y ago
  Agreed that the human body is adaptable, but I would argue that it's also adaptable to an idle lifestyle of 14 hrs/day in a chair. There are many examples of individuals with indolent lifestyles or office jobs who are living well into their 70s and beyond. My own father is an example - never walked, never exercised, smoked for 50 years - and is pushing 90, albeit not in great health but mentally still sound. I think most of us would enjoy a better quality of life if we ate optimally and stayed active, but genetics seems to be a key factor nonetheless; luck of the draw.

dirktheman 12y ago

The Paleo diet is all the rage here in The Netherlands as well. While I applaud people being conscious about their nutrition, I find the caveman-parabole hilarious. Most cavemen didn't live to see 40, and there's the little thing called evolution, too. People can adapt to different eating habits even within their own lifespan, let alone in +10,000 years. The magic bullet for diets: a moderate intake of food from a diverse diet consisting mostly of fresh fruit, vegetables and some form of protein, paired with ample exercise. Wether you call it 'Paleo' and leave out 'modern' ingredients, leave out the carbs and call it Atkins, or focus on good carbs and good fat (South Beach), it doesn't matter. My wife lost a good amount of weight by eating until she didn't feel hungry anymore, and exercising regularly.

Dewie 12y ago
> Most cavemen didn't live to see 40, Didn't they? Is that based on the median age, or the average? Because the average age tends to be skewed by infant mortality. > , and there's the little thing called evolution, too. The central argument is that our bodies haven't changed significantly in the time between "cavemen" and present day. So evolution is central to the argument of its usefulness. Whether it is correct that the evolutionary forces is relatively insignificant is, perhaps, up for debate.
monochr 12y ago
This thread is incredibly depressing. All the people complaining about this diet being a fad are just regurgitating the fads from their childhood as facts. Vegetables and fresh fruit needn't form anywhere near a majority of a diet for you to be healthy, there are enough traditional societies for this. The problem for the modern diet is that we have the appetites of an animal that should burn about ~4000 calories a day yet only expend around ~3000 on average. Now if you want to be healthy as well as skinny instead of lowering your calorie intake you're much better off increasing your exercise.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  Reconstructions of what medieval people ate indicate they were often downing over 4500 calories a day. And their food was probably a lot more nutrient dense than ours in terms of minerals and vitamins. I think with typical modern foods it is somewhat difficult to get adequate micronutrient intake on a sub 3000 calorie diet. This is where the calorie in/out idea falls down. If you undereat you are going to tank your metabolism and also have some deficiency problems. Not only are we made to be walking around getting exercise for much of the day, it is critically important to realize we are made to be doing it outside. Sun light exposure is a huge deal for health. People who spend time outside live longer. Just light exposure on its own boosts metabolism.

hellbreakslose 12y ago

Another Reporter that tries to explain nature... Good luck. She mentions Heart Disease and other things ... HMM Dear Reporter do you even know that paleolithic people were living up to the age of 25-30? What are you talking about? Do you even understand that's that how they spend their days? Food for them was the purpose of life. Not getting in a car going to work ordering online going back and watch the kids watching TV... It's weird you should go and watch some of your own BBC documentaries. And my opinion in that, you can't actually follow. Pre-historic diet, you'd be STARVED to DEATH! It means you eat once a month pretty much! I am a big fan of eating healthy thought, and yes you can achieve that. BALANCE is the key. You can have your mcd's or whatever it is you crave in the world we living but 1-2 times a month? Eat your sweets etc 1-2 times a week? Eat salads, nicely cooked meat etc etc. I am against of precooked food thats bad stuff for your self. Generally Cook your own food is the best solution in life I guess.

spodek 12y ago

The biology of the human body and food is so complex, science is nowhere close to understanding it helpfully enough to design a diet, even if you call it an old diet. I'd bet you'd find a high correlation between unhealthy diet and degree of "scientific" perspective people had on their diet. I offer the United States as exhibit one.

ben_straub 12y ago
> The biology of the human body and food is so complex, science is nowhere close to understanding it helpfully enough to design a diet To me, this is an argument for eating real foods, and a reason to be skeptical of things like soylent. But I don't think you can get from there to saying it doesn't matter what you eat, or that anybody with a rationale behind their food choices is delusional.
- erkkie 12y ago
  To me, too, this is the biggest argument in favor of avoiding specific fads and eating "real" food, there's been too many reversals of x is good / x is bad in the recent decades to try to even pretend we know. (not to mention there are still new phytochemicals being found in fruits and vegetables all the time, things we wouldn't even know to artificially add in things like soylent)
cheery 12y ago
The fucktards fail to realize that science has been applied to equally complex things before. Consider newtonian physics vs. relativistic light equations. Anyway, the only thing you have for understanding the things is science after all. There's fair amount of evidence that carbohydrate restriction works. Good thing I won't have to listen hacker news on this subject anymore, I have solved what my diet should be.

1stop 12y ago

I feel like rather than diet fads, for weight loss. People just need to learn about Ketosis[0] and how to trigger it in your body (hint: have a tiny amount of carbs).[2] Your body turns into a fat burning machine. Any way you can achieve it without feeling like you are starving is going to be an effective weight loss strategy. Paleo, Atkins, Lemon/Honey/Coffee/whatever detox, etc. You cut out carbs, your liver starts burning fat. But beware: They (the scientific community) haven't reached consensus on whether you should do this long term[1]. It seems to be trending towards "it's probably okay" though. I think it puts more strain on your kidney's (because of the ketons) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis [1] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=long+term+ketosis&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=long+term+ketosis&btnG=&... [2] Disclaimer: I'm not a dr. I most likely am wrong about more than 1 thing I've said :-)

whistlerbrk 12y ago

I hate this articles conclusion, I truly hate it. Every single body is different and you need to find out what works for you. That requires wading through an unbelievable amount of false and misinformation in order to find the truth - for you. I followed a (modified) ketogenic diet very successfully for the winter and lost 20 lbs. That diet will absolutely NOT work for everyone but it will work for many people. As will paleo, as will atkins, as will south beach. Find out what works for you. Experiment. Finding a magic bullet for dieting is like finding a magic bullet for fashion. There is NO one size, one style fits all solution.

monochr 12y ago

BRB, looking for a mammoth.

lugg 12y ago

Couple of questions I have for anyone in the know about this. While we may have not evolved a great deal over the last 30 thousand or so years, our bacteria may well have. That would cover our entire digestion systems mouth to anus. I suspect those bacteria have evolved in many ways that may mean we can eat a more modern diet without doing any harm or perhaps doing better. Has this been covered by any of the studies? I have to question the avoidance of things like bread. Even in Paleolithic times we had crude forms of processed grains and bread. Are proponents of palaeo saying to cut these out completely or just cut out the highly refined kinds?

mariusz79 12y ago
Paleo Diet is not really a best name to the describe this diet. Better name would be "hunter-gatherer diet" but that's not too marketable. The whole premise of this diet can be summarized as this: - eat what you can kill - eat what you can gather - eat only stuff that can be eaten raw (that includes meat and fish)
ben_straub 12y ago
Todays grains are actually a highly-processed food that you can't really digest when they're raw. There's no one simple rule for food on paleo/primal, but one rule of thumb is "feel free to cook, but only eat things you could eat raw."

coriny 12y ago

There's a lot of poor science behind the paleodiet hypothesis - though it may well work as a healthy diet. The one point I'm going to make is that our ancestors of a million years ago ate a very wide range of diets that were entirely ecosystem & lifestyle dependent (as we still observe in the modern world). So there is no such thing as "the diet" our ancestors ate, they ate many diets, some were better than others. I also find the assertion that our digestion - even in terms of commensal gut bacteria - hasn't changed in that time a bit odd. We observe rapid adaptations to diet (e.g. in a handful of generations) in other species.

wil421 12y ago

>Proponents argue modern disorders like heart disease, diabetes and cancer have arisen primarily from the incompatibility between our current forms of diet and our prehistoric anatomy. I would argue these problems have been around forever they just may be more identifiable today. Now the rate at which we get things like heart disease is probably going up because of the rise in obesity. A diet is not exactly the problem its more of the rate and quantities in which a lot of people eat.

peterwwillis 12y ago

As is common with articles that end with a question mark, the answer is by default a "No."

md2be 12y ago

No! The reason "water". Water can't be hacked. Or maybe it can. :)

s_baby 12y ago

My problem with Paleo people is the dogmatic language they use. They draw some very convincing conclusions but then turn their speculation into rigid rules. It's hard to have a conversation about the diet without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

netman21 12y ago

I have been grain free for 6 months. 25 pounds down and within 4 pounds of dropping below 25 BMI. (55 yr old male) I am convinced that the best way to "eat less" is eliminate all grains. Within three weeks I lost all cravings for carbs. I can walk into a Starbucks at the airport and not even look at the pastries. The breadbasket before dinner at the restaurant invokes a meh response. It takes about three weeks to get over what feels like a carb addiction. Read the first chapter of Wheat Belly for inspiration. Read Grain Brain next.

st3fan 12y ago
Congrats! Same here! I went low carb a few months ago and I will reach 25 pounds down next week probably.
- netman21 12y ago
  Well there you go. Dieting and personal health is the new enlightenment. Who needs scientific statistical studies of samples when what matters is our own reaction to treatment. Only we can do an experiment that is verifiable, repeatable, and trustworthy. :-)
jaredmcateer 12y ago
Longest I've been able to resist is about 6 months, sometimes I just crave a good sandwich for which there is no substitute to two slices of bread or oven baked mac & cheese or pho with it's delicious rice noodles. It's such a slippery slope, I have one sandwich and next thing you know I'm in some run down motel itching for my next fix, haven't seen light for days other than the crack through which the delivery guy slides in a large pizza or baked lasagna. Kicking my grain addiction is harder than anything I have ever done.
victorhooi 12y ago
I think ultimately it's what works for you. I have friends who've been all over the whole low-carbohydrate and grain-free fad. They're still fat. That's probably partly due to the quantity of what they're eating, plus there's a lot of junk food that doesn't contain carbohydrates. Myself, I like my carbohydrates, and I eat a fairly large amount. And most of the other triathletes I train with, or endurance guys - they also eat a stackload of carbohydrates, and are pretty darn healthy looking. Also, most professional cyclists/runners are probably also quite carbohydrate heavy. So I don't get it when people say carbohydrates are evil, and you'll get fat eating them. I don't think we know enough about the science to go one way or the other on something like this. If it works for you, sure. But I suspect a lot of it's just due to being more attentive to what you're eating, and having good self-control. Eat less and exercise more - that's been the line since the 1970's, so it's hardly anything revolutionary. Heck, our ancestors probably figured out if you ate less, you'd lose weight...

Borkdude 12y ago

I have the feeling the paleo diet is more popular among programmers / nerds than for example a whole foods vegan diet (which I'm following). Why could this be?

scottjad 12y ago
Programmers read a lot of blogs and use reddit, and paleo bloggers and /r/paleo are much more popular than vegan bloggers and /r/vegan. Of course the causation could go in the other direction, so I'm just guessing here.

PerfectElement 12y ago

You should follow the Paleo diet if you don't want to live past your 60's like the Inuit and the Masai, who have been on a low carb diet for generations and have very low life expectancy. Just research what science (not blogs) has to say about spending your life in ketosis. Plus, there's nothing Paleolithic about the Paleo diet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMOjVYgYaG8

elfcard 12y ago

Bread is a heavily processed food, and it's essentially sugar, and it's so easily broken down into glucose, this process is so easy, it first starts in your mouth as amalayse (sp?) begins digestion while you masticate. A common intro bio lesson is to chew a soda cracker until it begins to get sweet. Whole wheat breads are sugar with soluble and insoluble materials that aids in moving food material through the gut because we evolved eating a lot of crap that we couldn't digest. So to suggest that I've evolved in 7000 years to digest milk, but not evolved to no longer require fibre requires genetic proof, and I've not seen that study. Evolution doesn't work that way regardless, and certainly not over as little as 200 generations that were geographically locked genetically for all but the last few hundred years. That said, just because it's processed, doesn't immediately make it bad for us. Olive oil, yoghurt, etc... all have some observable health benefits. And products like cheeses and bacon are absolutely processed, and show little to no health benefit, but if you took them out of my diet, I may suffer depression, so I unscientifically say they cure depression (in me).

erkkie 12y ago
there's lots of vitamin k in (real) cheese, I hear you with bacon though :)

rohanpai 12y ago

If it was not marketed at "eat like a caveman" I think it would have more adoption. Paleo is really just about eating more natural foods (less processed foods). It works well.