The Paleo Diet Debunked?

[Taylot]

It's no secret that we're big fans of the Paleo Diet here at Nerd Fitness.

If you're not familiar with the Paleo Diet, essentially it's a 'lifestyle choice' of consuming certain foods based on we're how we're designed to eat from an evolutionary standpoint.

In short: cut out processed foods and grains, load up on veggies, meat, fish, eggs, fruits and nuts.

It's no shock that Paleo is a hot topic around the Nerd Fitness Rebellion: our Beginner's Guide to the Paleo Diet has been viewed over three million times and our iPhone App, Paleo Central, has already helped over 25,000 people make more informed decisions on what to eat.

Now, as this way of life has continued to grow in popularity, it seems like more and more critics are coming out of the woodwork to bash it and present arguments as to why the Paleo Diet is a fallacy.

Within the past few months, a TEDx talk on debunking the Paleo Diet has been making its way around the internet, and a recently released book, PaleoFantasy, has brought the "is this Paleo Diet a fad/dangerous/a waste of time?" to the front of the conversations throughout the blogosphere and mainstream media.

Being the nerd that I am, I wanted to respectfully address the most common arguments, explain my experiences with the diet, and then invite you to share your story too.

Let's do this thing!




The Paleo Lifestyle isn't realistic


First and foremost, critics love to point out that literally living a Paleo lifestyle is impossible in this day and age.

If we're going to eat like cavemen, then certainly we should want to be living like them as well, right? Strapping on loin cloths, hanging out in caves, foraging for our own food, hunting our own animals, giving up modern day luxury and moving back to a primitive lifestyle.

Here's the truth: Nobody I know who follows Paleo principles actually wants to live that way! Yeah, we can't go hunt wooly mammoths or gazelles, so we do the best we can by consuming grass fed beef or bison, free range chicken, wild fish, and so on.

It's absolutely true that modern day food is different from the food that existed tens of thousands of years ago, so we do the best we can with what we have. 

Ultimately, Paleo people aim to do the best we can to live like we're genetically designed to live, while also having fun and enjoying the modern luxuries of today's conveniences.

I love technology as much as the next nerd, and I have no intention on living in a cave any time soon.  I'd certainly consider a hobbit hole, but for now I'll stick with my apartment.

So, almost nobody takes the "Paleo Lifestyle" literally - it's instead looked at as a simple blueprint to give us the best chance at having success with weight loss and optimal health.


How we eat isn't the problem, it's because we don't move enough
  Currently, roughly 70% of the United States is overweight.  Many health professionals assume that in order for us to turn our lives around, we simply need to be exercising more (at least 60-90 minutes per day) and eating less.  Changing up our diet and abandoning food groups like "heart healthy" whole grains is a waste of time, and that we need to just focus on calorie deficits to lose weight and get things back under control.

Unfortunately, in my research and studies on this topic I haven't found this to tell the whole story: I firmly believe that our diet is responsible for 80-90% of our success or failure when it comes to weight loss or optimal health (exercise plays just a supporting role), that we CANNOT outrun our fork, and that all calories are NOT created equal.

I've found these articles found them both incredibly interesting and worth a read, explaining that just moving more isn't enough, and that all calories are not created equal.

•     
• A Tanzanian hunter-gatherer tribe was tracked over a series of months.  Despite spending hours upon hours each day exercising, they showed no more energy expenditure than somebody who lived a far more sedentary lifestyle.  This suggests that our bodies adjust to the stresses put upon them and adjust how we spend our energy accordingly; just moving more without changing our diet won't result in long term success/health.
      
• Rats fed high fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight  than rats fed the same number of calories of table sugar.  Not all sugar is created equal, and not all calories are created equal.  Though, it's not a stretch to believe that a 200 calorie Twinkie will not produce the same results in your body as 200 calories of broccoli.

The Paleo Diet is mainly meat based


Most critics love to point out that the Paleo Diet is "mainly meat based" (as stated in the TEDx talk referenced above and in this Huffington Post piece). They then spend the rest of their talk/article explaining that we, in fact, didn't eat all meat, and that we mostly ate plants!

And thank goodness! As the internet has recently pointed out, meat will kill you (actually, it won't).

Although some people may choose to follow the Paleo Diet by eating primarily meat, and yes a majority of the protein consumed on a Paleo Diet does come from animal sources, I would argue that a true Paleo Diet is actually mostly vegetable based, supplemented by a protein source which often happens to be meat.  So, the critics and advocates of the Paleo Diet are in agreement on this - mostly plants!

Paleo and Atkins are not synonyms. People that are all-in on a Paleo Diet tend to have 2/3rds of their plate filled up with vegetables, and a small portion of meat added. Yes, some people choose to eat more meat than that, but nowhere in the basic Paleo principles does it state that Paleo Diet is mainly meat based.

A diet that promotes the consumption of more vegetables, and whenever possible eating meat from pasture raised or free range animals?

Sounds like something we can all be in agreement on.


But ancient humans ate grains!


Here's another argument that people love to point out:

Recently, some studies have popped up on various ancient cultures that show that some humans in certain civilizations consumed certain types of grains as far back as 100,000 years ago).

But wait! If the whole point of the Paleo Diet is that humans haven't evolved much since the Agricultural Revolution (10,000 years ago)…and now you're telling me that some humans ate grains further back than that, then how does the Paleo Diet make sense??

Shouldn't this be causing

among the paleo camp?

We're missing the point here. The point is that processed grains, stuff in boxes and bags, is crap. No matter how far back you go in our evolutionary timeline, you'll never find any ancient human eating dyed white bread or Lucky Charms (now with "heart healthy whole grains!").  We need to be focusing on eating unprocessed, real food.

THIS is the point.  Not "no grains no matter what ever ever!" - but rather a common sense approach to cutting out processed foods and including more natural whole foods.


We are still evolving


A big cornerstone of the Paleo Diet is that humans haven't evolved drastically since the Agricultural Revolution occurred 10,000 years ago.

Critics argue that we have in fact evolved since then, and that certain cultures have adapted to be able to consume grains or dairy, proving that we are evolving and that the Paleo Diet is no longer valid.

Again, we're missing the point here: I also believe that we are still evolving. For example, people of Northern European descent tend to have no problem consuming dairy, while people of Asian descent tend to have issues digesting lactose and are often lactose intolerant: it's because humans have evolved over time to adapt to their surroundings!

The truth is, a lot of people ARE gluten intolerant or lactose intolerant. In fact, at least 65% of the population has "a reduced ability to digest lactose after infancy," and a growing number of people are discovering they're gluten intolerant.

So, the Paleo Diet helps make people aware of two food groups that many people tend to have an issue with. I don't think it should come as a surprise then to realize that these are the two food groups introduced most recently into our diets from an evolutionary standpoint.

It would seem that although a portion of the population adapted to consume more starchy/carbohydrate rich diets, it's far from being a majority; same goes for dairy consumption.



But this study shows that a _________ diet is better


I tend to receive a few emails a week from concerned people who cite books like The China Studyor other studies claiming that a plant only diet/low fat diet/fruit only diet/bicycle only diet is the path for optimal health, not Paleo.

To these, I reply: If it works for you, if you are getting a clean bill of health from your doctor, and if you are happy, by all means keep eating that way!  It's clearly working for you.

I don't think there is one particular diet that works for everybody - we all have intolerances to certain things or proclivities to others.  I WOULD argue that these studies always tend to mistake correlation for causation (as demonstrated by this refute of the China Study and its findings).

I encourage people to assume NOTHING, and to always wear skeptic goggles when reading studies.

Here's an example: these studies often compare vegetarian lifestyles to regular people who say they consume meat.  Somebody that has chosen to live a vegetarian lifestyle tends to be a more health conscious individual than the average bear, and thus aims to make healthier lifestyle choices all around (including exercise and eliminating certain types of unhealthy foods). This group of people is compared to people in the  "meat consumption" category (everyone else), who may or may not want to be living a healthier life, who may not exercise, who may not eliminate certain foods, who may partake in other unhealthy activities, and so on.

The truth of the matter is that there are very few studies that compare a health conscious plant-only diet to a health conscious Paleo Diet (containing grass fed beef, organic chicken, organ meats, and lots and lots of vegetables).  This is the first I've found.

If you are against the consumption of meat, more power to ya. If you look good, feel good, and wake up happy - keep doing what you're doing, because it works for you.

However, if you are worried about consuming this or that due to a particular study, I would advise you to do your research on the study, create your own hypothesis, and conduct an experiment on yourself to find out what works for you!

Use these studies as a starting point for your own research.


Why I believe the Paleo Diet works


Here's my humble, nerdy opinion as to why the Paleo Diet is so popular and helps so many people have success:

It's not because ancient humans didn't eat grains (they might have in small quantities); it's not because we haven't evolved (I'd argue that we have never stopped), nor because the diet encourages excessive meat consumption (if anything, it encourages excessive vegetable consumption).

I believe the Paleo Diet works for a number of reasons, the most important being something that has nothing to do with anthropology or physiology:


It's not just because the Paleo Diet teaches your body to use stored fat for energy rather than sugar.  Nor is it just because it's very difficult to overeat on the Paleo Diet, which almost always leads to weight loss.  It's not just because it can help with things like diabetes and other physiological issues (like

).


It's because it's damn simple to understand, makes logical sense, removes the need for counting calories, and removes willpower from the equation. Just like a workout, the pretty good routine you follow is better than the perfect one you don't. Similarly, the Paleo Diet isn't perfect, but it works for many and it's easy to follow.
Here's why: willpower is a finite resource.

How many times have you told yourself "I'll just have one" or "okay, I'll only eat half of this" before eating the entire box/bag/entire serving?  Sugary/processed foods can have very addicting qualities, and for people who have addictive personalities (I'd imagine a HUGE portion of Nerd Fitness readers fit into this category), portion control can be incredibly challenging.

Having "just one" is a recipe for disaster, as your brain starts to think "ugh, why are you depriving me of this food that I so desperately want? I just tasted it and now I can't think about anything else?!"

When you continue to consume unhealthy foods and you have this type of personality, you are a slave to your taste buds and the dopamine released after indulging yourself - your brain has a one-track mind and wants to consume the food you're only allowed "one of."

Compare this to somebody on the Paleo Diet.  Instead of "I can't eat that food," you say "I don't eat that food" (as it's not on the list of approved Paleo foods).  It has become part of your identity, and you need much less willpower to resist that temptation to consume (and most likely over-consume.

Thanks to my friend James Clear for this:


A research study divided people into two groups: one group was told that each time they were faced with a temptation, they would tell themselves “I can’t do X.” For example, when tempted with ice cream, they would say, “I can’t eat ice cream.”  The second group was  told to say “I don’t do X.” For example, when tempted with ice cream, they would say, “I don’t eat ice cream.”


As each student walked out of the room and handed in their answer sheet, they were offered a complimentary treat. The student could choose between a chocolate candy bar or a health bar. As the student walked away, the researcher would mark their snack choice on the answer sheet.


The students who told themselves “I can’t eat X” chose to eat the chocolate candy bar 61% of the time. Meanwhile, the students who told themselves “I don’t eat X” chose to eat the chocolate candy bars only 36% of the time. This simple change in terminology significantly improved the odds that each person would make a more healthy food choice.
By removing the mental work from the equation, the Paleo Diet puts you back in control, takes out the guess work required to figure out how much exactly to eat,  and eliminates the temptation associated with only having 'a few' of something.

The Paleo Diet works because the procedure is easy to follow and to build as a habit...not because it gives away some super secret diet formula...but because it's simple and thus easy to adhere to.


Do I follow the Paleo Diet?


Although I'm a big fan of the Paleo Diet, I make a conscious decision to not follow it 100%. 

Instead, I have adapted the Paleo principles to my life and altered them to fit my lifestyle and goals.

Here's why: setting aside the fact that there is no one true "Paleo Diet," whenever I go full Paleo I tend to lose weight very quickly, dropping my body fat percentage down into the 7-8% range.  Personally, my goals these days are to add size and muscle, and improve my athletic performance.  In order for me to do that, I need to be putting ON weight, so I will mix in some non-Paleo foods like whole milk, rice, and oats depending on my training routine for that day.

On top of that, I'll occasionally eat unhealthy foods, generally around social events, and not think twice about it!  Although it's possible to eat healthy at a barbecue, I choose not worry about it, drink beer and eat pizza with everybody else, and then get back on track with my next meal.

So, although I don't follow the Paleo Diet 100%, I'd argue that this is yet another example that shows that it works - when I want to put on weight, I add back in grains and dairy to my diet. When I go full Paleo, I lose body fat quickly and get even more lean, which is the same way Saint got his results after years of struggle.  I know NF Team member Staci is the same way: she constantly adjusts her Paleo "percentage" based on her athletic goals at that time.


The best solution?


I'm in the process of putting together a formal "Nerd Fitness Diet," that will explain my entire philosophy on what to eat and what not to eat, and when to eat..

Rather than a rigid set of yes's and no's, it'll instead be a simple set of guidelines to live by. 

I'll be expanding upon this topic in a future article, but these are the rules that I believe will help you have the most success with weight loss, a healthy checkup from the doctor, and happy life:

•     
• EAT REAL FOOD. The less ingredients, the less steps it took to process, the healthier it will most likely be for you.
      
• Minimize consumption of grains and dairy if your goal is weight loss.  Consider eliminating foods completely and then add them back in after a few weeks to see how your body responds.    
      
• Understand that you can't outrun your fork. Your diet will account for 80% of your success or failure.
      
• Eat more vegetables.  No, corn doesn't count
      
• Try to consume 1 gram of protein per pound of lean body weight each day.
      
• Minimize liquid calories.
      
• Don't have cheat meals - instead, make conscious decisions when to eat 'unhealthy foods' and then get right back on track.
      
• Focus on building permanent small changes rather than sweeping changes that only last for a few weeks.
      
• Relax! Do the best you can with what you have, where you are.

Have you tried it?


I often find that those who are overly critical of the Paleo Diet have never actually given it a shot, nor tested for themselves how their body responds to these changes.

I encourage EVERYBODY to think for themselves and question everything - it's even one of the Rules of the Rebellion!  I also encourage everybody to understand how their body works by getting hard facts whenever possible.  Take the time, save up the few bucks required, and get your blood work done. Then change your diet for 30-60 days and get blood work done again. See how your body reacts!

Not interested in getting blood work done?  Then go with look and feel - spend 30 days trying out a new diet, take before/after pictures and measurements, and compare how you feel (energy levels, exhaustion, etc.) before drawing your own conclusions.

I'd love to hear from you:


What are your thoughts on the Paleo Diet? 


Have you tried it?  What were your results?


If you're against it, what are your concerns?
Leave a comment and let's get the conversation started!  As always, thanks for keeping things civil

-Steve

PS - If you are interested in the Paleo Diet and want more information, check out our Beginner's Guide to the Paleo Diet which links to a number of great resources.If you want even more direction, our Nerd Fitness Guides are grounded in Paleo principles, applied in a way that you can slowly make changes rather than going all in. Cheers!

###

photos: caveman fast food, caveman wall painting, cat on treadmill, wooly mammoth, wheat, caveman spaceman, lego veggies, solo caveman, steak and asparagus, [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/myf/6292451889/]lego sherlock.

 

[runfast]

 

 

^{Well said, Steve! I usually follow Paleo about 80% of the time as well, but I do eat oats and grains if I need to carbo load before a race or long distance run.  So far for me it has been working.  Which is the most important thing, that what you eat works for you and is healthy for you. Each person is different, and every body reacts to outside elements in different ways, it's important to fuel your body with food that works best for what you want to do!}

 

^-Ashley

[Polargirl]

I took a 30 day total Paleo challenge. Lost 15 lbs. but the best part is how much better I feel. No bloating or sluggishness. I'm energetic, sleeping great, much more productive, moods are upbeat and I feel like I'm not in a fog anymore. It's now a lifestyle change. I like the benefits if total Paleo so much that I have no plans to add anything back in. For social events I offer to make a dish and ensure its Paleo so I can eat it. Only problem is I'm feeling so great I want to convert everyone. Lol

[notanartmajor]

It should be noted that the study concering high-fructose corn syrup vs. sugar was not very well conducted (see the section labeled "Counter evidence?" for rebuttal).

[SpecialSundae]

I think the Paleo diet is a very healthy and sensible one... but I won't be going Paleo. I think my main concern is when one diet (no matter how healthy) is touted as the one true way. Eating real food is the important thing, but for some people that will still include pulses or whole grains or dairy. I respect other people who do choose to go Paleo, but there are things which aren't Paleo (although many scientific sources do consider them healthy) which I am making a conscious choice to continue eating. 

 

That said, when it comes down to those very basic rules towards the end of the article, that's what I live by and intend to continue doing so (albeit with occasional ice cream or chocolate if it fits my macros).

[18ck]

I am really glad to see this piece. I can see from a lot of my paleo friends that it works and for good reasons, but I've been increasingly freaked out by the fanaticism with which the pseudo-archaeological backstory is treated. Some ground-clearing and focus on stuff we can all agree on is long overdue!

[Siferiax]

I don't have issues with the logic or reasoning behind Paleo. They make sense to me.

I have issues with the fanaticism which seems to run in the die-hard Paleo community (fortunately NF is not such a community!!)

And I have issues, personal ones, with the Paleo diet, which have nothing to do with the reasoning behind it.

Al around it is said that "The Paleo diet" is not a diet. That solely depends on how you define diet.

"Diet (nutrition), the sum of the food consumed by an organism or group"

It is a diet.

And what I feel is a diet, is "a restricted way of eating", and then still the Paleo diet, is a diet.

My own experience with the Paleo diet has been less than pleasant.

When I first got here I decided to do a Whole30, I managed 25 days.

Conclusions:

- My energy levels were better

- My cravings were horrible and getting worse

- One misstep let to horrible binging, overeating, out of control eating

- I have no food intolerances whatsoever

I did the Whole30 back in August 2012, I'm still not back on top of my eating in the way I was BEFORE the Whole30.

Before the Whole30 I weighted 76.5kg. That did go down during my Whole30, but as of this morning I'm 81.9kg.

I guess maybe this is more of a bash against the Whole30?! Still the conclusions remain.

Why doesn't the Paleo diet work for me? On a different level than mentioned above....

- I'm a picky eater and don't like 90% of the vegetables commonly used in Paleo recipes

How am I suppose to eat mostly vegetables, if I consistently don't like them?

So yeah I'm not against the Paleo diet, but this is my story as to why it's not for me. (also I love diary and the benefits I get from it (milk actually calms my stomach when it's upset!) so I'd be more Primal anyway)

One thing I am taking away from it though: SUGAR IS EVIL.

And the funny thing about that statement is that I've been hearing that from all kinds of different angles, not just the Paleo community.

[guest439437484421]

How am I suppose to eat mostly vegetables, if I consistently don't like them?

 

The key is the find a couple/few that you can stand, and then cook them on a consistant basis.  I used to not care for broccoli, but i've gotten to where i will eat it if it's not too large, or is cooked with something to help it down.  I apparently really like asparagus as long as it's fresh and not canned.  Spinach isn't too bad to me as long as it isn't steamed or canned.

 

With those three vegetables I can make a pretty good variety of dishes.

[TheSavageBean]

I tried Paleo and it didn't really work for me. I just tended to binge eat and reverse any progress that I made. I came to see food as fuel and not something enjoyable and generally I just remember hating life on it. I still recommend it though to anyone who's serious about losing weight. It taught me a lot about willpower and about what real food tastes like.

 

I realised from reading the article that I'm actually basically on an anti-paleo diet at the moment. Everything I eat is dairy or grain based or covered in a processed marinade sauce. Oh well... I still credit the paleo diet as the first serious diet I tried and thank it for introducing me to different eating protocols.

[Siferiax]

The key is the find a couple/few that you can stand, and then cook them on a consistant basis.  I used to not care for broccoli, but i've gotten to where i will eat it if it's not too large, or is cooked with something to help it down.  I apparently really like asparagus as long as it's fresh and not canned.  Spinach isn't too bad to me as long as it isn't steamed or canned.

 

With those three vegetables I can make a pretty good variety of dishes.

For me it's carrots, lettuce and was cucumber.

I like more vegetables, but those three were my main go to.

Only I got to the point eating any cucumber made me gag. So there you go, some food I can only eat a little off before my body goes, oh hell no.

Same with some other vegetables.

I'm taking it one step at a time and currently trying to learn to eat bell peppers.

I'm using this: http://www.ellynsatter.com/you-can-learn-to-enjoy-vegetables-i-61.html and this: http://www.ellynsatter.com/the-adult-picky-eater-i-63.html

[MariahSnow]

I think the paleo diet overestimates our caveman hunting abilities and drastically underestimates our scavenger abilities.

 

The amount and variety of meat that most people eat on the paleo diet wouldn't have been available because hunting wasn't always successful, animals weren't always plentiful, etc etc. It's not like you can kill a deer daily to have a nice juicy steak.

 

If any of you have ever "accidentally" spilled a beer and found your dog lapping it up, the reason is that beer is high carb, energy dense food. And animals aren't stupid. If they find a good energy source, they eat it. I'm still not sure on this, but I had a paleo coworker tell me that sweet potatoes aren't paleo. First of all, if you gave a caveman ice cream, he would eat it. And if that cave man was digging a place to poo, and found a sweet potato, I bet he would have eaten it. 

[JonDixonYT]

Here is what I took away from that TED talk:

• Using the "caveperson" as the basis for the paleo diet is...inconsistent with what professionals know about the diet of the actual "caveperson."  It's a matter of semantics.
• There is not "one" diet that the caveman would have eaten.  He would  have eaten whatever was locally available.
• Eat whole foods, they are better for you that processed foods.

I think whatever works for you is the best diet for you.  I think the TED talk is really more of a "stop using our word" than "the paleo diet is a myth."  At least that is how I interpreted it.

[Zorch]

Although I'm a big fan of the Paleo Diet, I make a conscious decision to not follow it 100%.

Instead, I have adapted the Paleo principles to my life and altered them to fit my lifestyle and goals.

Here's why: setting aside the fact that there is no one true "Paleo Diet," whenever I go full Paleo I tend to lose weight very quickly, dropping my body fat percentage down into the 7-8% range. Personally, my goals these days are to add size and muscle, and improve my athletic performance. In order for me to do that, I need to be putting ON weight, so I will mix in some non-Paleo foods like whole milk, rice, and oats depending on my training routine for that day.

On top of that, I'll occasionally eat unhealthy foods, generally around social events, and not think twice about it! Although it's possible to eat healthy at a barbecue, I choose not worry about it, drink beer and eat pizza with everybody else, and then get back on track with my next meal.

So, although I don't follow the Paleo Diet 100%, I'd argue that this is yet another example that shows that it works - when I want to put on weight, I add back in grains and dairy to my diet. When I go full Paleo, I lose body fat quickly and get even more lean, which is the same way Saint got his results after years of struggle.

This is pretty much exactly my stance on, and how I approach, my version of a "Paleoish" diet. I use my understanding of the Paleo philosophy, and have adapted that to fit what I'm trying to accomplish, rather than trying to adhere to a strict eat/do not eat list. I'd take a different approach if I wasn't training 6 days a week, or if my goal was weight loss instead of performance, but I'd still do it within the context of a Paleo framework. But as is, "Paleo Plus", with the "Plus" being primarily dairy and rice for recovery/fuel as needed, works well for me.

[Rostov]

Clearly paleo works brilliantly for some, and good luck to them.

 

But it's not for everyone, and it does sometimes worry me when new people join the community, post asking for help about getting healthier, and are immediately told "go paleo", sometimes as if (a) that's the only thing that will work; ( it's simple and straightforward, and © that it'll work for everyone.  Generally others will chime in with other suggestions and comments, but sometimes I worry that the message given is insufficiently nuanced.  Especially as another bit of received wisdom round here is that changing things all at once is a bad idea.

 

I don't want to make the mistake of generalising from my own experience too much, but when I first stated counting calories I knew I had some choices to make about the kind of life I wanted to live.  I wanted to explore exercising more (which was not something I struggled with) and eating less/better.  But I like eating and at least some elements of idleness.  I wanted to see what sacrifices I had to make to get what kind of return, and then decide.  It was possible that I'd decide that I liked food X too much to give it up, and as a result I'd accept being overweight as the price of the life I'd chosen.  But any gain would be good.  If confronted by paleo at that stage, I'd have been scared off.  Completely scared off.  I'd have given up.  As it is, being able to give up/cut down on a few things created momentum, especially when successes became apparent.  Calorie counting has worked for me, and worked brilliantly.  But I recognise it's not for everyone.

 

I think the main thing I've learned from participating in these forums is that people are different, and the best path is probably personality/temperament dependent in ways that can't be predicted.  That success often lies along the path of least resistance, the path that requires the least fight against instincts and inclinations.  For some, that's paleo and (mainly) weights.  For me, it's calorie counting and (mainly) cardio.  That's not to induldge in sloppy post-modern thinking whereby everything is equal - it isn't - but it's more of a recognition that what works for some really won't work for others.  Who was it who said that the best diet/fitness plan was the one that you can stick to?

[Relic]

I went Paleo for 2 weeks last summer. I slept better, had more energy throughout the day, and my knees stopped clicking when I would squat down, and my hands stopped hurting. I already had a fair amount of dietary veggies and fat so the digestion transition was easy for me (no paleo flu). What I wasn't prepared for was the mental aspect of it. Preparing food more often, buying different foods, paying more for food (pasta&bread=super cheap), resisting all the old foods in the house (wife has normal American diet) and trying to fit my food in the fridge/cupboards. By the end of two weeks I let it overwhelm me and called it quits.

I do know that wheat and simple sugar effects me negatively now. I know logically that the stuff is not worth eating but I am still trying to figure out how to cut it out for good.

[Raikas]

But it's not for everyone, and it does sometimes worry me when new people join the community, post asking for help about getting healthier, and are immediately told "go paleo", sometimes as if (a) that's the only thing that will work; ( it's simple and straightforward, and © that it'll work for everyone.

 

Yeah, I'm all for people doing whatever works for them, but once people start acting like it (or any eating style) is the one true way I stop taking them seriously.

 

 

 

I'd argue that this is yet another example that shows that it works - when I want to put on weight, I add back in grains and dairy to my diet. When I go full Paleo, I lose body fat quickly and get even more lean, which is the same way Saint got his results after years of struggle.

 

The thing about this is that it while it's a great example of Paleo as a weight-loss diet, that makes it less of a lifestyle diet (which is how the article introduces it).

 

I accidentally ate about 66% Paleo for half a year at one point ("accidentally" since it was because I joined a subscription service at a local natural foods store and suddenly was eating nothing but kale and venison at home rather than because I had Paleo as a goal), and I had a horrible time keeping weight on - it was genuniely almost impossible for me.  Since I didn't need (or want) to lose weight, that was a serious problem - and I was still eating grain-based baked goods at lunch!   I can't even imagine eating "pure" paleo and trying to gain or maintain.

[Waldo]

Just another facet in the paleo vs. IIFYM neverending war of words that dominates all nutritional discussion.

NF is a lot less paleo than first impressions give.

[KingZora]

Just another facet in the paleo vs. IIFYM neverending war of words that dominates all nutritional discussion.

NF is a lot less paleo than first impressions give.

Agreed... I think paleo is a great jumping off point, I definitely started with it because it is strict and forces you to see what it can do for you. It got me into learning more about nutrition and health and modifying my diet... I firmly believe that there is no one diet to rule them all, and you need to learn and modify any of the basic diets to fit your needs. I think in the end every diet becomes IIFYM, even if you call it paleo/primal/etc., once you learn enough to know what your macros are, and then you can really call it whatever you want that makes you happy.

[rogaecia]

I am really glad to see this piece. I can see from a lot of my paleo friends that it works and for good reasons, but I've been increasingly freaked out by the fanaticism with which the pseudo-archaeological backstory is treated. Some ground-clearing and focus on stuff we can all agree on is long overdue!

I agree with freaked out about the fanaticism. But I also think that comes with anything new that also shows results. I agree that people should go with what works for them. In other posts I have noticed it being pointed out that Paleo is not for everyone, but it is worth a try.

[Guest Dirty Deads]

_{I watched a documentary on this "China Study" He kept referencing "animal protein @ %20 "turned on cancer and @%5 turned it off. Although he said "animal protein" he only really talked about milk protein, namely casein. So what I took from that was that ASIANS can't handle dairy products in excess of %5 of daily calories.  As was already pointed out, Asians can't process dairy well anyways so a broader study needs to be done.}

 

_{IDK, I'm in favor of a mostly veg diet, but not like that. We were suppose to take him at his word because he use to work in the cattle industry or something.}

[Loren Wade]

NF is a lot less paleo than first impressions give.

I know I'm a bit late to this discussion, but... this.

 

Just because Steve supports a paleo diet does not mean everyone here has to. The Rebellion, at its heart, is filled with people on all sorts of different diets and walks of life. 

[dmarie]

I'm new here, and wanted to respond to this.  I find NF to be a great resource with lots of quality information.  My only point of contention with the site is its small love affair with the "Paleo Diet".  

 

I have nothing against the actual diet (eating only vegetables and meat makes a lot of sense if you want to lose weight) but think that it's namesake premise is bunk.  

 

Taking in fewer refined carbs in favor of less-calorie dense veggies and meat protein is a totally valid weight loss/maintenance strategy, and it is easy to understand why it works.  Eating less processed food and sugar, in favored of whole, nutrient-rich foods also makes sense.  However, the argument that these foods, and only these foods, represent the optimal human diet due to natural selection of paleolithic man is junk science.  I'm not saying that there is no science in support of elements of the paleo diet, but there is no good reason to believe that this diet is superior for the health and life goals of modern humans.  

 

Let's talk natural selection for a moment.  The only criterion to being "fit" in the evolutionary sense is the ability to reproduce.  So the "fit" paleo humans (the ones who best tolerated their local diet and therefore passed on their genes), were healthy enough to reach reproductive maturity.  This says nothing about whether their diet is optimal for heart and organ health in later life.  

 

Let's talk food intolerances.  Just because dairy and grains were unavailable to the paleo man, and modern humans have had to adapt doesn't mean that dairy and grain are unhealthy in general.  Sure, my stomach would be angry if a drink a gallon of milk, but that doesn't mean that a well-tolerated glass is unhealthy.  This is in contrast to true metabolic disorders such as PKU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria) where serious and life threatening health consequences result from an inability to process animal proteins.  In addition, food intolerances are not unique to non-paleo food groups.  Plenty of people have intolerances or allergies to paleo foods: nuts, shellfish, citrus, eggs are among them.  So then, what are we to make of the fact that some people don't tolerate wheat (this usually doesn't include all grains) and dairy well?  Only that people who do not tolerate a certain food should stop eating it. 

 

Paleo _is_ a fad diet.  Meat and vegetables are no fad, but calling it Paleo and insisting that it is optimal for human health certainly is.

 

From what I've read in Steve's article and other comments here, I don't think he (or most of NF) fully buy into the Paleo premise either.  The reasoning I see here is rather pragmatic, rather than dogmatic:  "I believe the Paleo Diet works for a number of reasons, the most important being something that has nothing to do with anthropology or physiology ... it works ... and is easy to follow."  I think this begs the question as to why we need the "Paleo" premise at all (I suppose this may fall under Steve's lesser "number of reasons",  which is odd since the diet is _named_ after this single premise).  Do we really need a gimmick to follow a diet that works?  (And of course "works" must be defined with respect to specific goals, which is usually weight loss/maintenance when it comes to the Paleo diet).  This is kind of like arguing that modern humans need religion in order to be nice to each other.

 

Now that you've read my skeptic's view, know that I have no dog in this fight, and am quite willing/happy to modify my thinking in the face of supporting evidence.  I don't claim to be the most knowledgable person on nutrition research, and would be happy to learn from any fellow nerds if I have said something that is incorrect.

 

And on that note, happy "meat and vegetable" dieting! 

[MariahSnow]

I'm new here, and wanted to respond to this.  I find NF to be a great resource with lots of quality information.  My only point of contention with the site is its small love affair with the "Paleo Diet".  

 

I have nothing against the actual diet (eating only vegetables and meat makes a lot of sense if you want to lose weight) but think that it's namesake premise is bunk.  

 

Taking in fewer refined carbs in favor of less-calorie dense veggies and meat protein is a totally valid weight loss/maintenance strategy, and it is easy to understand why it works.  Eating less processed food and sugar, in favored of whole, nutrient-rich foods also makes sense.  However, the argument that these foods, and only these foods, represent the optimal human diet due to natural selection of paleolithic man is junk science.  I'm not saying that there is no science in support of elements of the paleo diet, but there is no good reason to believe that this diet is superior for the health and life goals of modern humans.  

 

Let's talk natural selection for a moment.  The only criterion to being "fit" in the evolutionary sense is the ability to reproduce.  So the "fit" paleo humans (the ones who best tolerated their local diet and therefore passed on their genes), were healthy enough to reach reproductive maturity.  This says nothing about whether their diet is optimal for heart and organ health in later life.  

 

Let's talk food intolerances.  Just because dairy and grains were unavailable to the paleo man, and modern humans have had to adapt doesn't mean that dairy and grain are unhealthy in general.  Sure, my stomach would be angry if a drink a gallon of milk, but that doesn't mean that a well-tolerated glass is unhealthy.  This is in contrast to true metabolic disorders such as PKU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylketonuria) where serious and life threatening health consequences result from an inability to process animal proteins.  In addition, food intolerances are not unique to non-paleo food groups.  Plenty of people have intolerances or allergies to paleo foods: nuts, shellfish, citrus, eggs are among them.  So then, what are we to make of the fact that some people don't tolerate wheat (this usually doesn't include all grains) and dairy well?  Only that people who do not tolerate a certain food should stop eating it. 

 

Paleo _is_ a fad diet.  Meat and vegetables are no fad, but calling it Paleo and insisting that it is optimal for human health certainly is.

 

From what I've read in Steve's article and other comments here, I don't think he (or most of NF) fully buy into the Paleo premise either.  The reasoning I see here is rather pragmatic, rather than dogmatic:  "I believe the Paleo Diet works for a number of reasons, the most important being something that has nothing to do with anthropology or physiology ... it works ... and is easy to follow."  I think this begs the question as to why we need the "Paleo" premise at all (I suppose this may fall under Steve's lesser "number of reasons",  which is odd since the diet is _named_ after this single premise).  Do we really need a gimmick to follow a diet that works?  (And of course "works" must be defined with respect to specific goals, which is usually weight loss/maintenance when it comes to the Paleo diet).  This is kind of like arguing that modern humans need religion in order to be nice to each other.

 

Now that you've read my skeptic's view, know that I have no dog in this fight, and am quite willing/happy to modify my thinking in the face of supporting evidence.  I don't claim to be the most knowledgable person on nutrition research, and would be happy to learn from any fellow nerds if I have said something that is incorrect.

 

And on that note, happy "meat and vegetable" dieting! 

 

I also have a massive problem with the name "paleo diet" and the idea that we eat only what cavemen ate. First, our ancestors were opportunists. If they stumbled onto a grove of orange trees, they'd eat and hang out until the food was gone. Second, MOST of the vegetables these days have been bred and cultivated to our liking. In fact, broccoli and brussel sprouts are from the same plant. We just cultivated them to be what we want. I'm all for low sugar, healthy carbs only, lean meats, and veggies. Just don't call it the "paleo diet" because that annoys me.

[chelsea_mae]

I agree that the "Paleo" diet gets people lean and makes them feel great....it just bothers me that it's called the "Paleo" diet because, as Warinner points out-that's not an accurate description. I believe her main point wasn't that the current "Paleo" diet isn't good for you....but that it can't be called a paleo diet because it's not what our ancestors ate! None of the things that they ate still exist in the form they ate them in. 

I just think it should be called something else not that it's not effective  

[Loren Wade]

I agree that the "Paleo" diet gets people lean and makes them feel great....it just bothers me that it's called the "Paleo" diet because, as Warinner points out-that's not an accurate description. I believe her main point wasn't that the current "Paleo" diet isn't good for you....but that it can't be called a paleo diet because it's not what our ancestors ate! None of the things that they ate still exist in the form they ate them in.

I just think it should be called something else not that it's not effective

That's correct. But! It's BASED on what our Paleolithic ancestors ate. So it is somewhat accurate. That said, I agree the name doesn't suit the diet but it's far too late for it to be changed.