The real paleo diet

[GLC1968]

I see no reason for a diet to totally exclude legumes and grains.

Then you shouldn't exclude legumes or grains.

I see no reason for a diet to totally exclude meat, so I eat it. I certainly don't judge those who do have reasons for excluding it though and I ask others to pay me the same respect.

[Catrin]

Then you shouldn't exclude legumes or grains.

I see no reason for a diet to totally exclude meat, so I eat it. I certainly don't judge those who do have reasons for excluding it though and I ask others to pay me the same respect.

This! As for me, excluding all legumes and grains wiped out all of my many digestive system problems - and I am far from deprived I certainly don't expect others to make my choices.

[Crankin]

I did not read the whole article, but my take on this is that I don't exclude any foods (except processed and junk food), but my 3 or so months on a Paleo diet has changed my eating. I restrict my grains quite a bit and I eat a ton more vegetables than I used to. Dairy has always been limited for me. I also notice that when I am faced with a recipe that has added sugar, I leave it out. I didn't really see any change in my health, because I already knew what sets my stomach off. In the end, I think a lot of people jump on the Paleo bandwagon because it helps them control their weight. This is the nature of people. Everyone has to find what works for them. I knew I couldn't live without an occasional serving of brown rice or good whole wheat bread, or red wine. But, I have a lot more knowledge now and a lot more good recipes!

[ny biker]

I certainly don't judge those who do have reasons for excluding it though and I ask others to pay me the same respect.

I must have missed something.

[GLC1968]

I must have missed something.

Nothing to miss. I'm just making a general comment.

Paleo diet followers get judged a lot for choosing to exclude dairy, grains or legumes because it goes against conventional thinking. I'm sure there was a time (maybe even still today) where vegetarians or vegans also got judged for bucking the trend by not eating meat. I'm just using the comparison to make a point.

Not meant to offend!

[Owlie]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that there's a hypothesis floating around that agriculture (of grains, at any rate) started as a way to ensure a steady supply of beer... Just throwing that out there.

GLC, I think some of the Paleo animosity is due to some of the more, uh, vocal Paleo people. They come off as either holier-than-thou religious fanatics, or dietary hipsters. (I think the same thing about pushy vegetarians/vegans. If someone tells me that I shouldn't eat meat, I have to resist the temptation to go buy a cheeseburger.)
I'm not entirely sure I buy the "wheat/legumes=poison" argument, either. Yes, there are people sensitive to them, but if you're not one of those people, I fail to see what the problem with eating them is. (And don't get me started on the guy claiming that gliadin acts as an opiate.)

(I may or may not be procrastinating right now...)

[shootingstar]

I'm such a lazy bum : I haven't been paying attention to the Atkins, Mediterranean, Paleo, raw food, vegan, etc. diets at all for the last few decades.

It doesn't mean I haven't changed:
* really cut down my meat to 3-4 times per month (almost vegetarian)
*cut out white rice, white bread and a lot of bread in general (abit of gluten-free, no it's more less high glycemic)
*increased eating desserts.....not good at all!
*drifting to lighter pastas that are low in egg yolk/none at all.
*egg whites instead of egg yolk. But sure I'll have whole eggs about once a month. I never hated eggs. I just drifted away from whole eggs for home.
*a bit bigger breakfasts daily
*consuming 2 litres of skim milk over 5 days now
*1-2 fruits daily: this has not changed over last few decades

I have not changed eating up to approx. 1.5 cups of veggies each dinner....for the past um...30 yrs. And get this: usually cooked. I seldom eat salads -- only 15% of my diet. No, it's not bad. Lots of raw veggies is not in traditional Chinese or Japanese diets. One must know how not to overcook veggies. And who wants to eat Chinese mustard greens raw? Or bitter melon eaten raw? No way. There But they are quite healthy.

Always seem to include onions, garlic and ginger root in my dinner somehow --85% of the time or more. I guess you can call that my holy trinity spices for Asian cooking.

I could do better:
more veggie consommé soups, or pureed veggie soups

No, more beans and nuts doesn't sit well with me. My stomach seems take effort to digest. Nuts for tiny snacks on a long bike ride...so have it maybe less than 8-10 times annually.

And I still haven't...had any sports food nor drinks after all these years of cycling.

[lph]

Methinks the "debate" is also there because sciency types are obsessed with causality, while journalists trying to make a point just want a good story, and the rest of us just want to stay healthy. So if anyone says anything even resembling "this food is good for you because it's what we ate in the paleolithic" a paleo scientist will cringe at the "because" and proceed to debunk part 2. While the point is rather part 1 "this food is good for you", and the reason isn't particularly important.

If people feel better eating no grains, or no legumes, or no meat for that matter, more power to them.

eta: the wikipedia page on the paleo diet has a couple of points that are interesting, if not particularly appetizing...
"humans are established to conditionally require certain long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LC-PUFAs), such as AA and DHA, from the diet.[109] Human LC-PUFA requirements are much greater than chimpanzees' because of humans' larger brain mass, and humans' abilities to synthesize them from other nutrients are poor, suggesting readily available external sources.[110] Pregnant and lactating females require 100 mg of DHA per day.[111] But LC-PUFAs are almost nonexistent in plants and in most tissues of warm-climate animals.

The main sources of DHA in the modern human diet are fish and the fatty organs of animals, such as brains, eyes and viscera; microalgae is a plant-based source. Despite the general shortage of evidence for extensive fishing, thought to require relatively sophisticated tools which have become available only in the last 30–50 thousand years, it has been argued that exploitation of coastal fauna somehow provided hominids with abundant LC-PUFAs.[110] Alternatively, it has been proposed that early hominids frequently scavenged predators' kills and consumed parts which were left untouched by predators, most commonly the brain, which is very high in AA and DHA.[111] Just 100 g of scavenged African ruminant brain matter provide more DHA than is consumed by a typical modern U.S. adult in the course of a week."

[Catrin]

Methinks the "debate" is also there because sciency types are obsessed with causality, while journalists trying to make a point just want a good story, and the rest of us just want to stay healthy. So if anyone says anything even resembling "this food is good for you because it's what we ate in the paleolithic" a paleo scientist will cringe at the "because" and proceed to debunk part 2. While the point is rather part 1 "this food is good for you", and the reason isn't particularly important.

If people feel better eating no grains, or no legumes, or no meat for that matter, more power to them....

That is my approach, as I said above, I don't really care about the "because". I initially decided to try Paleo because I knew others who had been able to heal a problem gut with it - I had already lost most of my weight at that point. It worked so well and I just feel so darn good eating this way that I will never go back to a conventional diet.

Food is a loaded issue for people, it is about so much more than fuel - though that is what it IS, in the end. What we eat is also tied up with our culture, family, relationships, comfort... I've had interesting reactions from friends at my change of 'diet' (I don't consider it to BE a diet, just eating well sourced, unprocessed real food), and have even had a former friend react with anger when she saw me eating what she considered to be unhealthy. I am no longer afraid of fat - as long as it is good, well sourced and unrefined (I do keep track of my macros so I don't over-consume).

She became totally offended when she saw me eat a fatty cut of meat and, to make matters worse, I turned down what she considered a "gourmet" dessert at the restaurant. I forget what it was but it was loaded with fake ingredients and sugar - both of which I avoid. If I am going to have a dessert, it is going to be made of high quality real ingredients. Part of me wonders if my different food choices led to her feeling like I was judging her choices - that is the only explanation that makes sense. I made no big deal of it, I simply ordered and focused on our conversation. I wasn't "preaching Paleo" as some do. While this was the most extreme example of this I've seen, I've seen milder versions of this a couple of other times.

[Owlie]

Methinks the "debate" is also there because sciency types are obsessed with causality, while journalists trying to make a point just want a good story, and the rest of us just want to stay healthy. So if anyone says anything even resembling "this food is good for you because it's what we ate in the paleolithic" a paleo scientist will cringe at the "because" and proceed to debunk part 2. While the point is rather part 1 "this food is good for you", and the reason isn't particularly important.

As a scientist (or a wanna-be scientist, depending on your point of view), I disagree.