The real paleo diet

[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.

[OakLeaf]

Yeah, that's how I feel about eating raw, too.

Raw foodies can be so preachy that it's hard to even find a cookbook that has more recipes than preaching. (Which is seriously part of the reason I don't do anything more than salads and smoothies at home ... while I do most of my cooked recipes from the internet, that's because I already have a foundation of techniques and ingredient properties. When I'm learning something entirely new I really prefer a paper cookbook.)

But I feel SO much better after a raw meal that I don't care about the theory.

But oh, that's "anecdotal," unscientific, and what my body is telling me couldn't possibly be true. I'd better listen to advertising from Monsanto, IBP and ADM about what food is good for me.



The other question is, "coming from what?" Now, I don't follow the "what do you eat" threads at all, so I may be completely wrong, but it seems to me that athletes of necessity, especially as we get past our impressionable youth, learn to turn down the volume of the advertising and listen more closely to our bodies - doing so is the only way we keep going over the long term. And yet, here are two of us in this thread who've made huge changes to our meat consumption to wind up in a similar place ... Shootingstar "really cut down my meat to 3-4 times per month (almost vegetarian)" ... while I massively INcreased my meat consumption to 3-4 times per month (more during a marathon buildup, and I consider it the farthest thing in the world from vegetarian).

[Crankin]

I get the same reaction to what I eat from my "regular" friends, no matter that it's no specific diet. Everyone is always watching my plate. At work, it's a lot of "You make your lunches? Oh, no wonder you're so healthy," and blah, blah, blah.
And they wonder why I don't give any reaction when my really good friend and her husband, who are both grossly overweight tell me they are going on the "fat flush" diet. Her husband lost about 30 pounds on this 2 years ago, and was making great progress when he just stopped. My friend believes that eating only grapes all day makes her lose weight.
Oy.

[shootingstar]

Shootingstar "really cut down my meat to 3-4 times per month (almost vegetarian)" ... while I massively INcreased my meat consumption to 3-4 times per month (more during a marathon buildup, and I consider it the farthest thing in the world from vegetarian).

I used to eat some meat for 80% suppers or lunches daily. That's how I grew up. So I consider it alot less meat. I don't miss it alot. Eating alot of meat in 1 sitting, especially beef seems to require effort for my stomach to digest.

[Eden]

My friend believes that eating only grapes all day makes her lose weight.
Oy.

It probably does..... at about 60-65 calories a cup, you'd be hard pressed to eat enough of them to meet the calorie needs of a typical adult... (if you require 2,000 per day that would be 33 cups...) That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good or healthy way to lose weight. A friend of mine was telling me about some supplement (not as a believer)- take it and eat 700 calories a day and you'll lose weight!! Well duh.... eat only 700 calories a day and anyone would lose weight....

I think that what ever diet you choose to follow, if you find that there are skeptics, I'd say that LPH and Owlie have it pegged, it's because there will always be a very vocal zealot(s) who uses scare tactics and/or pseudoscience to try to convert *everyone* with the idea that theirs is the one and only way to eat healthily/morally etc.

[Veronica]

Everyone needs to drink the way I do - bottle of champagne every weekend, sometimes two - and only good champagne. And you can't have any more beer!

Veronica

I am joking of course.

[GLC1968]

. 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.

I get this a lot too. Particularly when eating with new people (ie. people I somewhat know but don't eat meals with that often). When I am asked to defend my choices (which is so not fair!) and my reasoning is because I feel better, that's apparently not good enough for some people. I think that religious beliefs, weight loss or allergies are all 'good reasons' but 'because I feel better eating this way' is not. I think that for some people, my not having a 'real' reason makes my choices look like a judgement on theirs (which it isn't!). Luckily, it's definitely not everyone...not by a long shot. In general, people are mildly curious or like most people who know me well, totally uninterested in my choices. After two years, they've gotten used to me. Some even find it amusing to watch me order at restaurants!

Overall, I do wonder why people are so obsessed with food. I used to be the same way, always checking out what others were eating even if I refrained from commenting on it out of politeness. But why do we do that? I'm less inclined now. And I think about food WAY less now too. But I'm not sure if that's age or the paleo diet (or both). It certainly can be a hell of a touchy subject though.

V - I don't like champagne. Can I sub in just regular wine? If so, I'm in.

[Crankin]

Veronica, I knew there was a reason I liked you!
Eden, I guess I should have clarified; my friend eats grapes all day and then eats a regular dinner. And, methinks some secret night time eating, too.

[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.

[lph]

Well, that was sort of tongue-in-cheek, because I'm one of them sciency types myself, and I do definitely obsess about causality. Drives me nuts when people use "because" for the vaguest of logical inferences.

[Veronica]

Well, that was sort of tongue-in-cheek, because I'm one of them sciency types myself, and I do definitely obsess about causality. Drives me nuts when people use "because" for the vaguest of logical inferences.

"Because" starts in elementary school. It's the third most common answer students give. The most common is a shrug of the shoulders, followed by "I don't know."

For many students these three answers are all that is needed for effective communication at home.

Veronica

[Melalvai]

When I was watching the video (see original post), I kept thinking "you could say this about the macrobiotic diet fad too". That is, I don't know if they ever claimed this is what we "evolved" to eat but the point about our gut length & dental structure indicating that we are omnivores, applies to either extreme.

I should package my opinion and sell it as the latest diet fad. My opinion is that there is no one right diet for everyone--and I don't think you can predict your best diet based on your blood type anymore than your zodiac sign. You figure out your best diet based on trial & error. More meat and less carbs will work for some people, less meat will work for others. The one thing that I do think is true for everyone is that we all eat too much sugar & HFCS, and processed foods with weird chemicals. (And by "we all" I mean everyone except those few who have super will power.)

Nah, it'll never catch on. Too sensible!

[OakLeaf]

religious beliefs, weight loss or allergies are all 'good reasons' but 'because I feel better eating this way' is not.

Because we are conditioned from early childhood NOT to pay attention to what makes us feel better ... and in fact to accept many things that make us feel worse. If you think that something makes you feel better, but a doctor or religious authority didn't tell you that, you must be wrong!

I could go on about artificial light ... and a few other things that I've probably already said too much about on this board ...