Scientists confirm that the Paleo diet is nonsense. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;48461742]Spot on (besides eating less meat). I like Paleo as a template but will eat corn, rice, and occasionally cheese. There is definitely nothing wrong with a diet filled with fruits, vegetables, and tubers. I eat a lot of carbs, just not from sugar or refined grains. The most important thing is avoiding processed, nutrient-devoid food filled with sugar and omega-6 fats Eating refined carbs makes my acid reflux and IBS flare up real quick.[/QUOTE] I'm not 100% positive on the less meat thing, but I have looked at research suggesting that we actually do eat too much meat and this excess consumption has been a factor towards heart disease (both red and white meat). It's been suggested that meat consumption should only be a few times a week, and that a lot more of our proteins should be consumed from veggies instead. But like I said I'm still unsure and do hope there are more studies in the future. And this is coming from someone who still eats a lot of meat. Edit: I did a bit of research on this and it has been suggested that: - too much meat (red and white) is a contributor to heart disease - no meat means you don't consume a specific protein (or something) in iron which is only found in meats. I'm open to the idea that the best thing to do is only eat meat a couple times a week, and try and get the rest of your protein intake from vegetables and other foods like chickpeas etc.

nonsense or not I did it and I lost weight, but I don't think it's because "that's how our bodies worked!!!" I think it's because it got me to stop eating shitty foods. I ate a lot of meats, eggs/some dairy (cheese, really, and not the shitty or processed kind), fruits, vegetables and a bit of nuts/etc now and again, and it worked fine for me. I don't know how to feel about the whole excess meat thing, though. For my dad, who did the same thing I described, his heart health actually improved and he's doing better than ever. Could be a coincidence or the same reason it worked for me - less shitty fast foods etc and overall a better choice. For someone who wants to diet, it works decently well as a starting point

[QUOTE=Lord Xenoyia;48461012]Does that mean other low-carb diets like Atkin's are bullshit too? My mother is on Atkins and it's not really doing much for her.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Saza;48462127]nonsense or not I did it and I lost weight, but I don't think it's because "that's how our bodies worked!!!" I think it's because it got me to stop eating shitty foods. I ate a lot of meats, eggs/some dairy (cheese, really, and not the shitty or processed kind), fruits, vegetables and a bit of nuts/etc now and again, and it worked fine for me. I don't know how to feel about the whole excess meat thing, though. For my dad, who did the same thing I described, his heart health actually improved and he's doing better than ever. Could be a coincidence or the same reason it worked for me - less shitty fast foods etc and overall a better choice. For someone who wants to diet, it works decently well as a starting point[/QUOTE] The reason that many people swear by these diets is that they unknowingly control their calories while trying to control their carbs.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;48461549]This makes sense in theory, but there's a lot more to eating and dieting healthy than just counting calories. I could eat 1700 calories in oreos and soda and then go work out for two hours. That's technically a deficit for me, so I'd be losing weight, but is it a healthy diet? No fucking way. There's a difference between dieting and having a healthy diet. Paleo promotes having a healthy diet - it's not necessarily a weight-loss plan. People will continue eating paleo even after they've lost weight because they feel better. If you're eating oreos and drinking Coke, you're not getting loads of other nutrients you need to be healthy, even if you are losing weight. When people say "paleo diet," they're talking about diet as in the types of food you eat, not as in running a calorie deficit to lose weight. There are vegetarians that don't eat on a caloric deficit - they're on a vegetarian diet. But they're not diet[i]ing[/i]. Paleo's the same thing - it's not specifically meant for losing weight any more than vegetarian or vegan diets are.[/QUOTE] In HS I ate like 600 calories a day of whatever I wanted and then slept all day. lost like 20lbs

[QUOTE=i_speel_good;48462191]The reason that many people swear by these diets is that they unknowingly control their calories while trying to control their carbs.[/QUOTE] I agree, yo. That's why I said I think it's because I stopped eating shitty foods. Granted, I still ate a ton in meat and whatnot, but yeah, it's a good starting point.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48461354]How to diet: Eat less calories than you burn (<2000) Exercise a couple hours a day[/QUOTE] If you actually do moderate to strenuous exercise (as opposed to just stuff you do anyway like walking around) for two+ hours a day then 2000 calories would be pretty low for adult men. With that level of daily activity you'd probably be burning a good 2200-2300.

Late x 1

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48460597]I still wonder how the fuck people survived before we invented anything. There's not much wild food growing wild and some of it is lethal poison. But I live in the American Northeast, there's probably just not a lot of wild food here to begin with.[/QUOTE] the land was probably much more rife with your standard wildlife and flora back then; people also had much different diets/activity levels prior to mass agrarian lifestyles, so it would reflect how much food they found.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;48461501]humans are excellent endurance runners thanks to being bipedal. People practiced endurance hunting which was basically just chasing an animal over huge distances until it collapses of complete exhaustion and can easily be killed. humans are fucking terrifying.[/QUOTE] Once people started using weapons, traps, ect to get food, running long distances mostly stopped being a thing, people would walk a lot, and occasionally sprint away from predators. A lot of people develop problems from long-distance running in the long run too. [editline]15th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rebi;48461735]The energy expended by jogging a few miles is almost nothing compared to the energy you gain in the form of something like an entire gazelle. Those things are good eating, especially if you're not picky about which parts you eat.[/QUOTE] You would jog way more than a few miles after a gazelle/deer.

I ended up debating somebody on reddit over this months ago. He insisted that the paleo diet was [I]the[/I] way to go and I told him it was nonsense. As selfish as it sounds, I hope he feels like an idiot now.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;48461354]How to diet: Eat less calories than you burn (<2000) Exercise a couple hours a day[/QUOTE] You try to do that with a bag of sugar and you gonna die within a few months, if not less. It's not so fucking simple. [editline]15th August 2015[/editline] Different kinds of nutrients are metabolised differently, too, and many have adverse effects beyond the caloric value. [editline]15th August 2015[/editline] Ton of people in the west eat pretty garbage shit that's objectively bad for them. The Paleo diet might not be THE SINGLE WAY to eat healthily but it's a foolproof way of eating [I]relatively healthy[/I].

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48460597]I still wonder how the fuck people survived before we invented anything. There's not much wild food growing wild and some of it is lethal poison. But I live in the American Northeast, there's probably just not a lot of wild food here to begin with.[/QUOTE] there's a lot of things people no longer think of as food that are in fact quite healthy. pine needles are the first thing that come to mind. [editline]15th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Lord Xenoyia;48461012]Does that mean other low-carb diets like Atkin's are bullshit too? My mother is on Atkins and it's not really doing much for her.[/QUOTE] we as humans figured out that robert atkins was full of shit about 20 years ago [editline]15th August 2015[/editline] carbs are the only thing tastier than proteins anyway

How about the ketogenic diet? That's low carb, high fat and moderate protein. It's not what our ancestors ate but I've seen some pretty crazy results in regard to everything else other than the obvious weight loss. People use and used this diet to fight seizures, but it also seems to help people with anxiety issues, migraines and IBS. Plus since your primary fuel is fat rather than carbs your body can just grab its fuel from your reserves. It also seems to quell the intense cravings many food addicts experience. It's not a one-fits-all, but this diet seems to be pretty darn promising. Those of you familiar with atkins it's pretty much like the induction phase. I don't think it's good to live on this diet as a lifestyle choice as you will need supplements like potassium to exercise and generally have to really listen to your body if you want to get fit (plus you'll be super sensitive to alcohol and carbs). I do think low carb to some extent, like <100 g carbs a day rather than nearly 300 g is a lot healthier for us and I also think more fat in our diets will be better. Fatty diet = fat body is a misconception. You don't clog your arteries, you won't develop diabetes (the damn thing is called [I]sugar[/I]disease in my country ffs) and it seems to lower cholesterol no matter how many eggs you eat a day. Paleo and keto might not be right, but I think it's a step in the right direction. I've definitely seen way too many stories to disregard low carb diets as a possible solution to weight issues.

Nutritionists and diets are like astrology, it's all a whole lot of BS. When stars align one way sugar is bad, when they align the other way animal fats are bad, but if there is also a full moon, then sugar and fat is good. Just use common sense.

Meanwhile low carb diets do things like slow the progression of cancer, push diabetes into remission, slow/reverse the onset of Alzheimer's, maintain stable blood sugar, and produces a healthy maintainable form of weight loss. Roots and tubers almost universally would require more calories searching for, and digging up, than they would provide in return. What tuber would have been around to provide the appropriate caloric return necessary? This entire study is laughable. [editline]15th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=AntonioR;48463290]Nutritionists and diets are like astrology, it's all a whole lot of BS. When stars align one way sugar is bad, when they align the other way animal fats are bad, but if there is also a full moon, then sugar and fat is good. Just use common sense.[/QUOTE] Atkins pushed for his diet since 1972. It has changed very little in the past [I]forty[/I] years.

I used to work at this place called The Fresh Market for the longest time. I can't tell you how many times I sat there, holding in the giggles, while I was listening to these idiot vegan-hipsters and paleo tards prattle on about their diet of roots and berries. fuck outta here with that.

Is there a difference between this and the keto diet?

[QUOTE=skynrdfan3;48461270]Paleo is just a good go-to way to eat if you want to stay healthy. It's pretty much just boils down to not eating processed food. The paleo diet isn't bullshit, this is just one study saying that carbs aren't all that bad (based on the OP snippets). And they aren't. Especially complex carbs.[/QUOTE] Yeah basically this. I've been doing a pseudo-paleo thing ever since my girlfriend introduced me to it. The stuff about 'this is ~natural~ and it's what your ancestors ate therefore it's good for you' is pretty much nonsense, but cutting out processed, sugary foods is definitely legitimate, and I've seen some studies that indicate that you tend to feel fuller with high-fat, low-carb diets for the same number of calories, so people tend to eat less of their own volition. Really it all comes down to just controlling calories, but I've found that it's easier, and leaves me feeling happier, when I have a meal of steak and fresh vegetables than, say, pizza.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;48465148]Is there a difference between this and the keto diet?[/QUOTE] Basically 'keto' = high fat low carb, so at very least the fruits and berries portion of 'paleo' would be a big no-no because of the sugar content. [editline]a[/editline] And it's the opposite way around for dairy, I believe.

[QUOTE=PsiSoldier;48465964]Basically 'keto' = high fat low carb, so at very least the fruits and berries portion of 'paleo' would be a big no-no because of the sugar content. [editline]a[/editline] And it's the opposite way around for dairy, I believe.[/QUOTE] Potatoes/yams are also Paleo, and not low carb. The article claims that the Paleo community do not consider these root vegetables part of the diet, which is very wrong. Only the original version proposed by Loren Cordain excluded these, and the reasoning is not rational. Our ancestors most definitely consumed starchy tubers, hinted at by our great production of amylase (starch enzyme) compared to other Primates

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;48467354]Potatoes/yams are also Paleo, and not low carb. The article claims that the Paleo community do not consider these root vegetables part of the diet, which is very wrong. Only the original version proposed by Loren Cordain excluded these, and the reasoning is not rational. Our ancestors most definitely consumed starchy tubers, hinted at by our great production of amylase (starch enzyme) compared to other Primates[/QUOTE] Paleo's basically the kind of shit you can find in the wilderness and eat with a minor amount of preparation. No dairy, no wheat, no processed sugars, etc. Vegetables and leafy greens and tubers and shit are all perfectly okay. Meat was the most prized food back then, but we absolutely ate loads of nuts and roots and berries and leaves as well.

[QUOTE=GunFox;48463455]Meanwhile low carb diets do things like slow the progression of cancer, push diabetes into remission, slow/reverse the onset of Alzheimer's, maintain stable blood sugar, and produces a healthy maintainable form of weight loss. Roots and tubers almost universally would require more calories searching for, and digging up, than they would provide in return. What tuber would have been around to provide the appropriate caloric return necessary? This entire study is laughable. [editline]15th August 2015[/editline] Atkins pushed for his diet since 1972. It has changed very little in the past [I]forty[/I] years.[/QUOTE] Would like to say my mother is Type 2 diabetic and that's why she went on Atkins, as there are studies regarding halting diabetes altogether with low-carb diets. However, as pretty much everything nowadays contains carbs, it's fairly restrictive and she's having trouble sticking to it. I'm hoping soon there will a better way to do it so diabetes can be dealt with without having to give up [I]most[/I] food she eats (pasta, rice, bread etc) It's extremely difficult now because even after months of Atkins and basically starving herself she still came back from an eye exam with 'formations' in the back of her eyes which could lead to blindness, due to diabetes. That's kind of made her say 'fuck it' to the whole diet.

Spreading calorie intake out over the course of a day also increases fat burn and weight loss rates. You can eat 2000 calories in a twenty minute stint at a chinese place, but you will inevitably become hungry again, and after an hour or two, your body stops processing the food at the same rate it did when you first ate. Spreading out those calories from two or three large meals into five or six smaller meals gives you the ability to burn fat more consistently. It also allows you to plan in snacks, rather than just grabbing food (and therefore essentially useless calories) when you inevitably feel hungry in the interim between two large meals. Combine this eating pattern with less processed foods, starches (potatoes, here's looking at you), high-sugar foods, and anything boiled in fat, and you'll have a much healthier diet and body type overall.

[QUOTE=Sableye;48460590]Considering we are omnivores to begin with, the idea that we didn't eat almost any grains or vegetables at all is laughable[/QUOTE] Paleo includes vegetables. [editline]21st August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=StrawberryClock;48465148]Is there a difference between this and the keto diet?[/QUOTE] Keto is high fat, mid/low protein, very low/ carbs, sugars are prohibitet. Point of keto is to kick your metabolism into ketogenic state.

Starchy vegetables is a far cry away from carb loaded things we eat all day, every day in modern society. If there's people bitching about starchy vegetables, fair enough, that's a really stupid point to get stuck on though.

While I think its kind of a bullshit diet, (and as a historian I love to nitpick the shit out of the specific foods that people choose to eat or not eat on the diet like, "I'm pretty sure x people in the paleolithic era would have had access to those legumes."), I do think the idea is mostly just to encourage people to source their ingredients more thoughtfully and to avoid processed food at all costs. It would shoot itself in the foot less if it didn't try to fashion itself after a certain period in history, but instead just called itself the "non-processed diet" or something.

[QUOTE=Kagrs;48463240]How about the ketogenic diet? That's low carb, high fat and moderate protein. It's not what our ancestors ate but I've seen some pretty crazy results in regard to everything else other than the obvious weight loss. People use and used this diet to fight seizures, but it also seems to help people with anxiety issues, migraines and IBS. Plus since your primary fuel is fat rather than carbs your body can just grab its fuel from your reserves. It also seems to quell the intense cravings many food addicts experience. It's not a one-fits-all, but this diet seems to be pretty darn promising. Those of you familiar with atkins it's pretty much like the induction phase. I don't think it's good to live on this diet as a lifestyle choice as you will need supplements like potassium to exercise and generally have to really listen to your body if you want to get fit (plus you'll be super sensitive to alcohol and carbs). I do think low carb to some extent, like <100 g carbs a day rather than nearly 300 g is a lot healthier for us and I also think more fat in our diets will be better. Fatty diet = fat body is a misconception. You don't clog your arteries, you won't develop diabetes (the damn thing is called [I]sugar[/I]disease in my country ffs) and it seems to lower cholesterol no matter how many eggs you eat a day. Paleo and keto might not be right, but I think it's a step in the right direction. I've definitely seen way too many stories to disregard low carb diets as a possible solution to weight issues.[/QUOTE] Keto proponents like to believe that its a panacea for everything, but very little reliable evidence exists for anything other than seizure treatment. I'm dubious as to how much benefit is derived from eliminating carbohydrates in the diet, as opposed to eliminating large amounts of grain based foods (grains and seeds typically contain large amounts of antinutrients, impairing the absorption of vital vitamins and minerals), decreasing PUFA (polyunsaturated fats - which are not "healthy" in humans contrary to the image put out by "authorities") intake and increasing SFA (saturated fat) and cholesterol intake - which will occur quite readily when your main dietary staples are animal meats and fats.