89 replies to this topic

[health_nutty]

What evidence do we have that Paelo is the best diet?  I'm surprised it is so popular here.  Maybe i'm missing something?

 

1) Paleo folks where not long lived (even if you adjust for unnatural deaths).

2) Studies of the best diets does not place paleo diet on top. 

Here is one thtat looks at the overview of research available:

http://www.annualrev...h-032013-182351

[Dolph]

There is exactly NO evidence.

And what is called "paleo" today (it is NOT "paleo" and hasn't much to do with what palolithic people at to begin with...) is almost certainly not the best (and healthiest) way to eat.

[timar]

I think one reason why Paleo is so immensly popular particularly in the US (other than sociological and psychological reasons of course) is that for many poeple eating a Paleo diet actually is a significant improvent - compared to the SAD they have eaten before. If you substitute the buns from your burger for some additional lettuce and tomato slices and the coke for a glass of water that is indeed an improvement. Having experienced some notable health benefits from simply eating more fruits and vegetables they are easily convinced that the Paleo diet is the ultimate diet for optimum health.

 

A major psychological reason is the appeal to nature fallacy behind much of the Paleo reasoning. In an ever more complex and alienated society (by Max Weber's definition of the term) there is a growing desire to resort to a romanticized idea of a "natural" state of affairs. Paleo is only one recent variation on the classic theme of "back to nature" naturalisms in the modern age - beginning with the romantic movement of the 19th century and of course, the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the prototypical cultural pessimist. The theme itself is probably as old as human culture, given the ubiquitous myths of a Paradise or Golden Age before the advent of civilization and all of its evils.

 

I don't want to belittle or ridicule the intuition behind such ideas - I think it provides an important corrective to the Promethean aspect of human culture, to the enstrangement from and exploitation of nature and thus may be crucial for our survival (think of the ecology movement). However, I can't help but think that Paleo as popularized on the web and in some bestselling books seems the most trivial and mindless consumerist variation on that ancient theme...

 

For those fluent in German I highly recommend to read the equally sophisticated and entertaining articles by Alexander Ströhle and Andreas Hahn on the Paleo diet (available here; papers 9.1-9.5).

Edited by timar, 07 July 2014 - 09:47 PM.

[Dolph]

I don't want to belittle or ridicule the intuition behind such ideas - I think it provides an important corrective to the Promethean aspect of human culture, to the enstrangement from and exploitation of nature and thus may be crucial for our survival (think of the ecology movement). However, I can't help but think that Paleo like popularized on the blogosphere and in some bestselling books seems the most trivial and mindless consumerist variation on that ancient theme...

 

 

A very important point in my opinion. I don't think that naturalistic thinking about eating and diet are wrong as such. We are a part of nature and to find some "spiritual core" in essential elemts of human lives (as for example diet) might help certain people to cope with the burdon of life. It's important to stress that this doesn't mean this results necessarily in a healthy diet of some kind. But there could be other benefits next to that, for example in the area of psychological health and wellbeing.

I absolutely share your critizism about what appears to be the "paleo scene", which after all is just a collection of marketing schemes, quacks and chills in all colours of the rainbow. 

Edited by Dolph, 07 July 2014 - 09:53 PM.

[niner]

A major psychological reason is the appeal to nature fallacy behind much of the Paleo reasoning.

 

As paleo is currently constituted in the popular mind, I think you're right.  There is, however, a grain of sense underlying the paleo concept; i.e., that we shouldn't eat foods we are not evolved to eat.   I don't think that we are evolved to eat most of the junk food that didn't exist in my great grandmother's day, and if we stopped eating those, we'd be on a pretty good course that could be thought of as "paleo-lite" without even having to go back much more than a century.  Sadly, paleo has gotten conflated with hyperlipid and other ill-advised diets, so we seem to have lost the evolutionary diet concept amidst the herds of people who want to eat like Fred Flintstone.

Attached Files

•  Bronto.jpg   13.85KB   4 downloads

[timar]

Yes, I absolutely agree with both of you. It is easy to get cynical about such an elemental intuition as many people of course lack the education or intellectual capacity to reconcile it with rationality and scientific knowledge.

 

Maybe I didn't properly account for the diversity within the Paleo movement. Beneath all the marketing fuss and quackery, the naivity, ideologic extremes and oversimplifications there are of course many reasonable if sometimes misguided ideas about nutrition. The "original" concept of a paleolithic diet by Loren Cordain or the dietary philosophy by Stephan Guyenet for example are certainly among the most sensible approaches.

 

Niner's "paleo light" concept of a traditional diet from pre-industrial times is pretty much what is advocated by authors like Micheal Pollan and the Slow Food movement (and myself ). With some modifications owing to contemporary knowledge (e.g. less meat and saturated fats, more of those plant foods particularly high in phytonutrients), I think it comes very close to a "optimum diet" - that is a diet that is not only health-promoting on a physiological level but, as mentioned by Dolph, also satisfies social and psychological needs - by connecting to deeply rooted cultural traditions, to nature by some extend, and by avoiding extremes (e.g. veganism) which isolate one from the communion of eaters*.

 

*Perhaps not surprisingly, the social and psychological aspects of eating are often trivialized in nutritional science. There is a passage in Andrew Weil's book Eating Well for Optimum Health I particularly sympathized with. He tells how he once found himself as a guest in a Bavarian village feast and the only food available and eaten by everyone were hughe schnitzel with french fries (unfortunately a quite realistic scenario). Being a vegetarian for many years he hesitated for a while but than realized that given this special occassion it was not only acceptable but also perfectly healthy to have that schnitzel - because the stress caused by isolating himself from the community under those particular circumstances would have weighted heavier than the metabolic cost of eating a single schnitzel.

Edited by timar, 08 July 2014 - 12:57 AM.

[TheFountain]

Well, tell me what you guys think of my version of Paleo.

 

I do get probably about 80-100 grams of fat from natural food sources a day. I would estimate I consume about 160 grams of protein from natural sources. 

 

Most of my meat comes from fish (the low Mercury kind). Some of it from Organic Chicken and turkey. None of it from Beef, pork or other forms of red meat. I stay away from red meat based on my research into its links with disease factors. 

 

I consume Spinach, Broccoli, Avocados and berries almost every single day. I consume some nuts, sometimes I eat more than less, and sometimes less than more. 

 

My calorie intake is anywhere from 2000 to 2700 calories a day depending in my activity levels. 

[shifter]

Paleo is probably a lot better than most peoples diets. I agree with the above that if you replace certain highly processed junk foods with healthy fruit or veggies and soda for water, it's much better for you.

 

I read somewhere (dont know how true) that an 8 year old today has consumed more sugar than his grandparents have in their entire lives. Given that 8 year olds today have probably only seen a fraction of the activity levels back in their grandparents day as well, its not hard to wonder why diseases like diabetes is so rampant. I think cutting back on highly sugary and processed foods in exchange for healthier eating is always good.

 

Some people though really need to enjoy life though. There are some out there on these diets that refuse to even eat foods not native to their specific ancestors continent! Or not use modern technology to prepare foods.

 

Dieting to any extreme where you are constantly stressed whether or not you are doing/eating the right things is not good. I'd say the chronic cortisol release from all the worry is not a healthy addition to any diet! Cavemen might have used fire to heat food. Doesn't mean we should shun the conventional oven because cavemen didn't have ovens.

 

Back in 'Paleo' times there was no modern medicine or science and we didn't know the things we know today. I'm sure there are many aspects to the diet which 'seemed' okay or were done out of not having another choice (lack of supermarkets, transportation and other foods) that today is shown to not be healthy.

 

 

Perhaps if the human race survives another hundred thousand years, people will say, 'hey our ancestors were pretty big on sugar, salt and petroleum based additives, we should do what they did!'

 

[oneshot2shots]

Well, tell me what you guys think of my version of Paleo.

 

I do get probably about 80-100 grams of fat from natural food sources a day. I would estimate I consume about 160 grams of protein from natural sources. 

 

Most of my meat comes from fish (the low Mercury kind). Some of it from Organic Chicken and turkey. None of it from Beef, pork or other forms of red meat. I stay away from red meat based on my research into its links with disease factors. 

 

I consume Spinach, Broccoli, Avocados and berries almost every single day. I consume some nuts, sometimes I eat more than less, and sometimes less than more. 

 

My calorie intake is anywhere from 2000 to 2700 calories a day depending in my activity levels. 

 

I find it hard to understand that your Paleo with no red meat. Was everyone Paleo riddled with disease? Its a wonder we're here at all. There is no"superfood" that you will get from a pill that comes even close to red beef lightly cooked, unless you take a cocktail of supplements.  This is what man has eaten throughout the ages and the only "fads" are diets which are non paleo. It's been around longer than any other diet because it is the original diet, and the one we evolved to eat. Above all it just makes sense. Popular supplements recommended on this forum?? zinc, selenium, magnesium calcium. Beef.(I agree with your diet btw, the no meat thing just confuses the hell out of me). Counting calories has been more or less debunked.

 

Paleo is probably a lot better than most peoples diets. I agree with the above that if you replace certain highly processed junk foods with healthy fruit or veggies and soda for water, it's much better for you.

 

I read somewhere (dont know how true) that an 8 year old today has consumed more sugar than his grandparents have in their entire lives. Given that 8 year olds today have probably only seen a fraction of the activity levels back in their grandparents day as well, its not hard to wonder why diseases like diabetes is so rampant. I think cutting back on highly sugary and processed foods in exchange for healthier eating is always good.

 

Some people though really need to enjoy life though. There are some out there on these diets that refuse to even eat foods not native to their specific ancestors continent! Or not use modern technology to prepare foods.

 

Dieting to any extreme where you are constantly stressed whether or not you are doing/eating the right things is not good. I'd say the chronic cortisol release from all the worry is not a healthy addition to any diet! Cavemen might have used fire to heat food. Doesn't mean we should shun the conventional oven because cavemen didn't have ovens.

 

Back in 'Paleo' times there was no modern medicine or science and we didn't know the things we know today. I'm sure there are many aspects to the diet which 'seemed' okay or were done out of not having another choice (lack of supermarkets, transportation and other foods) that today is shown to not be healthy.

 

 

Perhaps if the human race survives another hundred thousand years, people will say, 'hey our ancestors were pretty big on sugar, salt and petroleum based additives, we should do what they did!'

 

 

I can't imagine them saying" " hey our ancestors were pretty big on sugar, salt and petroleum based additives, and died from horrendous diseases and were by and large depressed and miserable, we should do what they did!' Of course technology should be used. The thing is that these are new diseases in ridiculous rates, even compared to 50/60 years ago never mind 2 milion. Something in our diet/environment is causing it

 

 

"I'm sure there are many aspects to the diet which 'seemed' okay or were done out of not having another choice (lack of supermarkets, transportation and other foods) that today is shown to not be healthy." - True but the paleo evolved to his environment, which was more or less static for huge periods of time, then in the last few centuries there has been massive changes, and massive consequences. We're not suited to sugar and nitrates, and science is doing a piss poor job of mitigating the damages.

 

Yes, I absolutely agree with both of you. It is easy to get cynical about such an elemental intuition as many people of course lack the education or intellectual capacity to reconcile it with rationality and scientific knowledge.

 

Maybe I didn't properly account for the diversity within the Paleo movement. Beneath all the marketing fuss and quackery, the naivity, ideologic extremes and oversimplifications there are of course many reasonable if sometimes misguided ideas about nutrition. The "original" concept of a paleolithic diet by Loren Cordain or the dietary philosophy by Stephan Guyenet for example are certainly among the most sensible approaches.

 

Niner's "paleo light" concept of a traditional diet from pre-industrial times is pretty much what is advocated by authors like Micheal Pollan and the Slow Food movement (and myself ). With some modifications owing to contemporary knowledge (e.g. less meat and saturated fats, more of those plant foods particularly high in phytonutrients), I think it comes very close to a "optimum diet" - that is a diet that is not only health-promoting on a physiological level but, as mentioned by Dolph, also satisfies social and psychological needs - by connecting to deeply rooted cultural traditions, to nature by some extend, and by avoiding extremes (e.g. veganism) which isolate one from the communion of eaters*.

 

*Perhaps not surprisingly, the social and psychological aspects of eating are often trivialized in nutritional science. There is a passage in Andrew Weil's book Eating Well for Optimum Health I particularly sympathized with. He tells how he once found himself as a guest in a Bavarian village feast and the only food available and eaten by everyone were hughe schnitzel with french fries (unfortunately a quite realistic scenario). Being a vegetarian for many years he hesitated for a while but than realized that given this special occassion it was not only acceptable but also perfectly healthy to have that schnitzel - because the stress caused by isolating himself from the community under those particular circumstances would have weighted heavier than the metabolic cost of eating a single schnitzel.

 

Rationalize with scientific knowledge?? The main reason people go Paleo is because that science has led us down so badly. No one has a clue. There are conflicting studies on practically every food source. Not to mind the way corporate biased studies and big pharma are screwing us. But if you rely on anecdotal evidence you'll find tonnes of Paleo advocates who feel great. It wins hands down. Or talk to people who take care of their bodies for a living, like athletes. They all eat celery and avoid red meat I hear.  However I assume you'll take nothing other that a study sponsored by a company undertaken on rats. To each his own.

 

The psychological aspect of eating healthy is huge.

 

I think one reason why Paleo is so immensly popular particularly in the US (other than sociological and psychological reasons of course) is that for many poeple eating a Paleo diet actually is a significant improvent - compared to the SAD they have eaten before. If you substitute the buns from your burger for some additional lettuce and tomato slices and the coke for a glass of water that is indeed an improvement. Having experienced some notable health benefits from simply eating more fruits and vegetables they are easily convinced that the Paleo diet is the ultimate diet for optimum health.

 

A major psychological reason is the appeal to nature fallacy behind much of the Paleo reasoning. In an ever more complex and alienated society (by Max Weber's definition of the term) there is a growing desire to resort to a romanticized idea of a "natural" state of affairs. Paleo is only one recent variation on the classic theme of "back to nature" naturalisms in the modern age - beginning with the romantic movement of the 19th century and of course, the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the prototypical cultural pessimist. The theme itself is probably as old as human culture, given the ubiquitous myths of a Paradise or Golden Age before the advent of civilization and all of its evils.

 

I don't want to belittle or ridicule the intuition behind such ideas - I think it provides an important corrective to the Promethean aspect of human culture, to the enstrangement from and exploitation of nature and thus may be crucial for our survival (think of the ecology movement). However, I can't help but think that Paleo as popularized on the web and in some bestselling books seems the most trivial and mindless consumerist variation on that ancient theme...

 

For those fluent in German I highly recommend to read the equally sophisticated and entertaining articles by Alexander Ströhle and Andreas Hahn on the Paleo diet (available here; papers 9.1-9.5).

 

Its come to the stage where unless there is something of a return to naturalism, things are going to get real bad. Testoserone levels in men are at an all time low, and cancer rates are on the rise, and 3rd world poverty is still as bad as it ever was. Paleo has nothing to do with a "back to nature" mindset, its a common sense solution to a world wide epidemic which people are rapidly realising. To call Paleo, something which improves lives and provides optimal health, a mere mindless consumerist variation. Well ,that's quite brave of you. If I had piles off cash I can't really think of anything better to spend it on.

Edited by oneshot2shots, 09 July 2014 - 02:44 AM.

[Brett Black]

As paleo is currently constituted in the popular mind, I think you're right.  There is, however, a grain of sense underlying the paleo concept; i.e., that we shouldn't eat foods we are not evolved to eat.   I don't think that we are evolved to eat most of the junk food that didn't exist in my great grandmother's day, and if we stopped eating those, we'd be on a pretty good course that could be thought of as "paleo-lite" without even having to go back much more than a century.

Should we (without any access to modern medical or other protective measures) regularly expose ourselves to life-threatening infectious diseases, rotten mouldy foods, festering skin-wounds, deadly extremes of environmental temperatures, murderous tribal people, large carnivorous predatory animals, poisonous insects etc etc etc?

Because, after all, we did evolve under these circumstances too, just as we evolved with certain foods. Simply because we may have evolved under certain circumstances or eating certain foods doesn't mean that they are desirable or preferable.

Edited by Brett Black, 09 July 2014 - 07:19 AM.

[Dolph]

I think you somewhat overinterpreted Timar's point. If you take for example a look on the consumption of pure sucrose in western societies and the US in particular, you see that it surged from almost 0 ~100 years ago to up to ~50% of all carbs today. This is an experiment with onknown consequences that can't be explained by an evolutionary adaption so far. 

On the other hand I don't need any paleo-fallacy to conclude I'm not supposed to eat complete junk. So I think I share your point.

Edited by Dolph, 09 July 2014 - 07:24 AM.

[Brett Black]

Dieting to any extreme where you are constantly stressed whether or not you are doing/eating the right things is not good. I'd say the chronic cortisol release from all the worry is not a healthy addition to any diet!

I can't find the references right now, but I'm under the impression that calorie restriction, the single most successful lifespan-extending diet currently known to science(well, in rodents at least), results in increased cortisol levels.

[shifter]

I've read some reports that calorie restriction has no effect and some reports say it increases it.


I think it depends on the person and how much they reduce their calories. I tried 500 calories a day for 2 weeks and it was no fun! My blood sugar went borderline hypo at times. Really not healthy. 1500 might have been more manageable. But if somebody was content on eating 1500 calories a day vs someone who spends all day thinking and tempted by food but holding back to eat 1500 calories, I'd say the happy person is much healthier even if eating the exact same things. The hungry person is the one who would have higher cortisol levels I bet.

Problem with calorie restriction is that 'in the wild' the body can enter a survival mechanism as it knows there is little food around. Surrounded by the sight and smell of all the food you 'could' eat might cancel the body from the benefits of calorie restriction and just piss it off. Then release the stress hormone because you do have choice and you and your body don't like it.

I think calorie restriction for extension only works of you are both happy and disciplined. Not if you are constantly craving everything in sight.

Dieting to any extreme where you are constantly stressed whether or not you are doing/eating the right things is not good. I'd say the chronic cortisol release from all the worry is not a healthy addition to any diet!

I can't find the references right now, but I'm under the impression that calorie restriction, the single most successful lifespan-extending diet currently known to science(well, in rodents at least), results in increased cortisol levels.

Edited by shifter, 09 July 2014 - 09:15 AM.

[Dolph]

I think to say "Eat more or less much less than the average westerner!" is handsdown a good suggestion to improve longevity and especially healthspan. There is no final verdict on the longevity part, but a variety of importent health markers improve universally with CR.

There is no doubt that this (obviously...) can't be a linear effect, of course. I also tend to agree that quite a few CR-enthusiasts might be overdoing it somewhat. We won't have definite answers about that in our lifetimes. That's my personal belief.

[Mind]

Don't put down Paleo-dieting just because is has become "fad-ish" and hyped in popular culture. Not many people here will argue that the Paleo diet is the be-all end-all diet for life extension. Most people here follow a paleo, natural-ish diet beause it is a good base to start from when constructing an immortalist lifestyle. If the paleo diet fad encourages more people to give up the SAD, then overall it is a good thing, so I don't see a good reason to deride people about eating paleo (except from an animal rights standpoint, which has not yet been presented in this thread).

[health_nutty]

I was hoping this thread would be more about quoting studies and pointing to research.  Hands down Paleo is better than the SAD diet, but is it the best diet for health and longevity?  For example, beans, whole grains (particularly non-gluten), and olive oil have a lot of research supporting them.  There is also research showing a moderate amount of meat is healthier than none or a lot.

 

I'm starting to eat more non-gluten grains than I used to and am making may meat intake less (while still keeping my veggies intake high).  I'm also increasing my fruits. 

[TheFountain]

 

 

 

I find it hard to understand that your Paleo with no red meat.

 

Brah

 

I think you're undermining the nutritional value of chicken and fish! Not to mention all the greenery i'm eating on top of it! 

 

Yea there's a red meat disease factor connection thingy going on if you google that up.

 

It's been gabbled about here on the forum somewhere.

 

Reproduction usually happened at an extremely young age back in da paleo day. 

 

A girl would probably conceive as young as 12 years of age brah, so not much time for the disease factors to, like, factor into it before a new patch of paleo puppies was produced. Ya dig? 

[DukeNukem]

My paleo diet for the last 12+ years:

o High-quality mammal meats, natural grass-fed when possible.
o High-quality turkey and chicken meats and sausage.
o Lots of eggs (mostly meat & veggie filled omelets).
o (Unfortunately, I don't like seafood.)
o Lots of salad vegetables (which are naturally very low carb).
o Potatoes and sweet potatoes occasionally.
o Berries a few times a week, but no larger fruits.
o 15-20 grams very dark chocolate (with coconut oil) daily.
o Very little cheese and dairy.
o For nuts, only macadamia nuts, as a snack.
o I eat hummus (I mix in whey powder and olive oil to boost protein and fat) as a snack sometimes, with potato chips cooked in avocado oil.
o Start each day with coffee, just a little cream and stevia.
o I drink a lot of unsweetened ice tea during the day.
o Never fruit juices, sodas, sports drinks or energy drinks.
o Rarely alcoholic drinks.
o Almost complete avoidance of grains, except moderate rice.
o Rarely any vegetable oils (unavoidable if I eat out).

I never eat a meal/snack that doesn't contain at least 20-25% high-quality protein content. Practically never use protein shakes or protein bars (Quest is the only protein bar I'll eat).

Never count calories. Maintain OUTSTANDING health stats (which I check yearly--over 125 health markers), and 9-10% body fat.

[oneshot2shots]

Duke nukem, there's a man who'll live to a ripe age. Your diet is very close to the Bulletproof paleo diet I'm on, but hasn't been around for 12 years!  I aim for ketosis and good fats as much as possible as opposed to protein.(Either better than carbs).

 

I believe polyunsaturated fats are the bad ones v saturated fats so its beef for me (The inference being that polyunsaturated fats oxidise easily and lead to inflammation, the cause of most strokes, heart attacks etc).

 

Caloric restriction is not the way to go. A lump of grain fed beef will have less nutrients but the same calories than grass fed beef. The less nutrient dense the food the more our bodies tend to eat, thus we eat packet upon pack of pringles etc. 

 

Yes there is a red meat disease factor. As is there a gluten disease factor. A sugar disease factor. A grain disease factor. A xenoestrogen disease factor. A fat disease factor etc. Nothing is safe in the minefield of nutrition. I'm not attacking you,you have a great diet, its just your missing out.

 

People misunderstand the Paleo argument. No, we don't have to attack each other with sticks because that's what Paleo's did.  But put me and a paleo in the wild and he would survive as that's the environment he adapted to. The more you get exposed the better you get. We have been eating meat down the ages, and that's what we are adapted to. Thats why I feed fantastic after eating rate grass fed beef and terrible after guzzling gasoline or terrible after attacking my neighbours with a stick. If my paleo ancestor's had not been constantly in danger, then I would have no fight or flight adrenaline response. It was developed due to evolution. Cattle were more plentiful than anything else, thats why our bodies love it so much, as we adapted to consuming it. Not so with grains, not so with sugar.

 

I'm sorry OP. but if you hope to find the secret of the best diet for longvity in a bunch of studies, best of luck. There is a study to back practically every position on any food. Save yourself some time (in both senses of the word) and go Paleo.

 

Posted about this already in another thread, but I have a nan in excellent shape who is 94, ate a variety of foods but it was all organic and farm raised. This includes bread which she baked herself.  only difference with nowdays diets was natural products and less/no sugar.  I'm drinking a lot of olive oil, I'll get some studies against grains(Grain brain is an interesting read) and beans in the meantime if your certain about wandering down the rabbit-hole.  You'll never get a definitive answer and in the end you'll end up with basically a Paleo diet - no refined foods, no sugar, a few nuts and berries, all natural foods, plenty of vegtables, lots of grass fed meat including organ meats once a week and a small amount of fruits. That's all your going to arrive at from a dietary perspective, after that your looking at supplements, my guess would be good old vitamin D and C, with collagen and gluthiaone.  I think eskimos and some south African tribes both live to 120 with entirely different diets, the only unifying factor being lack of processed foods.

Edited by oneshot2shots, 09 July 2014 - 11:31 PM.

[Brett Black]

My paleo diet for the last 12+ years:

o High-quality mammal meats, natural grass-fed when possible.
o High-quality turkey and chicken meats and sausage.
o Lots of eggs (mostly meat & veggie filled omelets).
o (Unfortunately, I don't like seafood.)
o Lots of salad vegetables (which are naturally very low carb).
o Potatoes and sweet potatoes occasionally.
o Berries a few times a week, but no larger fruits.
o 15-20 grams very dark chocolate (with coconut oil) daily.
o Very little cheese and dairy.
o For nuts, only macadamia nuts, as a snack.
o I eat hummus (I mix in whey powder and olive oil to boost protein and fat) as a snack sometimes, with potato chips cooked in avocado oil.
o Start each day with coffee, just a little cream and stevia.
o I drink a lot of unsweetened ice tea during the day.
o Never fruit juices, sodas, sports drinks or energy drinks.
o Rarely alcoholic drinks.
o Almost complete avoidance of grains, except moderate rice.
o Rarely any vegetable oils (unavoidable if I eat out).

I never eat a meal/snack that doesn't contain at least 20-25% high-quality protein content. Practically never use protein shakes or protein bars (Quest is the only protein bar I'll eat).

Never count calories. Maintain OUTSTANDING health stats (which I check yearly--over 125 health markers), and 9-10% body fat.

What are your cholesterol levels Duke?

[Ames]

In my experience, CR is as good as the body can avoid marked catabolization while on it. Sustained or even intermittent significant muscle wasting (even if sub-clinical) isn't a marker of improving health. Additionally, hunger does not act as a pressure that will lead to an adaptive rest of your system's homeostasis. Most often, hunger as well as random calorie restriction (frequent small meals) leads to minimal, if any, improvement in anabolic response or other relevant improvements other than in BMI and the loss of obesity related pathology.

 

Improperly conducted, CR can damage the health of the system in a short time. Your hormonal profile and other markers won't improve if your body is in starvation mode, despite how the CR studies are often mistakenly interpreted. I know this from experience. Blood sugar needs to stay even while on CR. My primary reason for writing this is to warn CR aspirants off of what will likely be an unfruitful and potentially harmful (as in you will likely accelerate the aging process) practice.

 

Hunger shouldn't be present past the first day of adjustment, because that signals an energy deficit that causes the release of counter-productive hormones into the blood. Cortisol increases blood glucose from muscle catabilzation. You don't want to increase glucose at any time in-between meals, even endogenously (this has happened if you power through hunger to the point where youa re no longer hungry). CR doesn't work because of an energy deficit but because of the extended period in-between meals (in my decade of  experience with it). The mechanism isn't clear, but it does clearly extend past the simple concept of calorie restriction that causes one to ignore other factors that are likely crucial to an any truly significant response. Those factors include meal frequency, liquid intake rhythm, thirst, sleep rhythms, stomach and gut bacteria physiology in response to food/liquid intake rhthyms, and more. Remember, humans have to live and function on CR. We aren't mice. We need an optimal response out of a process that doesn't leave us incompacitated or demoralized. Simply restricting calories haphazardly, even when steering clear of pathology, doesn't give enough of a response for the mental/physical pain and trouble. It's not worthwhile, and that's before considering the potential risk.

 

In my expreience, the trick is to extend the period in-between meals while keeping blood sugar steady. The longer the period in-between meals (including putting anything in your mouth) while maintaining steady blood sugar, the more semi-permanent result you will feel (I say semi because bad habits and aging without continued practice can reverse all results). My felt results from a single successful 24 hour period will last a couple of weeks. Don't concentrate on daily calories or meal calories, but on the time in-between meals and felt energy homeostasis (not feeling hungy or thirsty for significant periods of time). There are tricks to this. Once you extend the time in-between meals enough, the time/calorie ratio will assure low calorie intake even if your meals are high calorie. Once you get good enough, you won't need high calorie meals because your insulin sensitivity will reset. Don't be afraid of high calorie meals. Watching calories is putting the cart before the horse. You are attempting to cause a dramatic change in energy homeostasis. Calories (and their macronutrient container) are the primary signal that you use to communicate with your system and instigate change, along with liquid intake (also crucial to master to be successful in the CR process ). Manipulating the signal causes changes, and that signal can be manipulated in a variety of ways other than just reducing calories. If you limit yourself to just strict calorie reduction, while ignoring all of the other ways in which calories can be used to manage and control your energy homeostasis, then you won't be successful. Sometimes a lot of calories are necessary after an extended period in-between meals, especially in the beginning. If you are extending the time in-between meals, the meals should be high in complex carbohydrates. I like white rice for this purpose. Fat has a role as well, but it's different than the glucose storage role you will need a large intermittent meal to play. If all relevant factors are not successfully addressed then failure will likely result. What leads to fasting failure? How do you mitigate that? How can you avoid what triggered the hormonal cascade that led to failure? Your body will become vastly more sensitive during the first two days of a fast. Learning how to mitigate and control your body's hormonal responses is the key to pushing through the difficult time, minimizing the difficult time, and quickly reforming the homeostatic setpoints of your mind and body.

 

Successful CR is a complex undertaking that can and will most often be unsuccessfully implemented. It took me 7 long years to master. I kept a detailed journal of my technique the entire time, and only got to the correct effective technique after all of those years of trial and error. I would start, go as long as I could until I had to abort, and then adjust the method. At one point early on (the first three years or so), I went 5 days without significant food (2-3 egg yolks per day - not currently recommended as a calorie source) or water (any), while working, and was fine (defined as no felt muscle catabolism or energy deficit). That isn't necessary to get results (although I did get results), and is actually counter productive. Now, I can get much better results in 1-2 days because I learned how to more effectively signal my brain to change. My point is that I went through a long process of getting to know the responses of my mind and body to cycles of feeding, drinking, sleeping, and calorie restriction. Knowing every little response, and how to handle it successfully, is crucial and can't be taught on a forum. Experience is needed. You should FEEL the hormonal benefit within the first week. If not, you're doing it wrong and are likely even doing damage. Energy balance is a delicate and dangerous thing to mess with. Even if I were to instruct someone in-person, it would take months of their own trial and error before they were used to their responses and how to handle them successfully. Nuanced feelings and responses are king when your body becomes ultra-sensitive after the first 18-24 hours or so. Experience instructs your decisions that will push you further into success or to abort the process and start again. Repeated failure is absolutely necessary.

 

My belabored, opaque rant above is supposed to serve two purposes. 1. It is suppsoed to convey a little bit of the complexity involved in successfully implementing CR to true success. 2. It is supposed to act as a deterrent to that process, if committment to it is to be limited to a casual calorie reduction that will be undoubtedly plagued with periods of hunger/weakness. It's at once impossible to convey my technique and impossible to not give (yes a double negative) seemingly detailed info that will, perhaps, assure readers that I know what I'm talking about. I recommend life extension methods other than CR. You aren't a mouse and so, in my opinion, it isn't practical. I only got as far as I did because, health wise, I felt as if I didn't have a choice (this was before I knew about longecity). I surmise that it would take the same level of desperate motivation to push someone through the same process. 

 

 

Edited by golgi1, 10 July 2014 - 07:39 AM.

[DukeNukem]

>>> What are your cholesterol levels Duke? 

 

HDL is always around 90-ish last 10+ years.

VLDL always very low.  My LDL is mostly the desirable large particle type.

Total cholesterol (which I consider an unimportant number) typically around 230.

Trigs always under 60.

CRP always rock bottom low.

A1c always around 4.8.

[timar]

I think some the last several posts in this topic nicely exemplify the insane perversion of our scientific knowledge about nutrition in popular paleo beliefs (e.g. the belief that saturated fats are healthy, and unsaturated fats are not - of course all the evidence from nutritional science points to the exact opposite). DukeNukem may feel great on his diet, but even if he is lucky enough to have a rare genetic resistance towards the adverse effects of saturated fat on cholesterol, eating this way he is probably skyrocketing his risk for for developing cancer and type II diabetes. The constant excess of protein - particularly animal protein - activates detrimental metabolic pathways (e.g. IGF-1, mTOR) linked to inflammation and cancer. The heme iron from copious amounts of mammal meats (assuming that the position on his list is indicative of the frequency of consumption), together with the lack of metal-chelating phytic acid from whole grains and legumes will probably overload his iron stores, adding to inflammation and oxidative stress. Unless he eats most of his meat and eggs cooked by wet heat, he will have a huge dietary burden of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) that further aggrevate inflammation and insulin resistance (I really would like to see his inflammatory markers such as IL-6 or hsCRP and his markers of insulin resistance). The idea that such a diet would promote longevity is contrary to such a massive body of scientific evidence that I won't even bother to come up with a list of references. Just read the literature yourself - the actual scientific literature, not the distorted attention-grabbing paleo interpretation of some cherry-picked studies by unqualified bloggers or journalists catering to reactionary anti-science attitudes and popular relativism.

 

Mind you, I'm not one of those evangelizing for veganism. I'm not even a vegetarian. I really like beef and butter. I would love them to be health foods one can eat unlimited amounts of. But in contrast to  unscrupulous paleo advocates I make a constant effort to keep my personal biases in check and judge the scientific literature as objectively as possible, because above all, I love and honour truth and reason. That's why I'm annoyed as hell by all those "bulletproof" wannabe nutritionists without scientific training and intellectual discipline, who make a big business out of promoting their self-indulgent distortion of reality and recklessly spreading BS hazardous to the health of their clueless audience.

 

Sorry if that was harsh but it had to be said.

Edited by timar, 10 July 2014 - 05:47 PM.

[Phoenicis]

Well said Timar, what is your academic/professional background if I may ask?

Edited by Phoenicis, 10 July 2014 - 06:48 PM.

[niner]

 

As paleo is currently constituted in the popular mind, I think you're right.  There is, however, a grain of sense underlying the paleo concept; i.e., that we shouldn't eat foods we are not evolved to eat.   I don't think that we are evolved to eat most of the junk food that didn't exist in my great grandmother's day, and if we stopped eating those, we'd be on a pretty good course that could be thought of as "paleo-lite" without even having to go back much more than a century.

Should we (without any access to modern medical or other protective measures) regularly expose ourselves to life-threatening infectious diseases, rotten mouldy foods, festering skin-wounds, deadly extremes of environmental temperatures, murderous tribal people, large carnivorous predatory animals, poisonous insects etc etc etc?

Because, after all, we did evolve under these circumstances too, just as we evolved with certain foods. Simply because we may have evolved under certain circumstances or eating certain foods doesn't mean that they are desirable or preferable.

 

I don't think that you've thought this through and/or are taking it to ridiculous extremes in order to try to make a point, but, for example, yes, we should be exposed to more germs and parasites.  Our immune system co-evolved with them, and the lack of such commensal organisms is very likely the reason that we see more allergy and autoimmune disorders now than in the past.  This is known as the "hygiene hypothesis".  Temperature extremes can be useful as hormetic stimuli.  Murderous tribal people?  We still have those.  (Watch the news much? )  I don't think they are good for us, though.  There are some things from our past that resulted in a lot of death and dismemberment that we survived in spite of.  Some of the things in our genome that harm us today may have helped us in the past when we were more likely to get sliced open by an animal or other human. 

[pamojja]

Because, after all, we did evolve under these circumstances too, just as we evolved with certain foods. Simply because we may have evolved under certain circumstances or eating certain foods doesn't mean that they are desirable or preferable.

 

Becoming a couch potato and watching life on TV in the evenings may seem preferable..

The only real Paleo people I came across in my travels were Pygmies in Eastern Zaire 20 years ago. What seemed to me like life in paradise: Men hunting every few days, females collecting roots and plants for only a few hours a day - and the plenty remaining time just for socializing and fun - with opportunity was readily abandoned for a bit of cloth, alcohol, ganja, and succinctly thereafter living life as the lowest of African society. Which for them must have seemed the most desirable..

 

In Paleo times getting food meant to move, in bad weather at times - but not to hunt down real food the least processed without potentially harmful ingredients in air-conditioned supermarkets.

 

Intuitively we would know what would be healthier, but we too prefer not to, for a bid of comfort and the latest gadgets..

 

 

 

 

 

[oneshot2shots]

 

My paleo diet for the last 12+ years:

o High-quality mammal meats, natural grass-fed when possible.
o High-quality turkey and chicken meats and sausage.
o Lots of eggs (mostly meat & veggie filled omelets).
o (Unfortunately, I don't like seafood.)
o Lots of salad vegetables (which are naturally very low carb).
o Potatoes and sweet potatoes occasionally.
o Berries a few times a week, but no larger fruits.
o 15-20 grams very dark chocolate (with coconut oil) daily.
o Very little cheese and dairy.
o For nuts, only macadamia nuts, as a snack.
o I eat hummus (I mix in whey powder and olive oil to boost protein and fat) as a snack sometimes, with potato chips cooked in avocado oil.
o Start each day with coffee, just a little cream and stevia.
o I drink a lot of unsweetened ice tea during the day.
o Never fruit juices, sodas, sports drinks or energy drinks.
o Rarely alcoholic drinks.
o Almost complete avoidance of grains, except moderate rice.
o Rarely any vegetable oils (unavoidable if I eat out).

I never eat a meal/snack that doesn't contain at least 20-25% high-quality protein content. Practically never use protein shakes or protein bars (Quest is the only protein bar I'll eat).

Never count calories. Maintain OUTSTANDING health stats (which I check yearly--over 125 health markers), and 9-10% body fat.

What are your cholesterol levels Duke?

 

 

Oxidizied LDL is the only relevant factor, cholesterol being neuroprotective. You body only absorbs cholesterol from food when the body actually needs it(It has some experience ), as cholesterol is impossible to break down. After that the only danger is if the cholesterol becomes oxidisied, which it will from bad diet.

 

>>> What are your cholesterol levels Duke? 

 

HDL is always around 90-ish last 10+ years.

VLDL always very low.  My LDL is mostly the desirable large particle type.

Total cholesterol (which I consider an unimportant number) typically around 230.

Trigs always under 60.

CRP always rock bottom low.

A1c always around 4.8.

 

Fantastic stats for 12 years of Paleo. Pretty insignificant compared to the whole palaeolithic age but still further evidence for Paleo consumption. 

 

I think some the last several posts in this topic nicely exemplify the insane perversion of our scientific knowledge about nutrition in popular paleo beliefs (e.g. the belief that saturated fats are healthy, and unsaturated fats are not - of course all the evidence from nutritional science points to the exact opposite). DukeNukem may feel great on his diet, but even if he is lucky enough to have a rare genetic resistance towards the adverse effects of saturated fat on cholesterol, eating this way he is probably skyrocketing his risk for for developing cancer and type II diabetes. The constant excess of protein - particularly animal protein - activates detrimental metabolic pathways (e.g. IGF-1, mTOR) linked to inflammation and cancer. The heme iron from copious amounts of mammal meats (assuming that the position on his list is indicative of the frequency of consumption), together with the lack of metal-chelating phytic acid from whole grains and legumes will probably overload his iron stores, adding to inflammation and oxidative stress. Unless he eats most of his meat and eggs cooked by wet heat, he will have a huge dietary burden of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) that further aggrevate inflammation and insulin resistance (I really would like to see his inflammatory markers such as IL-6 or hsCRP and his markers of insulin resistance). The idea that such a diet would promote longevity is contrary to such a massive body of scientific evidence that I won't even bother to come up with a list of references. Just read the literature yourself - the actual scientific literature, not the distorted attention-grabbing paleo interpretation of some cherry-picked studies by unqualified bloggers or journalists catering to reactionary anti-science attitudes and popular relativism.

 

Mind you, I'm not one of those evangelizing for veganism. I'm not even a vegetarian. I really like beef and butter. I would love them to be health foods one can eat unlimited amounts of. But in contrast to  unscrupulous paleo advocates I make a constant effort to keep my personal biases in check and judge the scientific literature as objectively as possible, because above all, I love and honour truth and reason. That's why I'm annoyed as hell by all those "bulletproof" wannabe nutritionists without scientific training and intellectual discipline, who make a big business out of promoting their self-indulgent distortion of reality and recklessly spreading BS hazardous to the health of their clueless audience.

 

Sorry if that was harsh but it had to be said.

Einstein(though a vegetarian) - "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".  

 

Indeed we could turn to the literature which tells us to eat carbs above all else. We could also turn to our doctor.There seems to be a "get real you crazy loon, look at the literature " vibe here. Look at the literature which fails to explain anything v the couple of millions of years Paleo's had, disease free? I'd give more credence to the latter body of work.

 

Just because everyone is doing it is no indication that its correct - Think of the housing bubble.

 

Your right about the conclusion but wrong about the cause. Inflammation results from an increased amount of carbs - be they sugars or starches. It raises blood sugar levels causing insulin to be released. Too regularly.  Paleo's used fat as the main source of energy, we use carbs, giving us constant energy spikes. Sugar and starch, in any form, are the only missing variable in the equation.  Cook meat and eggs thouroughly,.(Slaps forehead). Then all Paleo's must have gone around with type 2 diabetes? Raw eggs are a superfood. Cholesterol is the building block of our cells.

 

Or we can turn to the literature, such that one week we can eat 3 eggs a week, the next 2 a week, then none, then 20.  If it was verified each time, then each time literature was published it was true, for a certain period of time

Edited by oneshot2shots, 10 July 2014 - 08:06 PM.

[mikela]

In the book "The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living" they mention the Triglyceride to HDL-C ratio as being a good indicator of IR.  They also dispell some of the myths I see in this thread regarding saturated fats.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16054467

 

I used to be a vegan who transitioned to a ketogenic diet.  I wanted to compare this ratio and recently got my results in.  Vegan = 2.3.  Keto = 1.5.  I mention this here because I eat about 2 eggs (free range) every other day on the keto diet as well as several slices of bacon (uncured, nitrate free).  I generally consume moderate amounts of protein and plenty of vegetables and salads with plenty of olive oil.  My HDL doubled on the keto diet.  My weight went from approximately 175lbs to 160lbs on the vegan diet for about a year.  Then I transitioned to low carb and my weight assymptoted at 147lbs (close to my college weight) for the past year.  My results correlate well with DukeNukem's results.  Sorry if that upsets the apple cart.

 

Edited by mikela, 11 July 2014 - 02:04 AM.

[Duchykins]

I generally agree with Timar. Paleo is better relative to the average European-North American diet, but that's as far as that goes, it's only because the diets full of junk and processed foods are so bad.

The premise of Paleo is absurd and naive of biological evolution. Selective pressures were much harsher back then, and our genetics are different now. For example adult lactose tolerance is slowly but surely spreading via more than one mutation. Environmental conditions were much harsher, if people were prone to be sickly or have dietary sensitivities for any reason then they were almost guaranteed to die quickly. Nevermind the fact that as late as a few hundred years ago it was still common practice to expose infants that weren't in perfect health and leave them to die, and those born with dietary sensitivities lingered on in steadily declining health, often dying before adolescence. Those that survived adolescence in paleo times generally proved to be the hardiest and most adaptable. What they happened to eat is more about what environment they were in rather than what was best for the body - and selection helped shape the body to the environment. If the bulk of easily obtained food was vegetables rather than fruit or meat, people born with mutations that allowed them to thrive on such diets would be selected and slowly outbreed anyone else who didn't do as well with the same diet. If the bulk of easily obtained food was meat or fish as opposed to fruits and vegetables, then the same mechanism would apply to favor those born better able to adapt to those diets.


Lethal genes and late-acting lethal genes were likely passed on a different rates as well. Today any manner of people can successfully pass on their genes to offspring, this wasn't the case earlier on in our evolutionary history. This may or may not affect our dietary adaptability.

Physical activity is a strong factor here, everybody knows this even if we are not all comfortable about this. Even with exercising a couple of times a week, even daily, this is no match for people who live in a world without technology. People on these Paleo diets are still very sedentary relative to people who actually lived in paleo times.

Edited by Duchykins, 11 July 2014 - 02:43 AM.

[Duchykins]

Then there is the fact that there are plenty of people out there who have crap diets and live long without any major health concerns, dying of typical old age or accidents. This is like the guy who smokes a pack a day since his teens, never racks up medical bills, and dies at 90 in his sleep without any sign of the typical diseases associated with tobacco. The cold truth of the matter is that they simply have the genes that allow them to thrive on those diets.