User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » Paleolithic Diet Page 1 2 3 [4], Prev  
Ken
All American
608 Posts
user info
edit post

'Blueberry' smoothie

* 1/2 cup of Blueberries
* 1/2 avacado
* 1/2 cup of almond milk / water / milk
* a handful of spinach
* stevia to taste
* protein powder
* ice

In terms of smoothies this is alright. The blueberries have the same consistency as spinach and I can't really taste the spinach or avacado, but it is bland without stevia. I typically have to put in a full cup of liquid or my blender won't run, so I add a little more fruit. It settles fast, so you should drink it about when you make it.

If you're going for cost, I've made it without avocados before. Frozen blueberries and spinach are fairly cheap

8/20/2011 2:38:42 PM

0EPII1
All American
42541 Posts
user info
edit post

Sup cavemen and cavewomen?

Who is doing this these days? I am thinking of doing it starting in about 3 months from now once I have a job. When I did it for 4 months in 2011, it really improved my blood lipid profile, as much as statins did for 6 months! I have high cholesterol, so that's the reason I want to do it again, and to lose the belly fat (I lost 9 pounds within in 5-6 weeks when I did paleo).

Anyway, I found this rebuttal:

http://plantpositive.squarespace.com

Very detailed site. Skimmed a couple of articles only. Good thing is there is a youtube audio clip on each article page, so you can just listen if you are busy doing stuff.

Hope to start this discussion again!

4/12/2015 11:37:07 PM

neodata686
All American
11577 Posts
user info
edit post

I've done it strictly for months at a time and my cholesterol also dropped, I lost weight, felt way better, etc. I travel for work ~25-50% of the time currently and it's really hard to do when you're in a conference room and people order food for you so I stick to it about 80-90% of the time now.

As far as any rebuttal's out there go you can't really be against consuming less sugar and less processed high glycemic foods. There's really no argument against that.

The primary arguments against the paleo diets are:

1. Is is REALLY the diet that humans ate at x time.
2. Lots of saturated fats are bad for you across the board regardless of what else you eat. (Pretty much debunked - even the FDA has relaxed it's recommendations on eggs and saturated fats).
3. Lots of red meat is bad for you (most debated point).

I generally don't eat red meat in the first place and stick to chicken and fish. I basically eat fruits, veggies and some meat. The majority of calories I eat are from vegetables (I juice 3-4 times a week). I don't think there's a single doctor or nutritionist on the planet that would be against that type of diet. Call it what you will but paleo helped me find a diet that worked for me. I don't go crazy on the saturated fats, bacon, sausage, and red meat that some paleo people do but I do avoid almost all high glycemic carbs.

4/13/2015 12:41:24 PM

ncsuallday
Sink the Flagship
9818 Posts
user info
edit post

I've done paleo before for weight loss and lost weight pretty rapidly but I actually felt worse. I never felt full and I felt really tired during the day. Paleo can be way too restrictive if you have any kind of social life and follow it hardcore.

With that being said, I'm doing more a keto diet now to get into shape for Memorial Day weekend but will not adhere to it as a lifestyle. I love food and can't limit myself on carbs like that year round.

4/13/2015 2:34:02 PM

neodata686
All American
11577 Posts
user info
edit post

Yeah I don't get how people feel worse. Sure it takes 1-2 weeks to adjust to it but once you are adjusted you typically feel much better. Your blood sugar is level all day so you don't get after meal slumps. You don't get sugar head aches / rushes any more. Overall you feel like you can think clearer (better clarity).

Also you feel full much sooner and more often. Saturated fats and proteins signal your body a lot sooner that you're full and don't need to keep eating. After eating a chicken breast and a bunch of veggies you feel full much sooner than eating a bowl of pasta. I can eat a bucket of pasta or a whole pizza before I feel full whereas after a paleo meal (with 50% the calories) I get full much quicker. So your not full comment doesn't really jive with how your body works...unless you're in a huge calorie deficit.

As far as restricting your calories maybe you just aren't eating enough? Paleo isn't just about losing weight. You can eat plenty of healthy carbs and fats to get a calorie surplus. Sure if you have a caloric deficit each day then you may feel like you don't have much energy but that's true with any diet. It's really not hard to maintain your weight on paleo if you eat the right veggies.

Quote :
"Paleo can be way too restrictive if you have any kind of social life and follow it hardcore. "


Only if you're using it as a way to rapidly lose weight. If you turn it into a life style where you're maintaining your weight then it's no different than anything else. You just feel much better all the time.

[Edited on April 13, 2015 at 3:30 PM. Reason : s]

4/13/2015 3:25:56 PM

skywalkr
All American
6788 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ why would you bother with keto? It hasn't been shown to have a metabolic advantage at all and it is just more restrictive dieting when the same can be achieved without worrying that much about exactly what you eat.

4/13/2015 3:32:11 PM

ncsuallday
Sink the Flagship
9818 Posts
user info
edit post

Yeah maybe I wasn't clear - I used both paleo and keto (different times) for rapid weight loss, not as a lifestyle diet. Some things felt better like I had better sleep but just felt down all during the day. I wasn't calorie deficient because I was tracking macros. I don't drink coffee or soda and I don't eat deserts/sweets at all regardless of diet so I didn't notice the sugar effects as much.

I just feel like I'm not full unless I've had a starch and I don't feel as energetic if I go more than a day without a starch. I think for me, something like the Mediterranean diet would be more sustainable. But like I said, I only really do these things for a month or so at a time to drop a few extra pounds to get in shape for the beach.

4/13/2015 3:45:23 PM

acraw
All American
9257 Posts
user info
edit post

Did you gain all of the weight back or maintained?

4/13/2015 3:56:12 PM

neodata686
All American
11577 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I just feel like I'm not full unless I've had a starch and I don't feel as energetic if I go more than a day without a starch. "


I'm a pretty active person as far as cardio goes and I just eat a bunch of starchy veggies (sweet potatoes, all kinds of squashes, lots of bananas). Lots of beer as well (beer is low glycemic yay!). I'm certainly not running marathons or any all day activities daily but when I do do all day activities (skiing, backpacking, etc) I do load up on the carbs.

Quote :
"and I don't eat deserts/sweets at all regardless of diet so I didn't notice the sugar effects as much. "


Just because you don't eat straight sweets doesn't mean your blood sugar isn't doing the same thing as it would by eating sweets. Any high glycemic foods are going to spike your blood sugar the way regular sweets do. That's why eating a bunch of pasta is very similar to just eating a bunch of sugar. Your body starts producing insulin and storing fat regardless.

[Edited on April 13, 2015 at 4:35 PM. Reason : s]

4/13/2015 4:34:08 PM

ncsuallday
Sink the Flagship
9818 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Did you gain all of the weight back or maintained?"


I gained about 20% of the weight I lost back even when I went back into not giving a fuck mode for three months.

Not trying to knock the diet, I'm just saying it wasn't worth it to me as a long term solution for how it makes me feel but it's great for rapid weight loss and that's what I use it for.

4/13/2015 10:20:50 PM

skywalkr
All American
6788 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Just because you don't eat straight sweets doesn't mean your blood sugar isn't doing the same thing as it would by eating sweets. Any high glycemic foods are going to spike your blood sugar the way regular sweets do. That's why eating a bunch of pasta is very similar to just eating a bunch of sugar. Your body starts producing insulin and storing fat regardless. "


Dear god no.

4/13/2015 10:52:04 PM

0EPII1
All American
42541 Posts
user info
edit post

Pasta has a low GI, white or brown.

Bread has a high GI, white or brown. (and also all baked flour snacks)

Most packaged cereals have a high GI.

4/13/2015 11:23:45 PM

neodata686
All American
11577 Posts
user info
edit post

^^Dear god yes. Crazy isn't it!

The point I was trying to make is eating high glycemic foods in general all have a similar effect on your blood sugar (albeit different rates of increase / recovery). Read up on blood glucose levels related to sugar and starchy high glycemic foods. Plenty of studies have proven that they have very similar rates of increase / spike. Generally I'm talking about high-fructose corn syrup with a GI of ~73 (which is considered high) not fructose which has a much lower GI. This is generally a safe assumption to make as most sweet foods these days have HFCS in them instead of sugar.

Quote :
"Pasta has a low GI, white or brown."


Bread is almost always considered high on the GI scale. Pasta you have to take into consideration glycemic load as well. My first google search resulted in this:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/

Quote :
"
Medium glycemic load (11-19)

Pearled barley: 1 cup cooked
Brown rice: 3/4 cup cooked
Oatmeal: 1 cup cooked
Bulgur: 3/4 cup cooked
Rice cakes: 3 cakes
Whole grain breads: 1 slice
Whole-grain pasta: 1 1/4 cup cooked

High glycemic load (20+)

Baked potato
French fries
Refined breakfast cereal: 1 oz
Sugar-sweetened beverages: 12 oz
Candy bars: 1 2-oz bar or 3 mini bars
Couscous: 1 cup cooked
White basmati rice: 1 cup cooked
White-flour pasta: 1 1/4 cup cooked (15)
"


Quote :
"The glycemic load has been used to study whether or not high-glycemic load diets are associated with increased risks for type 2 diabetes risk and cardiac events. In a large meta-analysis of 24 prospective cohort studies, researchers concluded that people who consumed lower-glycemic load diets were at a lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those who ate a diet of higher-glycemic load foods. (13) A similar type of meta-analysis concluded that higher-glycemic load diets were also associated with an increased risk for coronary heart disease events."


While white pasta may have a low to medium GI because of it's higher glycemic load it has a greater impact on your blood sugar. GL is a function of GI so the more the GL of the food the more it will increase your blood sugar levels.

4/14/2015 12:41:56 AM

0EPII1
All American
42541 Posts
user info
edit post

Not arguing with you there... just pointed out that its inherent GI is low, even though it is depleted of fiber, ans that's because of the type of wheat it is made from

(I don't eat white pasta at all, and when we do make pasta in our family, it is always high quality whole wheat pasta)

4/14/2015 5:54:37 AM

skywalkr
All American
6788 Posts
user info
edit post

^^ please do not give people fat loss advice when you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Carbs don't make you start storing fat, a caloric surplus does. If you are in a caloric deficit you won't be adding fat even if you are slurping down pasta.

4/14/2015 8:36:04 AM

0EPII1
All American
42541 Posts
user info
edit post

^ a calorie is a calorie has been more or less debunked by widespread anecdotal evidence, if not by any controlled studies. i haven't searched, but there might even be studies on it in animals.

i know this is just one person, but the massive difference in the changes to his body under the 2 very different diets adds to the body of evidence further:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2459915/Could-low-fat-diet-make-EVEN-FATTER-As-experts-question-conventional-wisdom-diets-extraordinary-results-mans-experiment.html

Quote :
"MORE CALORIES, BUT SLIMMER WAIST

Dramatic new evidence for this has come from a unique experiment conducted by a personal trainer from East London. As Sam Feltham explains: 'My business is helping people to lose weight, and if all calories aren't equal, that could make a real difference.'

A few months ago, Sam upped his intake to a massive 5,000 calories every day. For three weeks he got these calories from a low-fat, high-carb diet; for another three, he ate more fat and cut right back on carbs.

He did exactly the same, moderate exercise regimen each time.

Now, according to the conventional wisdom, the weight gain would be the same on both regimens. After all, a calorie is just a calorie.

In fact, on the low-fat diet Sam stacked on 16?lb - more than a stone - and gained 3.7?in(9.5?cm) around his middle.

But when he ate more fat and cut his carbs, he added just 2½?lb and lost 1?in (2.5?cm) from his waistline.


'I've long been sceptical of the claim that all calories are created equal,' says Sam, who's just over 6?ft tall and normally weighs 14?st (89?kg).

'I'm sure I eat more calories than I burn, yet my weight and waist measurement normally remain the same.'

Sam, who survived childhood cancer (Hodgkin's lymphoma), wondered if his usual low-carb diet was the key, and set about his experiment to find out.

For the low-carb, high-fat part of the experiment, Sam got his 5,000 calories from foods such as eggs, mackerel (which is very fatty), steak, green veg and coconut oil, interspersed with three snacks of nuts - walnuts, pecans or almonds (which are naturally high in fat).

While 72 per cent of his total calorie intake came from fats, 22 per cent came from protein and just 5.9 per cent from carbs. Each meal was exactly the same every day.

With the high-carb diet, most of his calories (63?per cent) came from carbohydrates, 13?per cent from protein, and 22?per cent from fat.

He ate garlic bread, low-fat lasagne, crumpets, low-fat yoghurts and rice pudding, chocolate muffins and wholemeal bread.

Admittedly the types of fat on his high-fat diet weren't your usual fatty foods, such as cream and butter. And his high-carb diet wasn't exactly 'healthy'.

But the point was not comparing the health benefits of the two, says Sam. 'It was an experiment to test the idea that different foods affect your body's biochemistry differently. 'If it is true that cutting calories is the key to weight loss, then excess calories should put on the same amount of weight whether they come from a “healthy” diet full of fat or a poor diet full of carbs.'

He says he was 'really surprised' at how little weight he put on with the low-carb/high-fat diet, while on the high-carb/low-fat diet his body fat increased from 12.7 per cent of his body weight to 16.9 per cent."


And here is the worst thing:

Quote :
"CARBS MAY RAISE CHOLESTEROL

While Sam's experiment was by no means a scientific one, as well as the weight gain, what was even more striking was what an unhealthy effect the high carbohydrate regimen had on standard markers for heart health.

For when Sam had his blood tested after his three weeks on high carbs, 'the diet effectively gave him metabolic syndrome', says Dr Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist at the Royal Free Hospital in London (who speaks with the added authority of having recently co-authored a report on tackling obesity for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges).

Metabolic syndrome is a precursor to heart disease and diabetes.

'Particularly worrying was that his triglycerides (fats in his blood) had gone up four times, while his so-called 'good' (HDL) cholesterol had dropped,' says Dr Malhotra.

'That is not a good combination. Add to that the increase in his waist measurement, and he was looking a lot less healthy than he had been.

'What's more, a level of inflammation in his liver had doubled, which is also linked with diabetes and heart disease. 'If someone came into my clinic in that state, I'd make it clear they needed to make some serious changes to their diet and start eating a diet low in carbs. I was really surprised that the damaging changes had happened so quickly.'

Did the fact that, as a personal trainer, Sam was obviously very fit at the start of his trial make a difference?

'Absolutely,' says Dr Malhotra. 'It is alarming to think that if a high-carb diet can have that effect on him in three weeks, what is it doing to people who don't exercise and eat like that for years?'"


The good doctor chimes in:

Quote :
"IS STANDARD DIET ADVICE WRONG?

'This is a vivid illustration of the fact that the conventional idea of what causes weight gain is back to front,' says Dr Malhotra. 'We've been told for years that eating fat will make you fat because it contains twice the calories that are in carbohydrates. That is to misunderstand how fat storage works.

'Research has already shown that if you are eating a high-carb diet, and so have high levels of insulin, you are likely to have more fat in your blood than someone on a high- fat diet.

'This is what happened to Sam.'

WON'T FAT CLOG UP ARTERIES?

But doesn't eating extra fat clog up your arteries? No, insists Dr Malhotra. In fact, he says, it's too many carbs that are the problem.

He argues that - as seen with Sam - a high-carb diet tends to lower the good HDL cholesterol that helps keep arteries clear."


Click to read more.


5,000 calories from a high-fat low-carb diet for 3 weeks: (72/22/6 - F/P/C)



5,000 calories from a low-fat high-carb diet for 3 weeks: (22/13/63 - F/P/C)

4/14/2015 9:37:08 AM

skywalkr
All American
6788 Posts
user info
edit post

^ no

Show me a study where they matched protein and it showed a calorie is not a calorie. Self reporting studies do not count as they have been shown to be highly unreliable.

4/14/2015 9:56:16 AM

d357r0y3r
Jimmies: Unrustled
8198 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"5,000 calories from a high-fat low-carb diet for 3 weeks"


Not buying it. If this guy is an athlete or something, it's in the realm of possibility, but if your average joe eats 5,000 calories, regardless of the macro breakdown, they will gain fat.

4/14/2015 9:58:19 AM

0EPII1
All American
42541 Posts
user info
edit post

he is a personal trainer, and this is what he looks like normally:

4/14/2015 10:10:15 AM

0EPII1
All American
42541 Posts
user info
edit post

and here are some studies:

message_topic.aspx?topic=643120
message_topic.aspx?topic=575607

4/14/2015 10:13:43 AM

dtownral
Suspended
26632 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Carbs don't make you start storing fat, a caloric surplus does."

no, carbs definitely matter because of the role that insulin plays in fat storage (which is why he mentioned glycemic response)

4/14/2015 10:31:08 AM

skywalkr
All American
6788 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"and here are some studies:

message_topic.aspx?topic=643120
message_topic.aspx?topic=575607"


1. Self reported studies do not count
2. You are not a mouse

Quote :
"no, carbs definitely matter because of the role that insulin plays in fat storage (which is why he mentioned glycemic response)"


Prove it. Show me a study where protein is consistent across groups yet it shows that low carb diets provide a metabolic advantage. Self reported studies do not count as they have been shown to be unreliable.

Feel free to educate yourself on the topic of insulin, here is a great resource that is backed by science:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

[Edited on April 14, 2015 at 10:40 AM. Reason : .]

4/14/2015 10:32:32 AM

neodata686
All American
11577 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"^^ please do not give people fat loss advice when you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Carbs don't make you start storing fat, a caloric surplus does. If you are in a caloric deficit you won't be adding fat even if you are slurping down pasta."


Let's back up a little.

1. I'm not giving any advice or directly telling anyone what they should do.

2. I never said in all cases eating high carb foods will make your body start producing insulin and storing fat.

I know exactly what I'm talking about because I'm simply citing resources not giving you my opinion.

In the Harvard link I quoted foods high on the GL scale will increase your blood sugar regardless of whether you're in a caloric surplus or deficit.

At a high level the idea of caloric surplus / deficit makes sense but when you actually dig into the details and investigate the impact of high blood sugar on various heath indicators in your body you realize a calorie does not equal a calorie in terms of overall health.

As your blood sugar rises and your pancreas produces insulin your cells start to absorb blood sugar. Your pancreas starts to produce glucagon so your cells have a steady supply of blood sugar. This happens whether you're in a calorie surplus OR deficit.

The main point being made here is that higher GI/GL foods that increase your blood sugar and do the above have many negative consequences.

So lets break this down:

1. Low gi/gl foods don't increase your blood sugar levels regardless of if you're in a caloric deficit or surplus.

2. High gi/gl foods increase your blood sugar regardless of if you're in a caloric deficit or surplus. Sure you may burn off the sugar your pancreas is creating via glucagon but your body is still in a state of high blood sugar.

High blood sugar / blood sugar spikes = negative health effects. Lipid metabolism, glucose entry into the cells, insulin resistance, etc.

No matter who you talk to most doctors and nutritionists agree that maintaining your blood glucose control during the day is vital to a healthy body even if you're burning calories in a deficit. Your body's ability to control your blood sugar is a huge indicator of health. Think diabetes and insulin resistance.

To sum it up all I'm trying to relay is a calorie is not a calorie when you also take into consideration spikes in blood sugar and it's impact on the body.

Quote :
"Feel free to educate yourself on the topic of insulin, here is a great resource that is backed by science:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319"


Good sources but it's mainly focusing on protein's impact on the body and insulin production.

From the article:

Quote :
"In fact, if you truly wanted to keep insulin as low as possible, then you wouldn't eat a high protein diet...you would eat a low protein, low carbohydrate, high fat diet. However, I don't see anybody recommending that."


He has the right idea but he's not taking into considering glycemic load only glycemic index and it's impact on blood sugar. Plenty of high glycemic foods that cause your blood sugar to spike don't have a huge amount of carbohydrates and thus don't have a huge glycemic load. His argument pointing out that protein increases blood sugar is very one sided. It's primarily when there's an insulin deficiency. If you have adequate insulin protein does not spike your blood sugar.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9416027

Quote :
"Protein has a minimal effect on blood glucose levels with adequate insulin. However, with insulin deficiency, gluconeogenesis proceeds rapidly and contributes to an elevated blood glucose level. With adequate insulin, the blood glucose response in persons with diabetes would be expected to be similar to the blood glucose response in persons without diabetes. The reason why protein does not increase blood glucose levels is unclear. Several possibilities might explain the response: a slow conversion of protein to glucose, less protein being converted to glucose and released than previously thought, glucose from protein being incorporated into hepatic glycogen stores but not increasing the rate of hepatic glucose release, or because the process of gluconeogenesis from protein occurs over a period of hours and glucose can be disposed of if presented for utilization slowly and evenly over a long time period."


Not only that but increases in protein when there is adequate insulin actually improves overall glucose control.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/4/734.full

Just google protein / increase in blood sugar. Your article doesn't really take into consideration glucose control, recovery, and glycemic load. He's making a blanket statement that foods high in protein spike initial blood sugar the same ways carbohydrates do so that means they're the same. Which is bad science.

It's much more complicated then simply the initial blood sugar spikes. It's about glucose control and how your body handles blood sugar. Eating high GL foods does not help your body regulate sugar. Eating non-processed low GL foods does. You can still eat high GI foods (fruit, sugar, etc) and your body still knows how to regulate your blood sugar. There's a reason why processed sugary foods leads to insulin resistance and diabetes.

Eating 3000 calories of high GL processed foods (pasta, wheat, etc) is not the same as eating 3000 calories of low GL proteins, veggies, and fruit. Your body treats them entirely differently.

[Edited on April 14, 2015 at 11:15 AM. Reason : s]

4/14/2015 10:51:16 AM

skywalkr
All American
6788 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Eating 3000 calories of high GL processed foods (pasta, wheat, etc) is not the same as eating 3000 calories of low GL proteins, veggies, and fruit. Your body treats them entirely differently. "


Sure your body treats them differently but it does not cause your body to start "storing fat regardless" as you mentioned before. If you eat too much regardless of the composition of the macros you will store fat. It isn't like eating a low carb diet means you can eat in excess and not store fat because...insulin?

I realize that might be putting words in your mouth but I am mainly referring to this statement of yours:

Quote :
"That's why eating a bunch of pasta is very similar to just eating a bunch of sugar. Your body starts producing insulin and storing fat regardless. "

4/14/2015 11:31:27 AM

neodata686
All American
11577 Posts
user info
edit post

You're right. That commented was misleading. I guess it's just so much easier to be in a caloric surplus eating pasta compared to protein and vegetables. The point that hasn't been brought up yet is it's much easier to be in a caloric deficit without counting calories when you're watching your processed foods and sugars. Sure if you want to count calories then eat whatever you want. I for one hate counting calories.

I still think just because you're getting good macros in and in a caloric deficit doesn't mean you can eat whatever you want. High GL foods do have a negative impact on your body's ability to produce insulin / glucose. If you're in shape but eating poorly often then your body's insulin response is going to be far worse than if you eat healthy and avoid processed foods and sugars. It will be much easier to stay in shape and not put back on the weight.

4/14/2015 11:38:50 AM

skywalkr
All American
6788 Posts
user info
edit post

^ I can get on board with that much easier than the other statement I quoted. It is definitely easier to eat in a deficit if you are loading up on vegetables and proteins. I still don't think that we need to demonize carbs like people seem to these days because they aren't bad themselves, it is when you are eating too much in general. If anything I think people should focus on increasing protein consumption because that is by far the most important part of the whole considering it helps to preserve lean mass (which increases the amount of calories burned throughout the day), is the most satiating macro, and it has the highest thermogenic effect of food.

4/14/2015 11:47:31 AM

neodata686
All American
11577 Posts
user info
edit post

That comment was me baiting someone to start an argument. It seemed to have worked. I agree it's not entirely accurate in all scenarios.

I also agree I really don't like how people are demonizing carbs in general. There are healthy and unhealthy carbs. Personally my brain responds to: "eat this but not that" better than "eat most things but in moderation". It's much easier for me to just eliminate certain foods then limit everything.

There's also a lot of research out there on the negative and positive impacts on high protein consumption. Not something I'm as familiar with. I know as an energy source in general it's better to rely on fats than sugar. Regardless you still need adequate protein.

I was just on vacation for 10 days eating whatever we wanted (was in Paris and London) so I had a huge amount of croissants and starchy pub food. I felt like shit when I got back (even though we walked 6-10 miles a day). I went on a veggie and protein cleanse and I feel 100% better now. There's no question in my mind eating clean has an immediate impact on my body. Just make sure you're eating enough. When I see people trying the paleo diet and quiting after 1-2 weeks because they feel like shit I usually look at what they're eating and they have a huge caloric deficit so they have no energy all day. The whole idea is eat until you're full and keep eating throughout the day if you're hungry. You'll still probably be in a caloric deficit. I still drink plenty of beer and can lose weight stuffing my face with mashed cauliflower, gravy, and Cajun almond flour crusted chicken.

I cook a lot as well. Here's my most recent favorite dish. I grew up loving those Marie Callender chicken pot pies so these was a treat when we perfected it:

http://www.lifemadefull.com/2014/10/02/paleo-chicken-pot-pie/



Got food on the mind.

4/14/2015 12:17:41 PM

dtownral
Suspended
26632 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I still don't think that we need to demonize carbs like people seem to these days because they aren't bad themselves, it is when you are eating too much in general"

but that's the point, because sweeteners are added to everything, everyone has a starting point that is way too high (and if they grew up following the food triangle and eating sugary shit, are probably already on there way down the road of insulin resistance to some degree)

unrelated, there is not enough discussion about fiber

4/14/2015 12:53:13 PM

neodata686
All American
11577 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"unrelated, there is not enough discussion about fiber"


Artichokes, acovadas, broccoli, brussel sprouts, pears, berries, sweet potatoes, spinach! Just eat veggies every day and you're bound to get your fill of fiber in.

4/14/2015 1:12:02 PM

Netstorm
All American
7547 Posts
user info
edit post

I follow keto with paleolithic tendencies. Carb reduction (both sugary and starchy) has done wonders for my fat ass, though I do really miss bananas and rice... a lot.

4/14/2015 2:03:18 PM

0EPII1
All American
42541 Posts
user info
edit post

a majority of the population has "metabolic syndrome" (i think also called "syndrome X") due to all the sugar and starch they eat, even if they are a steady weight.

4/14/2015 7:28:03 PM

acraw
All American
9257 Posts
user info
edit post

metabolic syndrome is just as vague as irritable bowel syndrome. how do you even test for MS?

4/14/2015 7:43:31 PM

0EPII1
All American
42541 Posts
user info
edit post

it is a combination of results from various tests including blood sugar, blood pressure, cholesterol, and probably more.

it is not a syndrome in the traditional sense, it just says that a person with it has the perfect storm brewing inside them for the development of serious diseases.

4/14/2015 8:18:50 PM

0EPII1
All American
42541 Posts
user info
edit post

exactly as i said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome

Quote :
"Metabolic syndrome is a disorder of energy utilization and storage, diagnosed by a co-occurrence of three out of five of the following medical conditions: abdominal (central) obesity, elevated blood pressure, elevated fasting plasma glucose, high serum triglycerides, and low high-density cholesterol (HDL) levels. Metabolic syndrome increases the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes.[1] Some studies have shown the prevalence in the USA to be an estimated 34% of the adult population,[2] and the prevalence increases with age.

Metabolic syndrome and prediabetes appear to be the same disorder, just diagnosed by a different set of biomarkers."


prevalence is at 34%, but i guess logically that excludes people who already have diabetes or who are off the charts with regards to the listed conditions, even if they don't have diabetes? 10% have diabetes, and i don't know what % are beyond the scale with regards to the other conditions. in other words, that's 34% of adults, but we are only choosing from 80 to 90% of the population because the others have already progressed beyond the "metabolic syndrome" stage.

4/15/2015 5:38:02 AM

 Message Boards » The Lounge » Paleolithic Diet Page 1 2 3 [4], Prev  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2024 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.39 - our disclaimer.