Author Topic: Primal?  (Read 28338 times)

FrenchMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Primal?
« on: July 07, 2015, 06:33:59 AM »
Hi

There might be a discussion about this topic already on this forum especially since MMM wrote a blog about it at one time, but what are your thoughts on eating primal (like marksdailyapple primal)? I'm asking here because generally the MMM crowd thinks about stuff more then 'normal' people :p

There seem to be a lot of pro and con arguments. I will add that i live in france where the quality of the food is really better then in the US (sorry) and we already eat GMO free organic unprocessed food. I've been trying grain free for a few weeks now but honestly I'm feeling tired as hell!

Anyway would love to have your opinions and experiences! Thanks.

FrenchMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Primal?
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2015, 06:45:39 AM »
Also would like to add that I am not a native speaker so please forgive any mistakes:) referrals to other threats on this topic are also more then welcome.

Erica/NWEdible

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 881
    • Northwest Edible Life - life on garden time
Re: Primal?
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2015, 09:54:33 AM »
Hi

There might be a discussion about this topic already on this forum especially since MMM wrote a blog about it at one time, but what are your thoughts on eating primal (like marksdailyapple primal)? I'm asking here because generally the MMM crowd thinks about stuff more then 'normal' people :p

There seem to be a lot of pro and con arguments. I will add that i live in france where the quality of the food is really better then in the US (sorry) and we already eat GMO free organic unprocessed food. I've been trying grain free for a few weeks now but honestly I'm feeling tired as hell!

Anyway would love to have your opinions and experiences! Thanks.
Just a random opinion: food quality in the US tends to be so poor that we fight about which entire food group we should cut out to be healthy. (Fat! No, meat! No, it's the grains! No, all carbs! No, it's the fat again!)

A traditional French diet (fresh vegetables and fruit, great cheese and other dairy, a little meat, a little fresh bread, a glass of wine, not much sugar) eaten in a traditionally French manner (less hurried, small portions, not much snacking, more social) is a benchmark for food quality and satisfaction all around the world for a reason.

I was fortunate enough to travel throughout France and saw, all over the country, a respect for food and an enjoyment of it that we just don't have in the US. I hope France fights like hell to maintain its traditional way of eating, and discourages the importation of an American style "which macronutrient is evil?" relationship with food.

That said, I think MDA is a great resource. Lot's of well researched articles. If you feel better on a primal diet, I think it's a very healthy way to eat overall - certainly far healthier than the SAD.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5983
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Primal?
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2015, 03:46:37 PM »
I will add that i live in france where the quality of the food is really better then in the US (sorry)
Intreresting. How long did you live in the US for?

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5983
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Primal?
« Reply #4 on: July 19, 2015, 03:48:05 PM »
That aside, here's a custom google search that should provide a pretty good index of discussion here about the topic. The Paleo diet has a pretty strong following around these parts. You'll have more luck searching with the keyword "paleo" than with "primal".

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Primal?
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2015, 05:00:06 PM »
I will add that i live in france where the quality of the food is really better then in the US (sorry)
Intreresting. How long did you live in the US for?

I think OP is correct. You can find good food in the US--in ingredients at the grocery store that you cook yourself. But for really good healthy food you don't make yourself, you would need to find the <5% of restaurants that have good choices--and many of those will be pricey.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5983
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Primal?
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2015, 08:57:10 PM »
That's not the same thing as 'all the food is bad'. Restaurants are in the business of selling so much fat and salt your lizard brain can't resist.

horsepoor

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3497
  • Location: At the Barn
  • That old chestnut.
Re: Primal?
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2015, 09:36:39 PM »
For whatever it's worth, I've done the paleo/primal thing to varying degrees for the past few years.  With experimentation, I've found that it's a good basis for my eating habits, but I feel better with some rice and white potatoes in my diet, and not being gluten sensitive, having a sandwich or some pizza now and then doesn't bother me.  When I did strict Whole30 (like super clean paleo), I found I really needed to eat a banana pretty much every day to feel energetic.  Just needed the starch/sugars I guess.  However, eating a SAD diet for a few days will make me feel bloated and sluggish, and I can't wait to get back to a more primal-style diet with lots of veggies.  At the end of the day, self-experimentation is the only way to find out, because everyone is a little different.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7372
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Primal?
« Reply #8 on: July 20, 2015, 01:19:28 AM »
Never understood why the caveman diet is so popular. Can't have worked for them given the much much lower life expectancy for the average Homo Erectus.

The reason why we are so healthy now is improvements in diet.

Just cut out the processed, deep fried, sugar coated crap and you'll be fine.

Hall11235

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Mass
Re: Primal?
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2015, 08:20:00 AM »
@horsepoor:
The reason most people feel lethargic when switching to a strict paleo diet is that the body needs an adaptation period to run off of ketones instead of glucose. Ketones are liberated fatty acids used as metabolites. This is known as the "ketogenic flu," and once it wears off, you may find that you have an unbelievable amount of energy. I felt like garbage for the first couple weeks after cutting out all grains. But, I stuck with it, and now, excepting some sweet potato after an intense workout, feel pretty much incredible all of the time.

@marty998:
Your arguments are irrational. Life expectancy is an average age of death from ALL causes. If your mom dies at 77, her husband dies at 73, but your unborn son dies stillborn and your cave wife is killed by bear at age 24, the average age of those four people is 43.5 years old. Cavepeople had to deal with all sorts of shit we don't deal with now: got bit by a sabertooth? You're dead. Tripped, fell and broke your leg? No hospital, so your probably dead. Didn't cook your meat all the way through and got a parasite? You're dead.
Truth is, we are not healthy now. Total heart attacks have gone UP in the last 50 years (since fat became demonized), while total deaths from heart attacks have gone DOWN. What this says to me is that it is not the food that has lead to our increased health, but improved interventional medicine (triple bypasses are a great thing).
You say to cut out processed food and we'll be fine. Do you know what has to be done to wheat so we can eat it? It has to be heavily processed and soaked to remove the endotoxins from the outer shell surrounding the grain itself. Try to eat wheat the same way we eat blueberries, and you'll probably throw up.

horsepoor

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3497
  • Location: At the Barn
  • That old chestnut.
Re: Primal?
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2015, 09:38:57 AM »
@horsepoor:
The reason most people feel lethargic when switching to a strict paleo diet is that the body needs an adaptation period to run off of ketones instead of glucose. Ketones are liberated fatty acids used as metabolites. This is known as the "ketogenic flu," and once it wears off, you may find that you have an unbelievable amount of energy. I felt like garbage for the first couple weeks after cutting out all grains. But, I stuck with it, and now, excepting some sweet potato after an intense workout, feel pretty much incredible all of the time.


I understand that, but I have no desire to go keto.  Too much trouble to stay there, especially with work travel. Besides, I like beer.

Hall11235

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Mass
Re: Primal?
« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2015, 09:45:18 AM »
@horsepoor:
The reason most people feel lethargic when switching to a strict paleo diet is that the body needs an adaptation period to run off of ketones instead of glucose. Ketones are liberated fatty acids used as metabolites. This is known as the "ketogenic flu," and once it wears off, you may find that you have an unbelievable amount of energy. I felt like garbage for the first couple weeks after cutting out all grains. But, I stuck with it, and now, excepting some sweet potato after an intense workout, feel pretty much incredible all of the time.


I understand that, but I have no desire to go keto.  Too much trouble to stay there, especially with work travel. Besides, I like beer.

Most people don't enter true ketosis anyways. It's just those first two weeks to a month that are really tough. Some people have  a smoother transition than others. I went from vegetarian to paleo and noticed huge improvements in almost every possible metric. But there are 7 billion people with 7 billion diets, and, if the one you use works for you, why fix what's broken?

forummm

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7374
  • Senior Mustachian
Re: Primal?
« Reply #12 on: July 20, 2015, 10:46:43 AM »
Never understood why the caveman diet is so popular. Can't have worked for them given the much much lower life expectancy for the average Homo Erectus.

The reason why we are so healthy now is improvements in diet.

No, it's improvements in public health and medicine. Safe potable water, proper sanitation, hand washing, and vaccines mostly.

Other than making calories more abundant, and having a greater access to diversity of foods throughout the year, our nutrition is much worse. All the sugar and processed foods we never evolved to be able to tolerate. And our foods tend to have fewer vitamins and other nutrients nowadays due to monoculturing.

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Primal?
« Reply #13 on: July 20, 2015, 11:12:44 AM »
Primal/Paleo is a great diet.     What could possibly better than mercury free fresh fish,  grass fed beef,  organic chicken,  healthy fats and oils and good old vegetables?

I'm back on the primal type eating just now and attempting to go keto.   Down about 10 pounds from my peak.   While I'm not totally committed to the keto yet I am avoiding grains as much as possible.     

I also intend to IF for 36 hours each week until I can reach my goal weight and body fat levels.

If you are unfamiliar with the Paleo/Primal eating style check out Marksdailyapple.com.   

A big component of this style of eating is avoiding processed foods and additives.    That one aspect alone can be beneficial. 

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Primal?
« Reply #14 on: July 20, 2015, 11:31:36 AM »
I do eat primarily Primal, except for drinking a metric crap ton of beer. When I initially started, I was slightly more strict (no beer), and wound up losing 40lbs. I do apparently have a bad response to Gluten, which makes me sad. After reading some stuff about it, it really seems like a super awesome method/chemical/reaction.

I have no issues getting enough calories and keeping my energy up, but I honestly think that there is some other reason it's so damn popular.

The Primal Blueprint book that Mark Sisson wrote has a crap load of references. I don't know if everyone else does what I do, but I read those references. Mostly it wound up valuable by not taking things on word of mouth and actually researching what I eat. The simple awareness of it all made a bigger difference to me than the diet itself.

I think that the awareness aspect is more valuable, along with the reading the ingredients and therefore avoiding processed shit. However, this, this, this, this, and this are all threads in which this has been discussed.

Hall11235

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Mass
Re: Primal?
« Reply #15 on: July 20, 2015, 12:15:05 PM »

I also intend to IF for 36 hours each week until I can reach my goal weight and body fat levels.


That's incredibly aggressive. Be extremely careful with that. I would just have a later (think two hours later) breakfast each day instead of fasting for a day and a half each week, taking full advantage of the fasted state you wake up in. Sisson also recommends having eating "windows," where, you eat only from 11 am to 7 pm.  Fasting intensely and frequently can jack up cortisol, especially if paired with exercise other than walking. I wouldn't be too concerned with hitting ketosis. Just shoot for <100 grams of carbs a day and pound the vegetables.

Best of luck! I went paleo 2 1/2 years back and would never give it up.

cerebus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Africa
Re: Primal?
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2015, 12:36:00 AM »
You can find good food in the US--in ingredients at the grocery store that you cook yourself.

That's all that matters to me. 'American food is crap because restaurants'.... that whole line of thinking is warped.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16054
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Primal?
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2015, 05:24:36 AM »
Never understood why the caveman diet is so popular. Can't have worked for them given the much much lower life expectancy for the average Homo Erectus.

The reason why we are so healthy now is improvements in diet.

Just cut out the processed, deep fried, sugar coated crap and you'll be fine.
Your arguments are irrational. Life expectancy is an average age of death from ALL causes. If your mom dies at 77, her husband dies at 73, but your unborn son dies stillborn and your cave wife is killed by bear at age 24, the average age of those four people is 43.5 years old. Cavepeople had to deal with all sorts of shit we don't deal with now: got bit by a sabertooth? You're dead. Tripped, fell and broke your leg? No hospital, so your probably dead. Didn't cook your meat all the way through and got a parasite? You're dead.
Truth is, we are not healthy now. Total heart attacks have gone UP in the last 50 years (since fat became demonized), while total deaths from heart attacks have gone DOWN. What this says to me is that it is not the food that has lead to our increased health, but improved interventional medicine (triple bypasses are a great thing).
You say to cut out processed food and we'll be fine. Do you know what has to be done to wheat so we can eat it? It has to be heavily processed and soaked to remove the endotoxins from the outer shell surrounding the grain itself. Try to eat wheat the same way we eat blueberries, and you'll probably throw up.
Irrational??? I thought they were highly rational.
Never understood why the caveman diet is so popular. Can't have worked for them given the much much lower life expectancy for the average Homo Erectus.

The reason why we are so healthy now is improvements in diet.

No, it's improvements in public health and medicine. Safe potable water, proper sanitation, hand washing, and vaccines mostly.

Other than making calories more abundant, and having a greater access to diversity of foods throughout the year, our nutrition is much worse. All the sugar and processed foods we never evolved to be able to tolerate. And our foods tend to have fewer vitamins and other nutrients nowadays due to monoculturing.
The improvements mentioned don't really affect the life expectancy of early humans. Much water was safe. If it wasn't, the tribe living in that area died and the area became taboo. Early humans also tended to practice proper sanitation - civilization changed that because people started congregating in small areas. And most epidemic diseases were unknown and limited to very small areas because people just didn't travel very far very fast (they died on the way rather than transmitting disease to other tribes).

In Lake Mungo archeologists found a group of human footprints over 20,000 years old from over 20 people - one set was of a few hunters really running very fast (measured by the length of their strides). One of the hunters was on one leg, and had a crutch. They obviously had sufficient medicine to allow this person to be a reasonable hunter.

Heart attacks and many of the current killers (including cancer) tend to strike people who are older than these early people.

Besides all this, the paleo diet doesn't reflect what the early peoples ate. They had LEAN meat, most of our vegetables didn't exist, and we would not recognise many of the foods they ate. Most foods were very local (tomatoes and potatoes did not exist outside a small part of the Americas for example) so they had much less world variety than the paleo diet includes. To make up for this, they ate a wide variety of the closely related local plants that we do not eat today. People rarely ate meat. They existed much more on fruit and vegetables. Fish may have been very common (judging by the prevalence of fish in the Aboriginal diet, and given that there are Australian fish trap systems dated to 20,000 to 40,000 years old).

Hall11235

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Mass
Re: Primal?
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2015, 06:53:32 AM »
@Deborah:
I would say that medicine has made a huge impact on our life expectancy. If you were having a heart attack even 120 years ago, there was little we could do. Now, except in extreme circumstances, people can have more than one heart attack and survive.

If people lived primarily on fruits and vegetables, how do you explain the Inuits and the Maasai tribes? The Inuits have lived in a location where, for 9 months out of the year, they eat primarily seals and salmon -  an that's it for 1,000's of years. They also have shockingly low rates of heart disease and cancer. The Maasai live on cow and cow's blood and live in a non-arable tract of land in sub-Saharan Africa, yet also have very low rates of cancer and heart disease. I feel confident they aren't trimming the fat off their meat either.

Also - The ancestral health movement is about applying ancient principles to a modern lifestyle. It is NOT a historical reenactment. No one is claiming that the blueberries we eat now are the same ones we ate 10,000 years ago. The stigmatization of the "paleo" label is one of the more irritating things to come out of this. Just because I choose to enjoy yogurt every now and again does not mean I am breaking "paleo." It is not a reenactment, and I'm sorry if some "paleo" nut convinced you it was.

By the way, what's wrong with eating fewer grains, more vegetables, and more meat, while also getting more sleep and exercising in an intelligent manner?
Name ONE nutrient that I get from precious "whole grains" that I can't get from vegetables and meat?

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Primal?
« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2015, 07:17:09 AM »
The thing is a lot of paleo proponents go around saying 'This is how cavemen ate!' and they're not doing themselves any favors with that argument. People ate whatever they could, it depended on their location. So some people ate a vegetarian diet while others ate primarily seal. When people make generalizations based on many different primitive diets, that's fine. 

I feel confident they aren't trimming the fat off their meat either.
I think the point of the "lean meat" comment was that animals were much lower in fat than what most people would buy in the grocery store. Certainly the game caught by hunter-gatherers would be extremely lean. Not that people are trimming the fat but that the animal just has much less body fat than farm-raised animals today.

jba302

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 622
Re: Primal?
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2015, 07:37:58 AM »
If people lived primarily on fruits and vegetables, how do you explain the Inuits and the Maasai tribes?

For someone calling out other arguments as illogical, this sentence is loaded with hypocrisy. Maybe people can handle and have adapted to different diets. I know that's a crazy ass thought, but it's possible.

Hall11235

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Mass
Re: Primal?
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2015, 12:23:02 PM »
@Sheepstache:
So, what if they bagged a fatted up bear or mammoth? I also am not endorsing CAFO raised meat as ancestral. I pay a premium at the grocery store and with my local farmer to make sure that my meat is grass-fed.

@jba302:
I was reflecting upon the statement that was made :"People rarely ate meat. They existed much more on fruit and vegetables." It seems that deborah made a far more general statement than I did, and all I was doing was saying the exact same thing you are saying, that "Maybe people can handle and have adapted to different diets," while providing real examples. I have also stated that, "there are 7 billion people with 7 billion diets, and, if the one you use works for you, why fix what's broken?"

Maybe you should read the entire thread before commenting on what I say and attacking me for hypocrisy. 

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16054
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Primal?
« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2015, 02:50:02 PM »
We THINK that the Australian Aboriginals did not change the foods that they ate (by genetic selection), whereas other cultures have. We also THINK that Australian Aboriginals have been eating similar diets for around 60,000 years (well into paleolithic times), which no other culture can claim. Thus, their diets are probably more relevant to discussions about the primitive diet than any other - particularly since the diets mentioned (Inuit and Maasai) are quite a bit younger and the Maasai is arguably not primal while the Inuit is a response to extreme climate rather than the diet of 95% of primitive societies - and the Inuit do not appear to be paleolithic either.

With the Australian Aboriginals we thus have a unique view of what the paleolithic diet might look like - particularly as it is a whole continent and there are a lot of people who can actually tell us what it was (rather than having the odd preserved stomach that we can investigate from other continents).

Every river and stream in Australia and all the coastline had fish traps when the colonists came to Australia. Most of these were removed but there still exist remnants that are dated well into paleolithic times. They ate many grains (including wild rice). Meat was relatively rare in their diet, and it was lean.

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Primal?
« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2015, 03:20:41 PM »
I'm pretty sure the intent of primal/paleo eating is to eat foods for which our bodies have adapted to over 100s of thousands of years.   

So the obvious foods to discard are processed grains,  food additives,  CAPO meats,  hormones,  sugar,  antibiotics etc..   It is not that complicated and is much closer to what my grandfather ate.   He lived skinny until he was 97 while grandma made it to 101.   I'm sure he ate some processed grains but no where near what we do and his grain was not our grain.   

I can understand everyone feeling the urge to argue who ate this and that through history but that is not necessary to follow a primal diet.   Fish, healthy meats,  healthy oils/fats (butter, olive, lard, coconut, grape seed (all non rotted)),  healthy veggies with some berries and seeds or nuts occasionally.   

Not that complicated.   

What confuses people is that the USDA (driven by the farm lobbyist)  has spent the better part of 85 years convincing people that grain should be the basis of a healthy diet. 

Hall11235

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Mass
Re: Primal?
« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2015, 06:09:02 AM »
Thank you Bob for clearing that up.

Deborah, I am still confused. What would Native American tribes eat during the winter when there was very little vegetation and no refrigeration? At this point we seem to be arguing semantics. The fact of the matter is that I feel better when I don't eat grain, and, as of yet, no one has pointed out why I actually NEED grains in my diet. Is this anecdotal? Yep. Is it considered "good science?" Nope. But I really don't care. All nutritional science is are anecdotes that control for variables. Quite ineffectively, I might add (food journals are hardly bulletproof).

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Primal?
« Reply #25 on: July 22, 2015, 06:34:29 AM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_cuisine.         According to this there was a lot of grain eating,  although their grain was nothing like our wheat and I don't think that native Americans would be considered old enough to be primal.   There have been studies of grain eating tribes vs hunter gatherer, with the hug having superior lifespans and lack of too the decay.   

Hall11235

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Mass
Re: Primal?
« Reply #26 on: July 22, 2015, 07:12:39 AM »
Bob, thank you for your article. It was very enlightening. At this point I concede defeat and am withdrawing my dog from the fight. You lose nothing by trying  it for thirty days. I've tried everything from vegan (lasted 3 weeks) to vegetarian (lasted a year) to the "low fat" standard American diet and the ancestral health diet is a maintainable way of eating that, for me, is a lifestyle, not a diet. I feel best eating this way and all I ask is that people don't knock it till they try it. We can cherry pick examples and counter examples till the cows come home, but the proof is in the pudding.

It's not a historical reenactment. Please don't treat it as such. I'm sorry to all if some "paleo nut" around you scared you off of trying it. People work so hard to demolish the research without having actually done it. People also tend to "need" science to back up everything they believe when the truth of the matter is that nutritional science will always be based on anecdote and there is no "one-size-fits-all" diet that people want so desperately to find. There is no funding for the "random control, double blind" study that people seem so desperately to want, and, our bodies are so miraculous and complicated that it really ends up being best guess anyways.

For those brave enough to try doing their own research, here is a great, short list of books to try:
Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes
Grain Brain by Dr. David Perlmutter
The Paleolithic Solution by Robb Wolf.

Thanks all,
Hall

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Primal?
« Reply #27 on: July 22, 2015, 07:27:48 AM »
Wheat Belly is another book to consider.

Katsplaying

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Location: PNW
Re: Primal?
« Reply #28 on: July 22, 2015, 07:58:40 AM »
Waaaaaay back in the early 80s I went Atkins-style low-carb and lost the pounds I'd been piling on by eating fast food 5-6 nights a week. If I'd been at college it'd've been the freshman 15 but I was working so it was just lazy-ass don't know how to cook BS. At that time low-carb was so NOT a thing that it was unsustainable over the long term. Commence yoyoing weight for the next 3 decades...

Until I read Taubes' earlier book Why We Get Fat and then in 2010, had bariatric surgery (RNY bypass). Ostensibly, it was to repair a failed hiatal hernia fix but the surgeon flat out told me if I didn't lose weight and keep it off, the repair would also fail and this was the best alternative.

As a good little semi-OCD person, I dived into learning everything I could about weight-loss surgery and through numerous forums (and other sources) found that most people had the best long-term results when they embraced low-carb. When you are limited by the actual reduced size of your stomach, you eat protein first always, then whatever else you may have room for, which isn't much as 3-4 oz dense protein, like chicken or beef, fills your pouch very quickly. I avoid sugar & use various substitutes for recipes.

Over the years I've found adequate and sometimes awesome variations of my favorite "bad" foods and am often surprised that I don't crave the shit more often. The unholy Spawn recently found an amazing recipe for low-carb donuts and we're experimenting with different flours as the coconut flour the recipe calls for absorbs too much oil for my taste.

Spanw's bf has a minor obsession with low-carb/high-fat eating that I find kind of annoying. He's had some serious, hospital-stay health issues over the past year before they moved here and seems to have centered his focus on diet alone as the solution. They're both low-carbing it and have lost substantial amounts of weight, which is great but haven't added in any exercise that I've seen, which isn't so great. But hey. their lives, their choices.

My point being that once you discover what eating plan works for you, you create wriggle room so you never feel deprived or famished and then you're golden. I have found MyFitnessPal to be invaluable in tracking what does and doesn't work. If you don't know what and how much you're consuming, how can you make better choices?

Great thread!

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Primal?
« Reply #29 on: July 22, 2015, 09:53:43 AM »
So hear is my Primal(keto) dinner from last night --

Stir fried chicken in lots of olive oil with shredded cabbage, green pepper, onion, mushrooms, thin sliced celery.   Sautéed and flavored with garlic powder, pepper,  lots of salt and added a bit of tomato sauce to finish it.   (notice no white carbs involved and the whole carb count was probably less than 25 grams). 

It was very tasty and filling.

Breakfast this morning was 1/2 lb 85/15 ground beef patty seasoned with pepper and salt and 2 scrambled eggs.  About 700 cals total.   I'm using the big breakfast theory as part of my weight loss strategy as recent studies have shown that big breakfasts/smaller dinners improved weight loss by 30% while reducing evening cravings.   It definitely has decreased night time desire to eat for me. 

So with no effort I had a mine IF (intermittent fast) of 13 hours between dinner and breakfast.  Wasn't starving when I woke up and only ate 1,800 calories yesterday (230lb man).

Rock on Primal and keto people -- rock on. 


Hamster

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
Re: Primal?
« Reply #30 on: July 22, 2015, 10:38:51 AM »
I just got back from 5 weeks in Laos where people tend to be slim and look surprisingly toned. They get the vast majority of their calories from white rice, either as sticky rice or rice noodles, supplemented with a variety of veggies, fruit, fish, and small amounts of meat. The only common nutritional deficiencies are beriberi - polished white rice lacks thiamine - and iron deficiency in kids, mostly attributable to intestinal parasites, but low iron consumption (little red meat) also plays a role. That said, Laotians are very rarely fat, even those who have plenty of access to food. Judging from body habitus, that rice-based diet is way healthier than the typical American diet, despite being so carb-dense. Unfortunately packaged convenience foods and Pepsi is popping up everywhere now...

Also consider that the longest-living people in the world include Okinawans, Sardinians, and interestingly in the U.S., seventh day Adventists in SoCal. All of them eat plenty of grains/starches, veggies, and little to no red meat. They also don't eat much sugar. Their longevity is not based on low-carb or on avoiding grains.

I don't doubt that high meat, high protein diets can make you fit and toned, and getting away from the highly processed junk in the Standard American Diet is a good thing. I think you can get the same benefits by eliminating processed food (most of which is high in grain-products), but still eat grains in a healthy less-processed diet. There is an exceptionally large body of evidence that decreased meat consumption lowers risk of various cancers, cardiovascular disease, and all-cause mortality. We also know that the processed foods in the SAD lead to an overconsumption of calories. They are designed to increase hunger and trigger cravings. That is why they sell so well.

Americans are fat because of sugar and quantity of food consumed. Sugar is different from other starches. See 'Sugar the bitter truth’ if you want to understand why table sugar and starchy plants are a completely different class of carbohydrate.

I still think Michael Pollan has it right, and is much more reality-based than a lot of the pseudo-science and pseudo-history promoted by some of paleo's loudest proponents. Simply stated: 'Eat food, not too much, mostly plants'. Processed pseudo-food is the problem, not grains in themselves, for the vast majority of people.

Ambergris

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Age: 47
  • Location: NC
Re: Primal?
« Reply #31 on: July 22, 2015, 11:11:16 AM »
I always find it hard to resist weighing in on these debates, but it's just too irresistable this time.

As Bob W. said, the point of eating Paleo is supposed to be that you are eating "what out bodies adapted too over hundreds of thousands of years". The idea, presumably, and correct me if I am wrong, is that by eating what we adapted to, we end up healthier, living longer, etc.

The problem for us as Mustachians is that Paleo is very expensive (all that grass fed beef, etc). It seems to me that this suggests that it needs to seriously earn its keep if it is to be considered a mustachian approach (obviously, anyone may eat however they like, but this site is about optimizing finances).

So does Paleo optimize health? No one knows directly. There are very few studies and no scientific consensus on whether these diets work. In lieu of that, primal/paleo supporters offer a biological argument: 1) we have adapted to eat a particular diet; 2) natural selection can be expected to optimize our bodies to a particular diet and therefore we can expect to have better health outcomes if we eat it than with anything else.

I have several responses to this argument.

1) The first problem is establishing what ancient diets looked like. There is considerable debate in the paleoanthropology literature on this, as well as issues about which sources of evidence are most reliable. The best bet seems to be that current foragers (the best approximation for our ancestors: BTW, the Masai are NOT foragers but herders) eat a diet that varies enormously in its plant vs. meat based content and approximately by latitude (Kelly, 2007). This varies between 25% and 95% hunted food (a rough approximation for meat/fish content). Inuit, as mentioned are on the extreme high end of this. Foragers in Africa, in the location we initially evolved, tend to be on the low end. The real answer to "what did ancient people eat?" therefore seems to be whatever they could get their hands on. The main concern for ancient people was not starving to death in a very hostile "red in tooth and claw" nature, and this meant eating what was available.

Upshot: there is no such thing as a paleo diet

2) a) The natural selection part of the argument assumes that natural selection, given a chance, perfectly optimizes our bodies to respond to a particular set of local conditions. As any decent evolutionary biologist will tell you, this is a very dangerous assumption. Natural selection is a tinkerer and a "gerry-manderer" at best, and has to work with what is available in the way of genetic variation, and against difficult physiological and environment tradeoffs. When people talk about the optimality of paleo diets, I think "Giant Panda". This is creature with a bear's gut eating bamboo (constantly, in order to survive), using an awkward extended wrist bone as a thumb.

Adaptation happens constantly in nature but it is never ideal because nature, far from being sweet and nice and beautiful is ugly and harsh and constantly trying to kill you. Eating involves taking other organisms that want to survive and destroying them. Natural selection acts on them, too, to stop you from doing so. So even if there were a paleo diet, there should be no expectation whatever that it would be optimal.

Indeed, humans in almost all societies have found ways around these tradeoffs using cultural techniques (i.e. food processing).

2b) Let's suppose for a minute that humans were ideally adapted to a particular diet. What would that actually mean? Would it mean that we were adapted to eat, say, mammoths and giant sloths, or would it mean we were adapted to eat meat, or would it mean we were adapted to eat protein and fat rich food? Would it mean we were adapted to eat nuts and fiber rich tubers, or carbohydrate and fiber rich plants, or just carbohydrates with lots of fiber? It's truly not clear that from the standpoint of the body there's much difference between "fiber rich tubers" and "fiber rich grains".

2c) Again, let's pretend for the sake of argument that natural selection does optimize diet and there is an optimal diet. What is "optimal"? By "what out bodies adapted to eat over hundreds of thousands of years" the optimal seems to be, what natural selection would fix in the population. This means what it would maximize is reproductive fitness - i.e. the diet that would make you have the most healthy babies. In the "paleo times" we are considering, this would have meant, most likely, maximizing calorie intake during the child bearing years. Once child bearing/raising has ended, NS becomes "indifferent" to how well you're doing (but let's be generous given the value of older humans to child raising).

So ideal "paleo diets" can be expected to make you fat while you are young and be quite indifferent to how you do after, say, 60 or so. It would definitely NOT help you lose weight or live a longer than currently average life.

[Random aside: one bugbear of paleo folks is fructose, which is one of the foods to which humans are notably adapted because of their descent from fruit eating primates. You have a beautifully adapted fructose digestion system designed specifically to make the most of this powerful calorie-rich sugar. To paleo folks astonishment, fructose makes you fat!!!1! gasp!!1![[LOL]]].

May I suggest as an alternative to "paleo" paying attention to scientific research on the health effects of particular diets? Despite what dodgy books by a few random MDs and outside-of-the-consensus scientific authors argue (or folks with no appropriate training like MDA), the current scientific consensus is that a diet high in fruits and vegetables, complex, high fiber carbs, fish and small amounts of lean meat is probably the best one for maintaining a lower body weight and maximizing longevity.

So no, paleo is not mustachian.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 11:24:24 AM by Ambergris »

Hall11235

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Mass
Re: Primal?
« Reply #32 on: July 22, 2015, 11:46:41 AM »
@Ambergris:
Thank you for your long-winded post about how we are all numbskulls.
Have you actually ever tried the ancestral health diet for any real length of time? Say, 30 days? Have you read the "dodgy" books? The point here is that I and others feel better when we eat this way. Use your science to explain why our anecdotes are wrong. Multiple people, myself included, have stated that there is no one optimal diet.

Explain to me why, when mothers trying to lose weight eat a high-carb, low-fat diet (diet here meaning consumption of calories to create a negative caloric balance) complain of hunger, while folks Like Bob and myself can do the same thing with a high-fat, low-carb diet and not only maintain muscle mass, but lose weight while keeping outstanding bio markers of health. Once again, there is no perfect diet, but this one seems like a damn good place to start.

Why are you and others so eager to disprove the literally millions of anecdotes that say that eating MORE fruit, vegetables, and yes, meat, in place of sugar and grains while getting more sleep and smart exercise made people feel better?

Once again: Tell me one thing I NEED from grains. Tell me one thing that I am deficient in by eating this way.

Even better: Explain how my father and I, who are both eating "paleo" have fasted glucose levels in 70's, triglyceride levels in the 40's, incredible blood pressure, High HDL and low LDL? According to the research, eating this much saturated fat should put us one foot in the grave. (I'm sure that you or another poster will disclaim my anecdote here as bad science, yet, the most comprehensive nutritional "study" ever performed, the Nurses' Health Study, was based of off subjective food journals with no control.)

horsepoor

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3497
  • Location: At the Barn
  • That old chestnut.
Re: Primal?
« Reply #33 on: July 22, 2015, 11:48:24 AM »
Good post.  However, I think the diet described in your closing statement could very well be considered paleo if the starches are from roots, tubers and squash. ;)  There are plenty of people who claim to be paleo as an excuse to eat scads of bacon, steak and almond flour-based baked goods.

On my journey to lose and keep off 50#, I tried modifications of the SAD diet - sandwich thins, reduced fat this and that, a low-meat "flexitarian" type diet, the Slow Carb/4-Hour Body thing, and paleo.  An 80-20 primal diet has been the most effortless to me in terms of not having cravings or feeling hungry and having to count calories, and I'm one of those rare people maintaining a significant weight loss after 3+ years, and feel better at 37 than I felt at 27, so I'm sticking with it.

We're lucky to live in an area where a grass fed beef quarter can be purchased for a reasonable price, and I do a lot more scratch cooking now to avoid hidden sugars and whatnot, so the cost balances out just fine against a SAD diet with expensive processed foods, so I find it acceptably Mustachian, particularly since I just didn't have as much energy for Mustachian pursuits when I was on the low-meat flexitarian diet.  I envy people who can thrive on a higher starch, lower protein diet; I'm just not one of them.  By the same token, villification of food groups gets old really fast, as do rabidly outspoken proponents of any diet or belief system.  I find that a certain amount of beans, rice and even bread (like 1x each per week) fit quite nicely into our generally primal approach to eating and allow enough flexibility to make social eating situations a non-issue.

Hall11235

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Mass
Re: Primal?
« Reply #34 on: July 22, 2015, 12:07:36 PM »
@Horsepoor
If you can handle grains then that's great for you! My father is the same way. He's been paleo for years but can still eat a bowl of pasta now and then if he so chooses. If I try to eat grains (most notably gluten-containing ones), I feel so ill the next day that I can barely get out of bed. I just personally can't handle grains.

I also tend to become confused when people attack my diet when it makes me feel better than ever. People don't think vegetarians are that weird, but when I suggest I'll pass on the bread, people look at me like I just grew a second head. Then they start treating me like all I eat is raw meat. My FIL is convinced that I like all of my meat still mooing. 

It seems to me that when people think "paleo," they think of that ridiculous turkey wrapped in bacon and think that that's all we eat. The vegan I live with said he wishes he ate as many fresh veggies as I do. I also think that people who make coconut flour cookies and claim that their "paleo" are assholes. It's like taking Adderall and saying it's fine because it's not meth.

I also have found that my grocery bill has been slowly decreasing since I primarily buy in season produce that's on sale and avoid most fruit ($4 for a pint of blackberries? Yeah, I'll pass). I also buy the bone in cuts of meat that most people avoid. Cheap and delicious when cooked in my crock pot.

Don't forget Horsepoor - your story is just an anecdote though, and, according to science, completely worthless.

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Primal?
« Reply #35 on: July 22, 2015, 12:28:57 PM »


So for lunch today I had about 3 ounces of grilled chicken breast, on top of a cucumber,  green pepper, tomato, onion salad.  Liberally drenched with virgin olive oil and seasoned with salt, pepper and hot sauce.

Doesn't sound like a radical diet to me?    Oppps refined grains or sugar containing zero micronutrients.  Damn,  I knew something was missing.   

Feel good and I guarantee I won't be having a midday need for a nap.   

I'm on a diminished caloric intake in order to reduce weight remember --- so if this had been a typical paleo thing it would have been way bigger and some nuts and berries might have been added.

No where in the paleo playbook does it say that red meat,  bacon and sausage are mandatory.  Sure I eat them but I also eat chicken,  turkey,  fish, ham and other animal based proteins. 

Throwing out processed grains just doesn't seem crazy to me.  They are high caloric,  high glycemic and have very little vitamin,  mineral or positive phytochemicals.   

For clarification --  I don't not eat a high protein diet.   That is a myth with the primal type of diet.  Healthy fats are used to offset processed grains calorie wise.  Veggies are a big,  big,  big part of paleo.   Lots of micronutrients and far exceeding 6-8 servings per day.   

horsepoor

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3497
  • Location: At the Barn
  • That old chestnut.
Re: Primal?
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2015, 12:36:48 PM »
@Horsepoor
If you can handle grains then that's great for you! My father is the same way. He's been paleo for years but can still eat a bowl of pasta now and then if he so chooses. If I try to eat grains (most notably gluten-containing ones), I feel so ill the next day that I can barely get out of bed. I just personally can't handle grains.

I also tend to become confused when people attack my diet when it makes me feel better than ever. People don't think vegetarians are that weird, but when I suggest I'll pass on the bread, people look at me like I just grew a second head. Then they start treating me like all I eat is raw meat. My FIL is convinced that I like all of my meat still mooing. 

It seems to me that when people think "paleo," they think of that ridiculous turkey wrapped in bacon and think that that's all we eat. The vegan I live with said he wishes he ate as many fresh veggies as I do. I also think that people who make coconut flour cookies and claim that their "paleo" are assholes. It's like taking Adderall and saying it's fine because it's not meth.

I also have found that my grocery bill has been slowly decreasing since I primarily buy in season produce that's on sale and avoid most fruit ($4 for a pint of blackberries? Yeah, I'll pass). I also buy the bone in cuts of meat that most people avoid. Cheap and delicious when cooked in my crock pot.

Don't forget Horsepoor - your story is just an anecdote though, and, according to science, completely worthless.

Yep, didn't mean to infer that teetotalling on foods that cause an actual allergic or other reaction isn't 100% justified.  I do feel lucky that I CAN eat basically anything (whether I SHOULD is another question) without acute reaction. 

What can I say, I'm living an anecdotal life.  Aren't we all.  I also think it's odd when people get upset about what I eat, but usually it's just a defense mechanism.  I certainly don't say anything when they're having chips, Pepsi and a bologna sandwich for lunch and I pop open my tuna and mixed veggie salad; it's always the other person who feels compelled to comment.

This is all tied up with the gluten free trend as well.  Last weekend my SIL made a big deal about ordering a gluten free pizza crust when we went out to eat - after seeing her eat cookies and whatever else all weekend, and order a beer with the pizza.  Yeah, pretty sure gluten free isn't a necessity, or if it is, you're doing it wrong, but I kept my mouth shut.  :)

Hall11235

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Mass
Re: Primal?
« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2015, 12:58:07 PM »
Those people make me laugh. I haven't had a beer in years. Discovered mead and it changed my life.

The people that really get my goat are folks like my aunt, who go GF, yet still shovel GF cookies into their mouths and continue to be confused when they can't lose weight. The disconnect there blows my mind. Same with flour in general. I don't care who you ask, coconut flour is as non-ancestral as conventional wheat flour.

Still can't quite kick the full-fat Greek yogurt with blueberries and almonds though. What a treat. And yes, my detractors, I understand that's not "paleo." I eat it twice a week, so eat me. Not a historical reenactment, remember?

I also tend not to preach when my coworkers shovel bread into their mouths. If they ask, I explain, and am usually confronted with the same level of criticism that I found on this thread, though usually far less intelligently put. People get defensive when the decisions they think are right are called into question. Finances go the same way, I've discovered.

Ambergris

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
  • Age: 47
  • Location: NC
Re: Primal?
« Reply #38 on: July 22, 2015, 02:54:52 PM »
@Ambergris:
Thank you for your long-winded post about how we are all numbskulls.
Have you actually ever tried the ancestral health diet for any real length of time? Say, 30 days? Have you read the "dodgy" books? The point here is that I and others feel better when we eat this way. Use your science to explain why our anecdotes are wrong. Multiple people, myself included, have stated that there is no one optimal diet.

Explain to me why, when mothers trying to lose weight eat a high-carb, low-fat diet (diet here meaning consumption of calories to create a negative caloric balance) complain of hunger, while folks Like Bob and myself can do the same thing with a high-fat, low-carb diet and not only maintain muscle mass, but lose weight while keeping outstanding bio markers of health. Once again, there is no perfect diet, but this one seems like a damn good place to start.

Why are you and others so eager to disprove the literally millions of anecdotes that say that eating MORE fruit, vegetables, and yes, meat, in place of sugar and grains while getting more sleep and smart exercise made people feel better?

Once again: Tell me one thing I NEED from grains. Tell me one thing that I am deficient in by eating this way.

Even better: Explain how my father and I, who are both eating "paleo" have fasted glucose levels in 70's, triglyceride levels in the 40's, incredible blood pressure, High HDL and low LDL? According to the research, eating this much saturated fat should put us one foot in the grave. (I'm sure that you or another poster will disclaim my anecdote here as bad science, yet, the most comprehensive nutritional "study" ever performed, the Nurses' Health Study, was based of off subjective food journals with no control.)

Sh*t, Dude, you can do whatever you want. My suspicion (and a total guess) is that your health has more to do with the exercise part of the paleo lifestyle than the diet part. I do a lot of exercise and also have very high HDL (60s), absurdly low triglycerides (teens) etc. (that last is probably because I am a long distance walker and it didn't occur to me not to walk the 4 miles to the Drs to have the blood test LOL). I have the same experience as you on a low-protein high veg pesc diet. Diets that are high in protein without the exercise component (e.g. Atkins etc.) tend to not have the same effect. It might also have something to do with increasing fiber intake (veggies, etc.) vs. crappy diet: fiber regulates both blood sugar and cholesterol (but you can do better with fiber (soluble fiber FTW) from whole grains and legumes).

What irritates me about this debate is not the experience of individual folks but the silly claim that primal is "natural" and supported by "evolutionary biology" where other diets aren't. It just isn't, and it's an abuse of the science to claim it is. What we're trying to do here (lose weight, increase muscle mass at the expense of fat, live a really long time without lots of kids) is nearly the opposite of what we should be doing from an evolutionary perspective and diets that promote that are not "paleo". What I'm trying to say is that the "Paleo diet"...isn't.

The issue for us as mustachians is not just whether a diet is bad, but whether you could be just as healthy on something else.  You can get extremely high fiber, high protein, quality carbs by eating beans. You get cheaper, higher fiber calories from whole grains. If you ate regular meat or fish, for example, would you find yourself in a worse spot health-wise? You could, after all, construct a high protein pesc diet from low food chain, low mercury fish and have better fats and lower costs. This is what I meant when I said Paleo needs to earn its keep: it costs a lot more, and so ideally we need a reason to think it works better than all the other things.

If you do have an allergy to grains, however, as you seem to, then obviously should avoid them.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16054
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Primal?
« Reply #39 on: July 22, 2015, 03:08:22 PM »
As I haven't read a recipe book for the paleo diet, I assume that BobW is actually eating close to what it would say, and his two days of recipes are normal examples of the paleo diet. It appears to me that the BobW paleo diet is reliant on olive oil, which was definitely not readily available to our paleolithic ancestors. It also has an awful lot of meat, and very few vegetables. Hunter gatherers are well known for foraging along the way, and always having a variety of  vegetable food at every meal. When I have been on Aboriginal food walks, it has amazed me how they are walking along taking a few leaves from this bush, a berry from another... as they are walking and not actually stopping. 

There are many Aborigine outstations, and at some of them the people live on their original diet. This is a very healthy diet, and does include grains (as previously mentioned), very few eggs (compared with the BobW paleo diet) - they followed the stars which told them when they could eat eggs so they didn't deplete their eating birds, and some meat. Unfortunately most of the fish trap systems have been destroyed, so they probably don't eat as much fish as they once did.

I understand that the American Indians had a number of yams within their foraging areas, and ate these in winter, along with bark from trees and other vegetation that would be available. Of course, I don't know much about their precolonization eating habits. However, America is generally understood not to have had human settlement for more than a couple of thousand years of the paleolithic period, whereas Australia has evidence of settlement dating back to 60,000 years ago - even before paleolithic Europe which has evidence going back to 50,000 years ago. So, if we are looking for a paleolithic diet, Australia is not a bad model to look at.

Dulcimina

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Location: Maryland
Re: Primal?
« Reply #40 on: July 22, 2015, 03:54:47 PM »
This is pretty similar to my experience.

On my journey to lose and keep off 50#, I tried modifications of the SAD diet - sandwich thins, reduced fat this and that, a low-meat "flexitarian" type diet, the Slow Carb/4-Hour Body thing, and paleo.  An 80-20 primal diet has been the most effortless to me in terms of not having cravings or feeling hungry and having to count calories, and I'm one of those rare people maintaining a significant weight loss after 3+ years, and feel better at 37 than I felt at 27, so I'm sticking with it.

I learned about paleo indirectly, after trying out a popular low carb diet to lose weight.  My weight yo-yoed up and down, so it was pretty much a bust for weight loss.  But I noticed a stunning improvement in my health – my autoimmune digestive and skin issues resolved; my eyelashes stopped falling out; my fingernails stopped breaking; and I stopped sneezing myself into a nosebleed every morning. There were other subjective improvements, but these were the ones that were measurable.

I found paleo because I went looking for an explanation.  What the heck did low carb have to do with autoimmunity? What’s the link between my fingernails and pollen allergy? The paleo folks gave me a unifying theory that made sense.  I used that as a template to find the right diet for me.  I tried the autoimmune paleo diet to fine tune.  I found low carb doesn’t work for me. Eggs irritate my skin even in the absence of grains. Dairy slows down my weight loss.  I have no measurable issues with nightshades, beans, nuts, rice or chocolate so I have them when I want to.  I can have moderate amounts of corn or oats.
I can’t really make a statement about the optimal diet for humans, but I have years of data that support this way of eating as optimal for me.

What I ate today: Breakfast was a green smoothie made of baby spinach, a banana, mango, grated ginger, lemon juice and plain yogurt. Lunch was a baked chicken thigh with cauliflower rice.  Dinner will be a sausage from Trader Joes with leftover ratatouille. 

Dulcimina

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Location: Maryland
Re: Primal?
« Reply #41 on: July 22, 2015, 04:01:30 PM »
As I haven't read a recipe book for the paleo diet, I assume that BobW is actually eating close to what it would say, and his two days of recipes are normal examples of the paleo diet. It appears to me that the BobW paleo diet is reliant on olive oil, which was definitely not readily available to our paleolithic ancestors. It also has an awful lot of meat, and very few vegetables. Hunter gatherers are well known for foraging along the way, and always having a variety of  vegetable food at every meal. When I have been on Aboriginal food walks, it has amazed me how they are walking along taking a few leaves from this bush, a berry from another... as they are walking and not actually stopping. 

There are many Aborigine outstations, and at some of them the people live on their original diet. This is a very healthy diet, and does include grains (as previously mentioned), very few eggs (compared with the BobW paleo diet) - they followed the stars which told them when they could eat eggs so they didn't deplete their eating birds, and some meat. Unfortunately most of the fish trap systems have been destroyed, so they probably don't eat as much fish as they once did.

I understand that the American Indians had a number of yams within their foraging areas, and ate these in winter, along with bark from t rees and other vegetation that would be available. Of course, I don't know much about their precolonization eating habits. However, America is generally understood not to have had human settlement for more than a couple of thousand years of the paleolithic period, whereas Australia has evidence of settlement dating back to 60,000 years ago - even before paleolithic Europe which has evidence going back to 50,000 years ago. So, if we are looking for a paleolithic diet, Australia is not a bad model to look at.

It's not a historical reenactment. Please don't treat it as such.


deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16054
  • Age: 14
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: Primal?
« Reply #42 on: July 22, 2015, 04:15:15 PM »
Actually, its basic tenet is that it IS that we adapted to what was eaten historically.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2015, 12:43:47 AM by deborah »

Dulcimina

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Location: Maryland
Re: Primal?
« Reply #43 on: July 22, 2015, 04:31:09 PM »
OK.
We THINK that the Australian Aboriginals did not change the foods that they ate (by genetic selection), whereas other cultures have. We also THINK that Australian Aboriginals have been eating similar diets for around 60,000 years (well into paleolithic times), which no other culture can claim. Thus, their diets are probably more relevant to discussions about the primitive diet than any other - particularly since the diets mentioned (Inuit and Maasai) are quite a bit younger and the Maasai is arguably not primal while the Inuit is a response to extreme climate rather than the diet of 95% of primitive societies - and the Inuit do not appear to be paleolithic either.

With the Australian Aboriginals we thus have a unique view of what the paleolithic diet might look like - particularly as it is a whole continent and there are a lot of people who can actually tell us what it was (rather than having the odd preserved stomach that we can investigate from other continents).

Every river and stream in Australia and all the coastline had fish traps when the colonists came to Australia. Most of these were removed but there still exist remnants that are dated well into paleolithic times. They ate many grains (including wild rice). Meat was relatively rare in their diet, and it was lean.

Can you cite some sources that they ate many grains and that meat was relatively rare? That's not what I'm finding.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1685581 (Traditional diet and food preferences of Australian aboriginal hunter-gatherers. O'Dea K. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1991 Nov 29;334(1270):233-40; discussion 240-1.)
From the abstract:
"Available data suggest that they were physically fit and lean, and consumed a varied diet in which animal foods were a major component. Despite this, the diet was not high in fat, as wild animal carcasses have very low fat contents through most of the year, and the meat is extremely lean. Everything on an animal carcass was eaten, including the small fat depots and organ meats (which were highly prized), bone marrow, some stomach contents, peritoneal fluid and blood. A wide variety of uncultivated plant foods was eaten in the traditional diet: roots, starchy tubers, seeds, fruits and nuts."

From the full text, pg. 236: "Dietary carbohydrate in the hunter-gatherer diet was derived from uncultivated plants, (tuberous roots, fruits, berries, seeds, nuts, beans) and honey. Cereal grains, the dietary staples of man since the development of agriculture, were not a major component of the traditional Aboriginal diet."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19087457 (Australian aboriginal plant foods: a consideration of their nutritional composition and health implications. Brand-Miller JC, Holt SH. Nutr Res Rev. 1998 Jun;11(1):5-23.)

From the abstract: "For at least 40-50,000 years, plants played an important but supplementary role in the animal-dominated diet of Australian Aboriginal (AA) hunter-gatherers. New knowledge of the nutrient composition and the special physiological effects of their foods provides another perspective in the current debate on the composition of the 'prudent' diet and the diet on which humans evolved. In the present paper we have calculated the average nutrient composition of over 800 Aboriginal plant foods (in total and by food group) and highlighted the differences between these and modern cultivated foods."

From the full text: "The Australian bush contains thousands of edible wild plants, ranging from sweet and tangy fruits and starchy seeds to leaves, tubers, fungi and seaweeds."

"For many years it was believed that the AA diet was predominantly vegetarian, particularly in the desert areas, but this view is no longer accepted. There is now strong evidence to show that AA diets in many areas were meat-oriented and there was a preference for meat, fat, honey and freshly harvested food (Lee, 1996). Plant foods were a supplement rather than an alternative to animal foods."

"Small cereals grains (seeds of the family Graminae) which have been staples for ‘civilized’ peoples since the Agricultural Revolution, made a surprisingly minor contribution to the diets of most hunter-gatherers (Eaton & Konner, 1985). But archaeological evidence dating back to 15 000 years ago indicates that some cereal grains (e.g. Panicum spp.) were important foods in grassland areas of Australia where river flooding was a regular occurrence."

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/full/10.3109/08830185.2012.667180 (The interplay between diet and emerging allergy: what can we learn from Indigenous Australians? Walton SF, Weir C. Int Rev Immunol. 2012 Jun;31(3):184-201.)

From full-text: "Many Indigenous populations, including Indigenous Australians, ate red meat as a major component of their diet, yet this did not lead to increased levels of fat due to the lean nature of wild animal carcasses [22, 23]. Seafood was also a major part of many diets (especially in coastal communities), and carried many health benefits due to omega 3 and 6 fatty acids and lean protein content [22–24]. The beneficial nutritional components of these lean meats and fish include long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), protein, iron, zinc, vitamin C, and B complex vitamins [22, 25, 26]. In addition many traditional diets included high-level consumption of a large variety of mostly raw plant foods rich in fiber and complex carbohydrates, such as fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts, and roots [22].




Dulcimina

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Location: Maryland
Re: Primal?
« Reply #44 on: July 22, 2015, 04:43:42 PM »
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3541565 (Slowly digested and absorbed carbohydrate in traditional bushfoods: a protective factor against diabetes? Thorburn AW, Brand JC, Truswell AS. Am J Clin Nutr. 1987 Jan;45(1):98-106.)

I'm not going to quote this article as the information is in table form.  The  table lists Australian Aboriginal bushfoods. Two categories -  1) roots, corm, nuts and tubers 2) Seeds - mulga, bramble wattle, desert oak, cycad, blackbean, kurrajong, pigweed, salt bush and bunya pine.

There may be other relevant academic papers, but I didn't find them in my relatively quick search.  I didn't link to the wikipedia article, but they add edible grubs and insects and honey like foods.

So it looks like the Australian Aborigines were eating meat, fish/seafood, vegetables, roots/tubers, nuts and seeds. One group was eating cereal grains. Sounds close to the modern paleo diet to me.

cerebus

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 509
  • Age: 46
  • Location: South Africa
Re: Primal?
« Reply #45 on: July 23, 2015, 12:29:04 AM »
Actually, its basic tenant is that it IS that we adapted to what was eaten historically.

Tenet.

Hall11235

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 246
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Mass
Re: Primal?
« Reply #46 on: July 23, 2015, 06:40:09 AM »
Dulcimina,
Thank you for posting research. You're the best!

FrenchMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Primal?
« Reply #47 on: July 23, 2015, 08:20:27 AM »
Thanks everyone for replying :)

Actually I have been eating like this for over a month now and must say the fatigue has passed and I feel GREAT. I've learned my body can digest grains no problem, but a cloud has just disappeared from my mind I didnt even know it was there!

A few things have been said; I would def say that eating Paleo is not more expensive, even if you eat more expensive products. You generally dont snack and eat out less plus because you buy precious food you never waste it anymore. MMM actually writes about why fat calories are cheaper then carb calories.

When I said the quality of food in France is better i meant that the people here in general eat well and are thin. (typical french meal; 1st course: salad/pate, 2nd course: meat and veggies, 3rd course: fruit and desert, 4th course: cheese, basically every meal. You get bread during every course but bread is never the course, plus you are hungry at the beginning of the meal and less so at the end, so tend to eat everything but not too much of the good stuff :)) Plus French people (again generally) really care about where they food came from (they will happily pay more for something produced in France).

I feel more that eating this way is the way we are supposed to eat and adding in all that grain and processed crap is the weird thing to do. I must say I completely changed my mind about this in the past few weeks.

Anyway always  interested in everyones perspective so thanks for replying!

Bob W

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2942
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Missouri
  • Live on minimum wage, earn on maximum
Re: Primal?
« Reply #48 on: July 23, 2015, 09:34:21 AM »
Breakfast this morning -- 2 egg omelet with ham, lots of mushrooms and cheese cooked in butter.  Warm tea to drink.   

Doesn't sound too odd does it?

Some in the paleo/primal group may suggest skipping the cheese and I typically have been.  But hey the heart wants what the heart wants and I've never really noted any lactose issues.   Lunch will be tomatoes, cucumbers, onions, green peppers with some chicken and homemade bacon bits liberally covered in an olive oil vinaigrette.

Again not too odd.   

I get the impression that some folks think people eating primal are hunting wild bore or eating road kill.    Or not getting enough veggies or eating too much protein.   

(remember that I am going Keto paleo for weight lose purposes and it is working nicely)

jordanread

  • Guest
Re: Primal?
« Reply #49 on: July 23, 2015, 01:08:02 PM »
Breakfast this morning -- 2 egg omelet with ham, lots of mushrooms and cheese cooked in butter.  Warm tea to drink.   

Doesn't sound too odd does it?

Some in the paleo/primal group may suggest skipping the cheese and I typically have been.  But hey the heart wants what the heart wants and I've never really noted any lactose issues.   Lunch will be tomatoes, cucumbers, onions, green peppers with some chicken and homemade bacon bits liberally covered in an olive oil vinaigrette.

Again not too odd.   

I get the impression that some folks think people eating primal are hunting wild bore or eating road kill.    Or not getting enough veggies or eating too much protein.   

(remember that I am going Keto paleo for weight lose purposes and it is working nicely)

I'd love to hunt wild boar (never done that as of yet, nor hunting in general). However, I totally thought that you were anti-primal/paleo. Glad to hear it is working out for you. And I think that's the thing. I never looked into diets, or lifestyle changes, or anything until this one. For me it was all about taking a more measured approach as to what works for me vs. what doesn't. I think that is what everyone so far means. I know from both my research and the smart people involved in the concept of all of this, that we aren't eating exactly what our ancestors ate. So here is my take on all of it:


Getting caught up on the words is an incredible mistake for those who want to make any type of change in their life. As awesome as it has been for me, the actual title of this thread is "Primal?". That, along with paleo and the like brings the focus to the verbiage. This makes people truly angry for some reason (I don't care what your reasons are if you are one of those, so stop making this thread about that, as opposed to a method of thinking about what you eat). Whether or not what is being done by someone other than you is 'right' is irrelevant. How does that help the thread, or other people? So how about we stop all of that? Let's just move forward and talk about what makes us feel good. If you don't feel good, maybe just move forward with the suggestions that have been given, or not. That is what we are all about here. On occassion, (and even I have been guilty of this), we will do our best to help you, but it's not a thing we focus on here. Welcome to the forums! Make sure that you are making yourself feel good (unless you are a douchebag, in which case go fuck yourself and die...we don't need you here).

Enjoy, and if you are all caught up on the Primal and Paleo name, take a look at what priorities you have, and go on from there.