The Paleo Diet

Discussion in 'Health and Fitness' started by Gizmo Dynamo, Nov 6, 2013.

  1. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    what i was trying to say is that people inadvertently do two things at the same time when they switch to paleo, confusing the results.

    when i was losing weight for a bjj competition recently, i kept it at about 1200 calories/day net. i did this for about a month. i typically now shoot for 1700 per day net, which for my size is about 70-80% of a general caloric goal based on the research i found. but because of what i eat, i generally feel satiated and have enough energy for my day (to your point). i do bjj 3-4 times per week and usually do a hard calisthenics session and a run every week too.

    i don't eat highly processed carbs (white flour and white rice products for instance) very often, instead go for lots of and a variety of veggies, fruit, nuts and proteins, some fat (like olive oil generally) and with only sparse dairy (like yogurt) . in a sense, i eat a mostly paleo diet, but i do also eat legumes which i think are a paleo no-no. (correct me if i'm wrong) i've never been a soda drinker. probably have 2-3 drinks of alcohol each month.

    ok, so i'm rambling...to answer your question....

    i think people probably go around or under 1500 calories per day when they go paleo, by accident. which is why it's unsustainable. when i was dropping weight for my bjj comp., i was miserable. but i was doing it for a purpose and i knew there was an ending. i wasn't worried that i'd go crazy after it was over because i generally feel pretty good with my aforementioned 1700ish calorie per day diet.
     
  2. righty

    righty Valued Member

    I don't really think that is a fair question. A caloric deficit is simply eating less energy than is required to maintain current body mass. How much caloric deficit people tend to eat when switching to 'paleo' is anyone's guess especially as so few people making the switch will be tracking their intake before and after.

    The restrictions of the paleo diet mean that a lot of people on a typical western style diet will cut out a large part of their carbohydrate intake and replace it with more satiating proteins sources. So if someone losing weight when switching it's impossible to truly separate any weight lost as a result of the 'paleoness' or simply a reduction in energy intake.


    I'm not going to be pretend to be an expert on this topic but from what I have read the evidence supporting longevity especially in humans as a result of caloric restriction is far from 'very strong'.
     
  3. micmacimus

    micmacimus Valued Member

    I'd beg to differ: "there is no credible evidence that GMOs pose any unique threat to the environment or the public’s health"

    From
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonenti...afe-to-eat-and-environmentally-sustainable/2/

    When you're looking for a specific effect, like increased disease, DNA 'corruption' or environmental degradation, and don't find any evidence of that effect, it isn't "unproven effect", it's pretty good evidence that this thing isn't happening.
     
  4. micmacimus

    micmacimus Valued Member

    Ahh wow, I hadn't even seen Gambit's comment. I'm off to roll now, but suffice to say, when I'm done being choked, there's plenty there to keep me up to the wee hours.
     
  5. Oldi

    Oldi Valued Member

    This from the New England Journal of Medicine gives an indication of the natural calorie restriction that occurs through limiting carbs. Weight Loss with a Low-Carb, Mediterranean or Low-Fat Diet. A useful interpretation of the study is here, by Tom Venuto.

    I am undecided on GMOs, but am inclined to think they are safe and indeed necessary having read the links contained in this article GM Foods: They're Safe.
     
  6. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    In term of long term impact we cannot say because the time scale in relative terms is so short with sone of the foodstuffs - hence "unproven". That is the absolute BEST case against GMO that the organic mafia can come up with....and it is pretty weak
     
  7. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    i think the term "organic mafia" is a bit strong.

    look, i get where you're coming from. let's face it, everything we eat has been genetically modified because of humans adopting agriculture.

    lots more research needs to be done to really make a case against the current crop of what's being termed gmo. but i don't think it's wrong to raise the question. but when the question is raised, people get industry-funded "research" that says everything is ok. maybe it is, but we don't really know...yet.
     
  8. John R. Gambit

    John R. Gambit The 'Rona Wrangler

    It depends on the size of the person and their activity level, but 1500 isn't typically a dangerous calorie dip. When you are down in the 1200 range for too long, that can be dangerous pretty quickly. Being in the 1500-1700 (depending on size/activity level) long-term and leading a fairly active lifestyle isn't as unsustainable as some people believe. It does mean you don't have the luxury of wasting any calories though, and you hafta give yourself very sparing cheat days. I actually feel better living on fewer calories than I do living on recommended calorie intake, assuming the calories are healthy. And I mean substantially better.

    Why is it an unfair question to ask someone who seems to know a bit about the diet how far many people probably dip into the lower calorie range on said diet?

    I agree. And I didn't state otherwise. You may wanna reread what I wrote. There were 0 studies on CRDing in humans when I was in school but there were several animal studies on several species and all of them increased median lifespan. You can't easily study median lifespan changes in any organism that lives as long as humans do. That is an intrinsically far more complicated and long-term study. What there were a lot of for humans were resveratrol studies, but they discovered that resveratrol wasn't bioactive without a complimentary compound, and even then I'm sure it's far from perfectly mimicking the CRD. I have no idea where the research went after I left school.

    The point of all of this: 70% of a nutrient rich diet, even for a slender person, might actually be a very healthy diet. While there were no formal studies for CRDing in humans when I studied it, there were video interviews showcasing very fit people using the diet who were advanced yogis and marathon runners.

    Is there some new research on CRD in humans I'm unaware of?

    And are you also stating that all those animal studies on increased median lifespan in non-humans were flawed? If so, do you have a source for that?

    The Low-fat and Mediterranean diet participants in that study were at 1800 calories for men, and 1500 for women. (They didn't specify any calorie restrictions for the Low Carb dieters.) That is a sustainable long-term diet for most people, unless they are exceptionally large or active.
     
  9. John R. Gambit

    John R. Gambit The 'Rona Wrangler

    Actually, the increased prevalence of several diseases in short lifespan livestock fed GMO crops is the best case against GMO from those wacky inorganic mafia folks. And of course those silly 41 sources I posted earlier, the majority of which are academic journal articles, a few of which attribute GMO consumption to increased disease prevalence in humans too. And of course the fact that the FDA's own scientists wanted far more careful regulation and studying of GMO crops and were ignored. It's actually kind of a long list, but suffice it to say that is a very inaccurate misrepresentation of the counter-argument to your position.

    I haven't had a chance to carefully read over each source yet, but seriously, go here and read through their sources and then try to repeat what you just stated with a straight face.
     
  10. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

  11. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    I'm not going to go through all of those sources, because frankly, science wont determine the outcome of this debate, tabloid sensationalism will.

    However, looking at just one claim in that article (literally the first one I decided to check)

    "A skin ***** allergy test shows that some people react to GM soy, but not to wild natural soy"

    with the following paper as the reference: Yum, Hye-Yung, et al. "Genetically modified and wild soybeans: an immunologic comparison." Allergy and Asthma Proceedings. Vol. 26. No. 3. OceanSide Publications, Inc, 2005.

    And from the abstract of that paper:
    "The skin test results of 49 patients showed 13 positive results to wild soybeans and 8 positive results to GMO soybeans. One patient had a positive skin test result to GMO soybeans only"

    Now, if I remember the way that numbers work, we can reword that statement as follows

    "Patients are almost 40% less likely to experience an allergic reaction when exposed to GMO soybeans, as opposed to wild soybeans"

    And yet, that article you insist will prove us wrong implies the exact opposite result and let's face it, that isn't a mistake, it's a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the evidence to fit a conclusion the author had when they started to write the article.

    So frankly, screw that article because I can no longer believe a single claim it makes without chasing down every reference - making the article itself utterly useless.
     
  12. Oldi

    Oldi Valued Member

    I'm not sure I understand the point you are making, what is a sustainable diet? The low-carb diet? The point of posting that study was in answer to your question of what effect low-carb naturally has on calorie intake. Those eating low-carb on this study tended towards the calorie intakes seen on the restricted diets. The study also showed however that calorie restriction works just as well as low carb, which for me is the "take-home".
     
  13. John R. Gambit

    John R. Gambit The 'Rona Wrangler

    Read through the comments section of that Forbes article (I read every one). He states repeatedly that there is not a single academic source linked to any harm caused by GMO crops. He also repeatedly condescends the scientific education of those who replied to his article (some were hostile and deserved it though).

    It turns out Jon Entine, the author of the Forbes article and the director of Genetic Literacy Project Hannibal linked has zero scientific training.

    He repeatedly states that there is scientific consensus from all reputable scientific organizations that GMO is well-researched and entirely safe.

    You can view the 230 signatories (everyone seems to be a PhD or MD) here:

    http://www.ensser.org/fileadmin/user_upload/131106_signatories_as_of_131030_lv.pdf
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2013
  14. John R. Gambit

    John R. Gambit The 'Rona Wrangler

    Well that's what I get for citing a source I hadn't carefully run down yet. That particular group you are referring to did further studies which indicated that the soy allergy incidence rates were identical between GMO and non-GMO study groups. It's pretty sad when people feel compelled to make arguments using those sort of deceptive tactics which ultimately only weaken their purpose long-term. When I get a little time, I'll go back over those sources and see if there were other obvious intentional misrepresentations of data or if that was the only one.

    There are numerous other sites listing several articles citing GMO dangers though. Unfortunately this site does not let me view their sources unless I have a paid subscription, but perhaps another MAPer will be familiar with some of these studies referenced.

     
  15. easyorganiclife

    easyorganiclife New Member

    Seems to be that most people are against diets as such as I am to but having said that some of the more sensible diets can be very handy as a kick start to any weight loss or healthy living change of life you want to try. The paleo diet is certainly one of the better ones I have seen on the market but it really comes down to what you want to try I guess.

    On the same principle I have been growing my own organic veges (MAP has rules about advertising, please review them) for a while now and really find that this is a great way to know exactly what you are getting in your food. Trust me its not that hard and can be lots of fun even especially if you have kids and get them on board.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2013
  16. jamesforest

    jamesforest New Member

    Logically and biblically, possibly

    Haven't tried it, but according to what I read so far, cavemen's diet is not the only thing that contributes to their mortality rate, the least of the cavemen probably ran way more than an average modern person have.

    Plus there were no pills during those times, no advanced medications, surgeries and medical advances like we do, so diseases, bacteria and birth methods could also contribute to their mortality rate.

    In other words, a right balance of diet and exercise is the key I think.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013

Share This Page