# Anyone done the Whole9 30 day challenge (Paleo diet)? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 5, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836 "2011-05-05T14:46:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Renee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/renee/32/287_2.png) [@Renee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renee)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/121 "2011-10-04T22:07:26Z")
I don’t think it’s harder at all. I’m pretty sure I eat more calories on Paleo than I did before. Everyone keeps saying lean meat, but most people who consider themselves paleo eat very high fat (I’m at about 65% of calories from fat) and deliberately eat fattier cuts of meat than most people I know. Before, when I was chubby, I ate skinless chicken breasts (now I prefer skin-on thighs), carefully trimmed all the fat off my meat before I ate it (lots of fatty steaks now), and hardly ever ate bacon (a staple now, including cooking frequently with bacon fat). I had milk in my coffee instead of the heavy cream I take now. I do eat an avocado most days, and a handful or two of nuts, and cheese. And I still eat potatoes or rice almost every day. I’d say on average I get about 3-500 more calories a day on this diet than I did when I was constantly watching my weight. I’m probably going to regret posting this, but: (possibly nsfw) I went from [this](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-TUWU-lj8E3g/TeUDrZsn5qI/AAAAAAAAJhg/EUkE98lMl8Q/s576/IMG_3237.JPG) to [this](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8JFFWb9iHjA/TeUDrru7KWI/AAAAAAAAJhk/mP-LYmN8scY/s576/IMG_4642.JPG) in 10 weeks. It was easy, and I’ve had no trouble at all maintaining that for the past several months. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2011, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/122 "2011-10-04T22:44:13Z")
Good job! Although I think your definition of chubby is pretty liberal… ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/123 "2011-10-04T23:11:38Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Paleo definitely means eating non-starchy vegetables and animal protein, not eating cereal grains, sugar and highly processed foods. What exactly are “processed foods” and how do they differ from “highly processed foods”? Is it sort of like that definition of pornography - you know it when you see it (or taste it)? Those “Paleo Gurus” who preach against processed foods, for example. As to meat, is anything dried/smoked/cured/salted/pickled forbidden? Is it OK if you do that yourself “organically”, but forbidden when you buy it off the shelf? Are the calories handled differently by the body according to where it comes from? If you’re frying that nice fatty pork chop (or chicken wings) in lard, isn’t that a processed food? Accurately speaking, isn’t any meat not served raw “processed”? And what exactly is “primal” about dark chocolate and high fat desserts? All those different flavors of Paleo eating seem to boil down to the belief that if one declares a few categories of food off limits, one can indulge in all sorts of previously forbidden stuff while being “natural”, losing weight and suffering no short or long-term health consequences. In the absence of convincing evidence that this is an effective and safe approach to diet (and based on what we know about gorging on highly fatty foods), it sounds dangerously delusional to me. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/124 "2011-10-05T00:24:55Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > What exactly are “processed foods” and how do they differ from “highly processed foods”? > > Those “Paleo Gurus” who preach against processed foods, for example. As to meat, is anything dried/smoked/cured/salted/pickled forbidden? Is it OK if you do that yourself “organically”, but forbidden when you buy it off the shelf? Are the calories handled differently by the body according to where it comes from? > > Accurately speaking, isn’t any meat not served raw “processed”? Of course anything that isn’t run-it-down-and-rip-its-throat-out-then-drink-the-blood is technically processing, hence “highly” processed, which different gurus define slightly differently (of course!). It isn’t random, however, there are specific reasons for rejecting various types of processing.Follow the links, do some google, you’ll be drowning in information. A loose guideline to start from is to consider how recognizable the processed food is compared to the natural ingredients that went into it. When it comes to processed oils, it’s a huge topic from every angle, the most simplistic being the fact that it takes heavy industrial processing to extract oil from something like corn, which in its natural state is not remotely oily. If we hadn’t grown up with it, the idea of corn as a source of oil would be laughable. But olives, avocados, nuts and olives are all very oily in their unprocessed, natural states, so isolating the oil isn’t that big a leap. > [@](#): > > And what exactly is “primal” about dark chocolate and high fat desserts? Absolutely nothing that I can see, but that’s what one of the leading gurus includes in his plan, strangely enough. Most of them are down with coffee, too, which I find remarkable, but it goes to show you the variety of viewpoints. > [@](#): > > All those different flavors of Paleo eating seem to boil down to the belief that if one declares a few categories of food off limits, one can indulge in all sorts of previously forbidden stuff while being “natural”, losing weight and suffering no short or long-term health consequences. > > In the absence of convincing evidence that this is an effective and safe approach to diet (and based on what we know about gorging on highly fatty foods), it sounds dangerously delusional to me. That absence is personal to you, because there’s copious amounts of evidence available. But you obviously have, at best, only the vaguest notion of what it’s all about, so of course it makes no sense to you. Rarely do things we know almost nothing about make any sense to us. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/125 "2011-10-05T01:07:04Z")
Good starting place, with lots of great links: [Eat Like a Predator](http://www.gnolls.org/1141/eat-like-a-predator-not-like-prey-paleo-in-six-easy-steps-a-motivational-guide/) If you just can’t shake the idea that Fat is Bad, [try this.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exi7O1li_wA) ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/126 "2011-10-05T01:39:48Z")
**Stoid** you are correct that so-called “Paleo gurus” disagree about how to use the word Paleo as a means of hawking their own books and websites. Among academics who study Paleolithic nutrition there is not the same sort of debate about what early humans actually ate. (Loren Cordain actually is one of those academics.) Oh there are debates, but no academician argues that early humans ate lard from corn fed cows or butter. None argue with the fact that the meat eaten was some combination of game and aquatic species and that the fatty acid composition would have been high in MUFAs, PUFAs (especially omega-3’s) and low in other saturated fats especially in comparison to the amount of protein eaten. None argue that it was not, relative to today’s diet, very low salt as well. How much was game and how much was aquatic based? Well our line of humans seemed to exploit [fresh water aquatic resouces](http://www.pnas.org/content/98/11/6528.short) to a large degree while the Neandertal line was more exclusively game focused. (Note aquatic fowl, fresh water fish, and molluscs, are all fairly low fat and even fatty ones are low in saturated fat and high in MUFAs.) How much of the diet was plant-based in addition to those animal sources is still debated. It is known, from isotope data, that a majority was animal-based, but how big that majority was is still questioned [by some](http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=u386383180288602&size=largest). Clearly it varied by location and by time. Another set of open questions are [how diverse](http://www.pnas.org/content/98/11/6528.short) the diet was, when it became more diverse, and when grains became a significant part of the diet. It seems [it may have been earlier than many have previously believed.](http://www.pnas.org/content/101/26/9551.short) > [@](#): > > a collection of \>90,000 plant remains, recently recovered from the Stone Age site Ohalo II (23,000 B.P.), Israel, offers insights into the plant foods of the late Upper Paleolithic. The staple foods of this assemblage were wild grasses, pushing back the dietary shift to grains some 10,000 years earlier than previously recognized. Besides the cereals (wild wheat and barley), small-grained grasses made up a large component of the assemblage, indicating that the BSR in the Levant was even broader than originally conceived, encompassing what would have been low-ranked plant foods. Over the next 15,000 years small-grained grasses were gradually replaced by the cereals and ultimately disappeared from the Levantine diet. Again, there is no debate among the experts that the real Paleolithic diet was not high in saturated fat or salt, and was high in MUFA, PUFA, omega 3’s, etc. You linked to a series of pieces making the cogent argument that those wishing to replicate a “Paleolithic diet” should focus on functionally reproducing the nutritional composition of that diet with real foods more commonly accessible today. If that … Paleo-inspired nutrition … is the someone’s goal (whatever their reason) then the diet to be replicated is low in saturated fat, low in salt, and high in MUFA/PUFA/omega 3’s, while being relatively quite high in complete protein, high in fiber and low in simple carbs. Fats not bad, but saturated fat more than MUFA/PUFA/omega 3? … minimally not at all “eating Paleo.” ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/127 "2011-10-05T01:53:00Z")
[Another example](http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS65_01%2FS0029665106000012a.pdf&code=ac52f917540c824ab810d4d41529542f) of what the actual experts have concluded the ancestral diet consisted of: > [@](#): > > The best available estimates suggest that those ancestors obtained about 35 % of their dietary energy from fats, 35 % from carbohydrates and 30 % from protein. Saturated fats contributed approximately 7.5 % total energy and harmful trans-fatty acids contributed negligible amounts. Polyunsaturated fat intake was high, with n-6:n-3 approaching 2 :1 (v. 10 :1 today). Cholesterol consumption was substantial, perhaps 480 mg/d. Carbohydrate came from uncultivated fruits and vegetables, approximately 50 % energy intake as compared with the present level of 16 % energy intake for Americans. High fruit and vegetable intake and minimal grain and dairy consumption made ancestral diets base-yielding, unlike today’s acid-producing pattern. Honey comprised 2–3% energy intake as compared with the 15 % added sugars contribute currently. Fibre consumption was high, perhaps 100 g/d, but phytate content was minimal. Vitamin, mineral and (probably) phytochemical intake was typically 1.5 to eight times that of today except for that of Na, generally \<1000 mg/d, i.e. much less than that of K. Clearly some debate about actual amounts but nothing, _nothing_, that suggests saturated fat intake of earlier humans was anything but much lower than the typical Western diet and nothing that is consistent with a diet that would increase saturated fats. ---
**Author:** ![misterW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@misterW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/misterW)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/128 "2011-10-05T02:42:08Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > 160 grams of white boiled rice is a cup, and is about 200 calories. > > 160 grams of boiled potato is about 260 calories > > 160 grams of lean top sirloin is 300 calories > > 160 grams of chuck is 536 calories > > 160 grams of brisket is 655 calories > > 160 grams of macadamias is 1,160 calories > > To get the same 200 calories as you get from the rice takes all of 10 macadamia nuts. I don’t know about you, but 10 macadamia nuts are nothing. > > That is what is meant by caloric density. > The foods you give up have a lower-to-MUCH MUCH MUCH lower caloric density than the foods you embrace, so saying that it’s harder to get the calories makes no sense. > > Your meat will only be leaner if you choose to make it so, as I’ve just spent a lot of time and energy explaining. And if you’re concerned about getting ENOUGH calories, vs. too many, why in the world would you choose to eat very lean meat? (I’ve also spent a lot of energy and time linking to all the research that shows that the knee-jerk belief that fat, particularly animal fat, is unhealthy is wrong.) > > And I like my veges with fat, the same way I like my rice and pasta. > > I must admit _what_ is harder? That it’s harder to eat 2000 calories when you remove rice and pasta from your menu? I’ve just shown you that that makes no sense. > > In order for me to “admit” that, you’d have to be clear about why you are saying it, which you really haven’t been. > > The only way in which I believe it is “harder” is this: b **y avoiding simple sugars and starches that jack your blood sugar and mess with your insulin levels, you naturally curb your appetite.** When you are eating lots of sugar and starch, your body keeps telling you to go back for more even when you’ve already had plenty. So yes, when your body chemistry is screwed up and is screaming at you that you must continue eating all day long, it is easier to consume lots of food and therefore lots of calories. All right, I think it is pretty clear we are talking about different things here. When I say paleo diet, I’m talking about a diet based on lean meat (like venison) and a variety of vegetables, mostly eaten raw. That is obviously not what you are talking about. I agree that one should have no problems getting enough calories if their diet consists of fatty meat, with a side helping of avocados, nuts, and deep fried goodies. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/129 "2011-10-05T05:08:49Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Oh there are debates, but no academician argues that early humans ate lard from corn fed cows or butter. Actually, I haven’t noticed _anyone at all_ making that argument. > [@](#): > > None argue with the fact that the meat eaten was some combination of game and aquatic species Again, haven’t seen anyone arguing against that. > [@](#): > > None argue that it was not, relative to today’s diet, very low salt as well. Not so fast. “relative to today’s diet”, yes. But I was reading some very interesting arguments among the scientists about salt, who ate it, the effect it has. Since that wasn’t the focus, I didn’t bookmark it, but I’ll try to find it. This, however, you are dead wrong about: > [@](#): > > and that the fatty acid composition would have been high in MUFAs, PUFAs (especially omega-3’s) and low in other saturated fats especially in comparison to the amount of protein eaten. > [@](#): > > Again, there is no debate among the experts that the real Paleolithic diet was not high in saturated fat or salt, and was high in MUFA, PUFA, omega 3’s, etc. Again, you are mistaken. And I’ve already provided the cite that completely dismantles the argument from top to bottom, with plenty of references to the experts doing the arguing. Which makes it even stranger that you would assert this. [And](http://www.scdiet.org/7archives/lutz/paleo2.html) there are [lots](http://chriskresser.com/is-paleo-even-paleo-and-does-it-even-matter) more [you](http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7930322&fulltextType=RV&fileId=S0007114510004010) can [pretend](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/01/tokelau-island-migrant-study-background.html) [don’t](http://www.spacedoc.com/saturated_fat_is_good_for_you_3) [exist](http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract) [as](http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400919/Rethinking-Saturated-Fat.html) [well](http://www.spacedoc.com/saturated_fat_is_good_for_you_1). ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/130 "2011-10-05T12:10:34Z")
Early modern humans ate a diet high in _game_ and, perhaps more so, in _aquatic species_. A diet high in game and aquatic species is low in saturated fat and high in MUFA/PUFA/omega 3’s at all fat percent of calories intake levels, even among those who chew on whale blubber, caribou fat, and drink rendered seal fat. (Game meat and aquatic species fat and modern cow fat aint the same fat.) Cites for that amply provided already. Therefore early modern humans ate a diet relatively low in saturated fat and high in MUFA/PUFA/omega 3’s. What part of that argument do you think you have “dismantled” and where? What experts on what paleolithic people do you think you have cited that say otherwise? (Hint, a diet guru saying eating fat is paleo is not such a cite. Neither is Fallon such an expert.) If you think that early humans ate a lot of saturated fat without eating lots of MUFA/PUFA/omega 3’s, then what sources (other than coconuts for some populations, and coconut’s with their medium chain triglycerides, is also a very different fat than modern animal fat) do you think they were eating them in? Really this discussion is beyond absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/131 "2011-10-05T12:30:03Z")
It’s a diet, it’s not a historical reenactment. And it works. I’ve been eating the Mark Sisson version posted above since January, and I’ve never felt better. Yeah, I’m not eating whale blubber, but I do my best to eat meat from pastured animals who aren’t given soy or grain for feed. My overall health has improved greatly. Really, the important thing is not what kind of meat you’re eating. It’s getting enough vegetable matter and avoiding grains and legumes. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/132 "2011-10-05T16:45:25Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > What part of that argument do you think you have “dismantled” and where? You’re right, I mixed up the original links! [Try this.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/A%20diet%20high%20in%20game%20and%20aquatic%20species%20is%20low%20in%20saturated%20fat%20and%20high%20in%20MUFA/PUFA/omega%203%27s%20at%20all%20fat%20percent%20of%20calories%20intake%20levels,%20even%20among%20those%20who%20chew%20on%20whale%20blubber,%20caribou%20fat,%20and%20drink%20rendered%20seal%20fat.%20%28Game%20meat%20and%20aquatic%20species%20fat%20and%20modern%20cow%20fat%20aint%20the%20same%20fat.%29%20Cites%20for%20that%20amply%20provided%20already.%20%20Therefore%20early%20modern%20humans%20ate%20a%20diet%20relatively%20low%20in%20saturated%20fat%20and%20high%20in%20MUFA/PUFA/omega%203%27s.) (Hint: in order to evaluate cites, you need to _read_ them, and more importantly _read the cites they give_. ) > [@](#): > > If you think that early humans ate a lot of saturated fat without eating lots of MUFA/PUFA/omega 3’s, You’re a bit of a moving target. First you claimed that the real paleo peoples had diets low in saturated fat. Now you’re saying that it was high in saturated fat, but it wasn’t alone. Why not stop trying to defend your position and consider taking in the information instead? Because there is a an awful lot of it, and your absolute certainty is what is absurd, since “the experts” are not anywhere near as certain as you are. How do you think we add to our information and understanding to begin with, if not by recognizing that when it comes to the things which require speculation and guesswork, certainty is impossible and we have to continue to consider all the information? We are talking about the eating habits of people thousands of years ago, and you continue to announce the they ate x or y and the chemical composition of same as though you had personally prepared the meals. It’s silly, and you can be sure that your experts would never do the same. At the end of the day Dseid, this isn’t some big ego trip, or shouldn’t be. These things actually matter. Do yourself a big favor, and watch [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exi7O1li_wA). The whole thing (it’s in multiple parts). Don’t bother denigrating it to me or telling me how you don’t have time because you already know everything there is to know. You claim to be interested in science, and evidently you have an interest in the science of nutrition. If that’s so, you need to watch it. All of it. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/133 "2011-10-05T21:08:37Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > A loose guideline to start from is to consider how recognizable the processed food is compared to the natural ingredients that went into it. > > When it comes to processed oils, it’s a huge topic from every angle, the most simplistic being the fact that it takes heavy industrial processing to extract oil from something like corn, which in its natural state is not remotely oily. If we hadn’t grown up with it, the idea of corn as a source of oil would be laughable. But olives, avocados, nuts and olives are all very oily in their unprocessed, natural states, so isolating the oil isn’t that big a leap. What does the initial appearance of the vegetable/fruit or what steps are taken to extract the oil have to do with how healthy the final product is to consume? You’re right, that’s a loose (in fact, a very loose) guideline. Coconut oil (which to some I suppose appears “naturally” oily) is also very high in saturated fat, and has still not been established by experts in cardiovascular medicine and nutrition to be safe as a regular cooking oil. On the other hand, canola oil (which is on the hit list of a number of your “paleo diet” proponents) is supposed to be unnatural and dangerous but actually [is a good choice](http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/canola-oil/AN01281) for healthy food preparation. Your post does however illustrate another bogus appeal of “paleo” diets - that they’re somehow more “natural” than typical modern balanced, healthy diets and that “natural” equates to safer and more desirable. Lard and coconut oil are “natural”, but people are kidding themselves if they believe that those are healthy when consumed in large quantities. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/134 "2011-10-05T22:42:38Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > saturated fat, and has still not been established by experts in cardiovascular medicine and nutrition to be safe as a regular cooking oil. On the other hand, canola oil (which is on the hit list of a number of your “paleo diet” proponents) is supposed to be unnatural and dangerous but actually [is a good choice](http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/canola-oil/AN01281) for healthy food preparation.. What I said to Dseid goes doubel for you. (Although the link on the post to him was screwy, the link on the post to you worked perfectly. [Here it is again.)](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exi7O1li_wA) Here is the scientfic fact: Not only has saturated fat been established by experts and research studies and controlled studies and observational studies to be _ **far more safe** _ than “regular cooking oil” many times over… (go ahead, click the link, you can do it… go on…I know you can do it…)\*\*\* it was never shown to be unhealthy in the first place.\*\*\* Ever. Never. The evidence does not exist, and never did. The science does not exist, and never did. Every attempt to prove that saturated fat is unhealthy in any way at all has failed. All of them. You think I’m kidding? Go ahead. Click. Watch. LIsten. Pay attention. It won’t bite, I promise. (Multi-part, by the way) ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/135 "2011-10-05T23:15:18Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Not only has saturated fat been established by experts and research studies and controlled studies and observational studies to be far more safe than “regular cooking oil” many times over…it was never shown to be unhealthy in the first place. Your go-to authority is a stand-up comedian? If you’d like to summarize any published research he might utilize in support of the “eat lots of fatty meats and lard, it’s fine if you avoid carbs and processed foods” hypothesis, feel free. Meantime, [here’s](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21270379) what an expert panel said in a review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition earlier this year: _“Epidemiologic studies have shown a lower risk of (cardiovascular disease, CVD) with lower intakes of full-fat dairy products and fatty red meats and higher intakes of (polyunsaturated fatty acids, PUFAS) from vegetable fats, which is consistent with strong evidence that replacing (saturated fatty acids, SFAs) by PUFAs reduces the risk of CVD. The use of nonhydrogenated vegetable oils (including canola or olive oil rich in (monounsaturated fatty acids, MUFAs) decreases the CVD risk compared with animal fats… A healthy dietary pattern is primarily plant-based and low in SFAs, but can include lean meats and low-fat dairy products in small-to-modest amounts.”_ So, how does the **Stoid Lard Diet** fit in with those recommendations? ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/136 "2011-10-06T01:20:09Z")
How do you explain that the people who eat paleo improve their health? If you were correct, I should be dying of a heart attack at any minute. Instead, my health has gotten better in every way. And I’m not the only one who reports similar results. ---
**Author:** ![Amasia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Amasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amasia)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/137 "2011-10-06T01:21:20Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Here is the scientfic fact: Not only has saturated fat been established by experts and research studies and controlled studies and observational studies to be _ **far more safe** _ than “regular cooking oil” many times over… (go ahead, click the link, you can do it… go on…I know you can do it…)\*\*\* it was never shown to be unhealthy in the first place.\*\*\* Ever. Never. The evidence does not exist, and never did. The science does not exist, and never did. Every attempt to prove that saturated fat is unhealthy in any way at all has failed. All of them. What you are saying is at worst unnecessarily dangerous to people’s health and at best, a gross manipulation of terms used in a scientific context to fit their common, lay meaning. Saturated fats are consistently shown to be unhealthy, or at very least, strongly correlated with poorer health outcomes. For instance, a metanalysis of randomized, controlled trials demonstrates an increased correlation between saturated fats and MI. [Study here.](Study here.) In another instance, saturated fat consumption, controlling for confounders, is linked with higher weight. [Study here.](Study here.) You may personally find that saturated fats are helpful for weight control or improving your health, but please do not perpetuate your opinion as scientific fact, especially on something as serious as health. **To claim that saturated fats have never been demonstrated to be unhealthy is incorrect.** ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/138 "2011-10-06T03:17:55Z")
**Stoid** , no the 14 minute youtube video is not a cite that shows that modern grain fed beef has a similar fatty acid profile to what Paleolithic peoples ate. For the last time, the varied range of Paleolithic diets is fairly well established. Again, as a general principle lots of game (in general including marrow, brain, and other organ meats) and aquatics and some degree of plant protein and oils too depending on the exact group and the exact time. All combinations of those foods result in a very different fatty acid profile than a diet high in modern grain fed beef. Lard, fat from modern grain fed beef, has a very different profile, one higher in saturated fat and much lower in MUFA/PUFA/omega 3s. Some more studies that show how well established that simple fact that you keep "lala can’t hear you"ing over is: [Wild](http://www.sawellnesscenter.com/nutrition/Diet/Final%20Fatty%20Acid%20PDF.pdf) animals, organ and marrow inclusive, is relatively very high in MUFA/PUFA/omega 3, while being relatively low in saturated fats. > [@](#): > > there has been increasing recognition that the fatty acid composition of lipids in wild animal tissues may provide important insight into the composition and range of dietary fats to which humans are genetically adapted … Comparisons of wild ruminant and cattle muscle tissue show that the percentage of PUFA in wild ruminants is substantially higher than that in domesticated animals … muscle contained the highest percentage of total PUFA … \*\*high relative percentages of PUFA are characteristic of all wild ruminant muscle \*\*tissue, whereas the relative percentage of PUFA in the muscle tissue of pasture-fed steers and grain-fed steers is considerably lower than that found in wild ruminants and results in a characteristically low ratio of P/S … **Grain-fed beef contains 2 – 3 times more absolute saturated fat and 3 – 4 times less n-3 PUFA than does game meat**. … In addition to its greater total fat content, **grain-fed beef differs significantly from wild ruminant muscle in its lower content of n-3 PUFA** (both 18:3 n-3 and n-3 long-chain PUFA). … Although the brain and marrow of both wild and domestic ruminants are infrequently eaten in modern, Westernized societies, there is substantial evidence from ethnographic observations in hunter-gatherers (Defleur et al, 1999; Harako, 1981; McArthur, 1960; Silberbauer, 1981; Stefansson, 1960) and from the ancestral, human fossil record (Binford, 1984; Bunn, 1986; Bunn & Kroll, 1986; Defleur et al, 1999; Marean & Assefa, 1999; Speth, 1983; Stiner, 1991; Stringer & Gamble, 1993) that these items were a preferred food that was frequently consumed. The present data shows that MUFA was the predominant FA in elk (67.0% of total FA), deer (65.9% of total FA) and antelope (59.3% of total FA) marrow. Additionally, marrow maintained a moderate P=S ranging from 0.24 to 0.33 while yielding a ratio of n-6=n-3 ranging from 2.24 to 2.88 … **wild ruminant marrow represents a high MUFA food source available throughout the year that would have comprised a substantial percentage of the diet of ancestral humans** (Binford, 1984; Bunn, 1986; Bunn & Kroll, 1986, 1988; Speth, 1983; Stiner, 1991; Stringer & Gamble, 1993). … (All bolding mine.) [Looking at the complete diet as well, much more PUFA and much more omega 3.](http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Long%20chain%20fatty%20acids.pdf) Putting it [simply](http://www.springerlink.com/content/m85103531592477k/): > [@](#): > > • Human physiology during evolution would have been adapted to the nature of wild foods, yet there is a striking qualitative and quantitative difference between the fat in wild or extensive meat consumption compared to what we eat today. > • The total proportion of ω-3 has fallen 10-fold from a range of 12–16% of the fatty acids in wild bovids to 1.0–2.6% in currently sold meat. > • The intensively reared animal carcass ratio is \>1 often with between four and nine times the calories coming from fat compared to protein so that a chicken thigh eaten today provides the consumer with 100 more calories from fat than it did in the 1970s. > • Most of the fat is of a saturated type and there is a discernable loss of ω-3 fatty acids No real debate. Wild meat is and was [low saturated fat and high in PUFA](http://iv.iiarjournals.org/content/25/2/197.abstract) relative to “domestic meats.” **Drain** , the problem is that “Paleo” as many of these nutrition marketeers use it, doesn’t mean shit, or rather means whatever crazy shit they want it to mean. People want to buy books that tell them they can eat their lard after all. I personally have little doubt that a diet that actually replicated the nutrition of pre-agricultural humans (call it that, or “ancestral”, or “early humanity”, or “Paleolithic” … you choose) would be a healthy diet. There is an accumulating body of work that shows the benefits of high MUFA (be it from animal or plant sources), more omega 3’s (especially EPA and DHA), and more PUFA, with relatively less saturated fat. Some good work that shows the benefit of replacing simple carbs with more complete protein (whatever its source). Not too many though can pull off diets high in game, game marrow, game organ meats, and varied aquatic species, and replacing that with modern domestic beef is not _at all_ replicating that ancestral diet. (Exclusively pastured beef much closer.) No matter how much **Stoid** claims her opinion and her “experts” (the people selling diet plan books) say it can be. Can a high saturated fat low carb diet work? A different question, and there is reasoned debate about that depending on how you define “works.” I appreciate the fact that there is data that in the short and moderate term it can lead to good results on BMI and on lipid profiles. I personally am not convinced it is a long term healthy approach but YMMV. So sure those various other diets, some being ignorantly packaged as “paleo” may “work” … as can a variety of other apparently mutually contradictory approaches, from vegan, to a variety of traditional Mediterranean diets, to just the basics of lean meats in moderation, a good amount of fish, especially fatty fish, lots of varied plant proteins including nuts and seeds, large amounts of various vegetables and fruits, moderate amounts of whole grains with lots of fiber, and a few cups of nonfat dairy a day. If those who “eat Paleo” have actually increased nut consumption, decreased simple carbs, increased PUFAs and MUFAs, and are eating some nutrient rich vegetables and fruits, then they are likely very much improving their health relative to a standard McDonalds style American diet. If they are morbidly obese and an Atkins style diet gets them to lose at least 5 to 10% of their weight, then (making the huge assumption that they can keep it off) they are likely greatly improving their health. I am happy for those who have improved their health with whatever diet they choose to get there. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/139 "2011-10-06T03:46:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Meantime, [here’s](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21270379) what an expert panel said in a review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition earlier this year: That’s the saddest thing I’ve ever seen… it’s exactly like Dseid’s sad little ["proof](http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000252)", offered earlier (and misrepresented by Dseid): 50 years into the lipid hypothesis science is finally starting to confess out loud that clinical trials fail to prove it, so the confused experts form a huddle over the disappointing trials, shuffle them around some more and decide that well, gosh, ummm… maybe saturated fat might not be quite as bad as we thought, we’re still not sure, we still have\*\*\* no evidence\*\*\* that it’s bad, but hey! If we switch some of it with polyunsaturated fat we think it might reduce heart disease by 2-3%…that’s something, isn’t it?? Do you really in your heart of hearts feel that your belief about saturated fat has been triumphantly vindicated by a paper that starts out admitting that the actual science keeps telling us we’re full of shit and we’re scrambling to validate ourselves? (“Current dietary recommendations advise reducing the intake of saturated fatty acids (SFAs) to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, but recent findings question the role of SFAs.”) then goes on to say exactly what the other study said: best we can say is that adding PUFA is good. And while I don’t know what you pulled that quote from, [other people](http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-views-saturated-fat-cardiovascular-disease.html) don’t seem to agree with your view of what can be learned from it, and provide some very interesting quotes from it: > [@](#): > > According to the experts, current evidence only suggests that substitution of SFA by [polyunsaturated fatty acids](http://www.physorg.com/tags/polyunsaturated+fatty+acids/) (PUFAs), but not carbohydrates, results in a lowering of total and LDL cholesterol.“However, even this conclusion isn’t the last word, as there is growing recognition that individual fatty acids within the PUFA category have different physiologic effects,” said Dr. Cindy Schweitzer, Technical Director, Global Dairy Platform, referring to a recent analysis published in the British Journal of Nutrition which _ **reported that substitution of certain PUFA for SFA and trans fatty acids increased risk of coronary heart disease** _ (Ramsden BJN 2010). > [@](#): > > When viewed in totality, _**the expert group concluded that the effect of a specific food on risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) cannot be determined on the basis of its SFA content alone**_ and outlined specific issues that need to be addressed in future research. From the study itself: > [@](#): > > Food-based recommendations are more practical for the general public than is nutrient-based dietary advice. However, the evidence linking individual foods or food patterns to CVD risk is more limited. The epidemiologic data provide strong evidence that a high intake of \*\* processed meat products\*\*, a major source of SFAs, is associated with an increased risk of CHD ([32](http://www.ajcn.org/content/93/4/684.full#ref-32)). There is no consistent evidence that a higher intake of dairy products is associated with CHD risk in epidemiologic studies\*\*\*\*\* ([34](http://www.ajcn.org/content/93/4/684.full#ref-34)), but data do support the beneficial effects of dairy products on type 2 diabetes risk ([34](http://www.ajcn.org/content/93/4/684.full#ref-34), [35](http://www.ajcn.org/content/93/4/684.full#ref-35)). However, intervention studies on the effect of dairy fat on the risk of CHD and diabetes are lacking; thus, the role of SFAs in dairy fat still needs to be investigated. **There is increasing evidence to support that the total matrix of a food is more important than just its fatty acid content when predicting the effect of a food on CHD risk** , eg, the effect of SFAs from cheese on blood lipids and CHD may be counterbalanced by the content of protein, calcium, or other components in cheese. In addition, the special fatty acid profile (rumenic acid, _trans_ vaccenic acid, and short-chain fatty acids) may modify the effect on CHD risk. Another example is dark chocolate, which has a high content of stearic acid, oleic acid, and polyphenols, and observational studies, mechanistic studies, and RCTs show that dark chocolate reduces risk factors of CVD. What a clear, unambiguous declaration that saturated fat has finally been conclusively shown to lead to heart disease! :rolleyes: How about [this](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20479151) study instead? > [@](#): > > Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus. These results highlight the need for better understanding of potential mechanisms of effects and for particular focus on processed meats for dietary and policy recommendations. Oh, never mind…they weren’t talking about SFA, just red meat vs. _processed_ meat. (Do you suppose that all the red meat that was not associated with heart disease was free of saturated fat?) Well, maybe the Food and Argriculture Organization of the United Nations has the evidence in the [\*Report of an Expert Consultation on Fats and Fatty Acids in Human Nutrition \*](http://www.fao.org/ag/humannutrition/nutrition/63162/en/)…let’s take a look: > [@](#): > > CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SATURATED FATTY ACIDS > (SFA) > > Based on coronary heart disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality data from > epidemiological studies and controlled clinical trials (using CHD events and death), it > was also agreed that: > • There is convincing evidence that replacing SFA with PUFA decreases the risk of CHD. > • There is probable evidence that replacing SFA with largely refined carbohydrates > **has no benefit on CHD, and may even increase the risk of CHD** and favour > metabolic syndrome development (Jakobsen et al., 2009). > • There is a possible positive relationship between SFA intake and increased risk of > diabetes. > • There is insufficient evidence relating to the effect on the risk of CHD in replacing > SFA with either MUFA or largely whole grain carbohydrates; however, based on > indirect lines of evidence this could result in a reduced risk of CHD. > • There is insufficient evidence that SFA affects the risk for alterations in indices > related to the components of the metabolic syndrome. > Based on cancer morbidity and mortality data, it was also agreed that: > • There is insufficient evidence for establishing any relationship of SFA consumption > with cancer. > Therefore, it is recommended that SFA should be replaced with PUFA (n-3 and n-6) > in the diet and the total intake of SFA not exceed 10%E. Wait… you mean the most they came up with was the same “swap out some SFA for PUFA to improve your cholesterol numbers a little and maybe (we think, we’re guessing) you’ll see a little bit less heart disease” TOO? Well, there’s [this](http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ArtikelNr=229002&Ausgabe=250361&ProduktNr=223977&filename=229002.pdf) meta analysis (PDF)…surely they must have the evidence for the evils of saturated fat! > [@](#): > > Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies of SFA and CHD > **Intake of SFA was not significantly associated with > CHD mortality,** … Similarly SFA intake was > not significantly associated CHD events … Moreover, > there was no significant association with CHD > death Well, surely **total** fat will show a relationship, won’t it? > [@](#): > > Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies of Total Fat and > CHD > Intake of total fat **was not significantly associated with > CHD mortality**,… > Intake of total fat was also unrelated to CHD events …For the analysis that > used 5% percent increase in total fat intake, there was no > significant association of total fat intake with CHD mortality Oh. Turns out that the only fats that are a real problem are the _ **processed** _ trans-fats… > [@](#): > > Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies of TFA and CHD > Intake of TFA **was strongly associated with CHD mortality,** > … Similarly, high compared with low TFA intake > was associated with a significantly increased risk of > CHD events … A 2% > increase in TFA intake was associated with significantly > higher risk of CHD events … but not with CHD mortality “strongly associated”, eh? Saturated fat has been hung out as the boogeyman for half a century and hundreds of different studies hae been done to prove how dreadful it is, and still the best that they can do is guess. Trans fats have only been a topic for a decade or so, yet the studies have no problem demonstrating a “strong” association? Hmmm. Well, maybe [this](http://www.dairynutrition.ca/scientific-evidence/experts-summaries/new-evidence-reveals-that-saturated-fat-does-not-increase-the-risk-of-cardiovascular-disease) meta-analysis? > [@](#): > > **Most of these studies (88%)** **did not demonstrate a conclusive link between dietary saturated fat and CVD incidence** after adjustment for potential confounders, including other nutrients. In fact, two of the studies found a significant inverse association with stroke.1 > > Another recent meta-analysis that we conducted included prospective cohort studies or randomized trials that investigated dietary exposures in relation to CHD. We found that higher intakes of the following dietary components were not significantly associated with an increased risk of CHD:2 **eggs, meat, milk products, saturated fatty acid and total fat.** But then, something did pop out: > [@](#): > > We found **strong** evidence that \*trans \*fatty acids and foods with a \*\*high glycemic index \*\*or load are associated with increased CHD risk. In other words, \*\*processed oils and carbohydrates. \*\* Interesting article about Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) Expo in New Orleans. > [@](#): > > And as she said, the evidence linking saturated fat and risk of cardiovascular disease is “not conclusive”, and must be considered in the context of its replacement by refined carbohydrates. > [@](#): > > Others raised the overlooked evidence that the decades-long policy of replacing saturated fats – like butter and lard – with even greater quantities of mostly polyunsaturated vegetable oils high in omega-6 fats has had **dire consequences** > [@](#): > > Commenting on the debate at the FTI Expo, Dr. Pramod Khosla of Wayne State University in Detroit raised a key point: > “**Saturated fat per se is not really doing anything [harmful]** when it comes to cardiovascular disease risk. What’s more crucial is to look at what people are replacing it with.” > > The U.S. 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans advise people to consume less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fatty acids by replacing them with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. > > But evidence continues to grow showing that this official advice needs **urgent adjustment.** > > Captain Joseph Hibbeln, M.D. – a leading fatty acid researcher at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) – commented that it would have been “more helpful” if those guidelines had been specific about which polyunsaturated fats to favor … lest they do more harm than good. Your conviction that saturated fat is evil is looking increasingly bizarre. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Your go-to authority is a stand-up comedian? If you’d like to summarize any published research he might utilize in support of the “eat lots of fatty meats and lard, it’s fine if you avoid carbs and processed foods” hypothesis, feel free. We’re about fighting ignorance here, but you appear to be very attached to yours. If you change your mind, it’s all [there](http://www.physorg.com/news205146842.html) for you [to](http://www.physorg.com/news188507591.html) take in. > [@](#): > > “Although diets inordinately high in fat and saturated fat are associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk in some individuals, assuming that saturated fat at any intake level is harmful is an over-simplification and **not supported by scientific evidence**.”. Bruce German, PhD, professor and chemist in the Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California at Davis > [@](#): > > All of these recent research advances add to the growing body of science re-assessing the role of saturated fat in the diet. Whether it’s nutrient replacement or better understanding the role certain foods can play in CVD risk, **saturated fat is definitely not be as bad as once thought**. > [@](#): > > While reducing consumption of saturated fat (contained in meat, cheese, and butter, for example) is recommended as a way to prevent CHD, r **ecent large meta-analyses of observational studies have suggested no overall benefits of reducing SFA consumption** on CHD events. AS I said before: saturated fat has never been shown to be unhealthy. Ever. And the more they look, the less they find. I understand, though… if animal fat is actually healthier than those silly “heart healthy” furniture polishes being pushed on us, it takes all the fun out of using the word _lard_ to denigrate people. Bummer. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836/140 "2011-10-06T03:58:20Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **Stoid** , no the 14 minute youtube video Wow. How many times did I say it was multi-part? And pretending that the video was offered as a cite regarding paleo animals/fat, etc, while simultaneously pretending that I didn’t give you very specific cites for exactly that is just…lame. Your only strategy seems to be misrepreseting everything, whether its the studies, my words, whatever. It’s just tiresome. I’ve given you boatloads of cites on every single aspect of this discussion. Pretending they don’t exist and repeating your unsupported announcements of Truth doesn’t qualify as anything like an honest discussion or debate, and that’s really all I am interested in. How long can one keep trying to talk to someone who has their fingers in their ears singing La La La I Can’t Hear You? Have fun. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-done-the-whole9-30-day-challenge-paleo-diet/580836.md?page=8)