I don’t know what the typical american spends on food, but I know what I spend on food, and expense was one of the cons I saw to the paleo diet. Think about it – you’re eliminating the cheapest portion of your diet (bulk rice, beans, lentils, etc.) and replacing that with fresh fruits, vegetables, and nuts, which are a lot more expensive. I certainly saw my food expenses go up. Of course if you have been in the habit of buying all sorts of pre-made dinners, etc., who knows, maybe you would see your expenses go down.
Sorry for the multipost, but this stands out from that linked article:
On preview, well yes, bulk rice is cheap. One could capture the nutritional equivalent of Paleo in a vegetarian form and do it much cheaper. Easiest if one is not vegan about it. Add in some nonfat dairy, maybe a few eggs. Lentils and beans, lots of those very cheap foods. You’d need to get your omega 3’s in somehow, either fish oil caps or flax, hemp, pumpkin, or chia seeds in your mix. See here for some ideas. If you want good nutrition you can’t get away from eating real vegetables and fruits … but frozen is fine. But that won’t help you gain weight. You want some concentrated lowfat protein. You’d need to add some extra protein powder after workouts at least.
Well maybe that is the confusion – the paleo diet that I read about was pretty adamant about eliminating grains and legumes. Dairy was also frowned upon.
This is true (and the increase in average adult lifespan today compared to relatively ancient times is not all that huge).
What commenters on the linked opinion piece are not addressing is the point that, evolutionarily speaking, our gastrointestinal tracts likely have evolved significantly to the point that we are far from our cavemen ancestors in how we process food, and claims that modern diets are bad for us must be examined skeptically in that light.
What gets a :dubious: reaction from me is the common view that “the ancients/primitive peoples knew/know something we don’t about health”. Mostly that “knowledge” consisted of how to die prematurely.
Rather than do “30-day challenges” (eliminating imaginary “toxins”), adhere to restrictive fad diets, Miracle Supplements or paleo/primitive dietary elements (coconut oil comes to mind), it makes a lot more sense to consume limited calories, eat more plants and exercise regularly.
And dammit, one of these days I’m going to do just that.
In 10000 years? or less, depending on what group we’re talking about?
Right. What gets called “paleo” is often misunderstanding what was different about the diet of those times. If you really want to replicate the essentials of that diet you need to concentrate on reproducing those aspects highlighted in the Mayo article:
[ul]
[li]2-3 times more fiber than the typical Western diet[/li][li]1.5-2 times more polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats[/li][li]4 times more omega-3 fats[/li][li]60% to 70% less saturated fat [/li][li]2-3 more protein[/li][li]more potassium and 4-5 times less sodium intake[/li][li]little refined grains or sugars[/li][li]lots of fruits and vegetables[/li][/ul]
Doing that with today’s beef would be virtually impossible. Much more easily accomplished by using some legumes and nonfat dairy as part of the mix. Those particular foods were not common then but they more closely replicate the nutritional balance of the time than today’s beef does. Eat what many are calling “paleo” and you have much less fiber, much less PUFA and MUFA, much less omega 3’s, much much more saturated fat, much more sodium … in short in most measures the opposite of a true replication of Paleolithic nutritional habits.
Again, corned beef is not Paleolithic.
Your logic continues to confuse.
154 grams of corn (1 cup) = 132 Calories
145 grams of avocado = 276 calories
36 grams of almonds (30) = 208 calories
The avocado and the almonds are very Paleo. The corn is absolutely not. And these kinds of numbers are what you will find across the board. Nuts, seeds, and animal products are much better sources of concentrated energy than grains and veges could ever be.
I don’t know how you define “common”, but this is not a view I see commonly expressed at all.
DSeid is correct that many people these days who might call themselves ‘paleo’ are doing and eating very differently than what that Mayo article brands ‘paleo’.
My personal definition of a biologically appropriate diet for humans, is in line with this guy’s. There’s plenty of room for individual variation and all sorts of foods while keeping to the basic principle of “replicating the evolutionary metabolic milieu”.
What is confusing you? I’m saying that the meals that one tends to eat on the paleo diet are lower in calories than non paleo meals (on average). That shouldn’t be confusing.
Now, it is possible that I am wrong about how many calories I think are in certain foods. Or maybe the meals that I was eating in my trial paleo period were unusually low in calories. But that is easy enough to find out. No weird twists of logic to sort through.
If I’m eating a non paleo meal, I’ll most likely go with:
some kind of meat
some kind of starch, generally rice, or perhaps pasta
some kind of vegetable
If I’m eating a paleo meal, I would go with:
some kind of meat (ideally some kind of very lean meat)
no rice or pasta, since those are not allowed. maybe a yam.
a variety of vegetables.
Compare the two meals. Pretty similar, although the paleo meat SHOULD have less calories, being leaner. However, with rice or pasta it is pretty easy to consume a good number of calories. For example, 1/2 cup of rice = 340 calories. Not so easy to get that many calories by eating a bunch of vegetables. You tend to start feeling full before you eat too much. Even a yam only has about 115 calories.
So, in general, one tends to take in less calories in the paleo diet. I wouldn’t think that assertion would be too surprising; a lot of people use the diet to get lean.
Sure, one can come up with individual paleo meals that are pretty rich in calories (ie avocados, nuts), but it is unlikely that you are always eating those foods (nor would paleo peoples, I would imagine). And, with weight gain/loss, it’s the little differences over the long run that add up. And even avocados and nuts can’t compete with modern processed foods/desserts.
FWIW, I have been eating a severely carb-restricted diet since March. The foods I eat most often are pork, pork fat, fatty beef, eggs, cheese, cream, butter (veges and eggs) and chicken, with an emphasis on plenty of skin: I love wings. I fry them in lard. Plus peanut butter, at least a couple of tablespoons every day, and other nuts.
I’ve lost 40 pounds.
Nice job : )
But wait a minute; now I’m confused … what is the point you are trying to make again?
I’ve been making the point that it makes no sense to say that it’s difficult to get enough/too many calories from a Paleo/carbohydrate restricted diet, given that the foods allowable within that type of diet are very high calorie either because of fat content or because of low moisture content (A pound of spinach vs. a pound of cheese, nuts, beef: vegetables have such a high water content that they are, pound for pound, very low in calories.)
Incidental to that point I described my own very high fat diet, which is higher in calories than my low-calorie diet, by quite a bit, yet I’ve lost 40 pounds anyway.
Which was my way of gently noting my (well-established elsewhere) disagreement with the assumption that weight is lost eating this way because of unintended calorie restriction (although I agree that overall I eat fewer calories eating this way than eating freely, but I eat more calories than I would eating “lowfat/lowcal”)
Again, that list is just what paleolithic nutrition actually was, not Mayo’s brand. If someone met most of their calorie needs with hunted meats, fish, and gathered vegetables and fruits, then that would result. It is the result of current hunter gatherer diets. Someone who eats as many who label themselves as Paleo (or “archevore”) do and promote, will not come close.
Also again, being actually similar to the nutritional composition of a real Paleolithic diet does not prove nutritional superiority. In this case however most of those items have good separate lines of research to support them. However you get there.
Stoid, please stop conflating your Atkin’s style, high fat, especially high saturated fat, diet with the word “Paleo.” There is very little overlap. And misterW’s point still stands - it is hard for him to not lose weight eating that way, and he would like to gain. In addition to weight training aimed for muscle mass building, he needs all of: adequate protein timed especially for the post work-out anabolic window; healthy fats; and enough calories.
Wow, nice to see this thread get revived. Well my husband and I did the 30 days, and he ended up LOVING how he felt and I was kind of ambivalent. So we are both doing modified versions of our own personal preferences now. I can’t really live without some dairy, so I eat yogurt and lactose-free milk (intolerant), but he found that when he goes without the grains and diary he feels great and when he gets hungry he no longer feels hypoglycemic, so he is sticking with it as best he can.
But the real benefit for us was to break out of the routines and add a lot of new foods and recipes into our daily lives. We cook a lot more often, get fresh veggies from farmers markets each week. Zucchini and cauliflower and sweet potatoes have replaced white potatoes and pasta as go-to side dishes, and I discovered some amazing new recipes that we absolutely love. So in all it was good for us to try, even if I personally don’t plan on being that restrictive every day.
I don’t miss the white potatoes though, not nearly as much as I thought I would. And I realized I didn’t even bother thinking about alcohol for the full thirty days, so I know living without liquor isn’t a problem for me in the least. Giving up diet soda was difficult, so I still have that occasionally as a treat.
But in all I’m happy we gave it a shot. At the very least for discovering this amazing roasted chili cauliflowerrecipe and this Moroccan pork chops recipe. Try them guys, they are both amazing dishes.
This seems like a thread that should have been in Cafe Society to begin with. Since it’s been resurrected, I’m going to put it there for its permanent home.
Your post really got me thinking. With all of these “diets” around, how much of the healthy lifestyle they promote is simply cooking at home and avoiding processed foods? Could it be that all of them boil down to things like cooking a turkey breast or beef roast or ham and slicing it onto homemade bread for a sandwich instead of buying sodium/nitrate/food-glue lunch meat and putting it on preservative-laden Wonder bread?
The majority of diets revolve around eating healthier foods and eating less of them. The devil, as they say, is in the details.
People are complex, both physically and psychologically. The diet that works for me may not work for someone else because my needs and motivations are different from other people, and other people’s needs and motivations are different from mine. For example, Stoid is doing well on an Atkins-type plan, and that’s fine for her. Atkins, or Paleo, or the older Weight Watchers programs don’t do it for me because I don’t do well on restrictive diets. If I can’t have a particular food, it tends to become what I most want, even if I wouldn’t eat a lot of it on my own. On the other hand, if I can eat what I want, it becomes a choice, and if it’s a choice, I have to think it through before I eat it. For example, cake isn’t off-limits, but I have to think about why I’m eating it. Is it because I really want the cake, or is it because everyone else is having cake and I feel like I should have some, too? If it’s the former, and I’ve got room for it in my food plan, I’ll eat a small piece. If it’s the latter, I’m probably better off not eating it and finding a better choice, such as frozen yogurt or fruit. But that’s just me and how I roll. (FTR, I’m doing the new Weight Watchers plan, and I’m down 70 or so lbs.)
We disagree.
Just for the record, nothing is permanently off limits for me. I actually had a “cake day” recently because I made some nutmeg cake for my dad and I indulged quite a bit myself for a day. But that was my first such indulgence since May. I enjoyed it, but I made sure it was over within a day.
And while I relate to what you’re saying here, what I and many others have found is that carbohydrate restriction specifically (in whatever format, ranging from a glycemic index diet to near-total Atkins Week One) actually changes the way we think about, respond to, and desire food, pretty much eliminating the issue from the inside out.