Anyone done the Whole9 30 day challenge (Paleo diet)?

[Renee]

@Saint_Cad

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?

I don’t think so, because before we went (pseudo) paleo, which, like** rhubarbin’s**, is more like theArchevore diet, we still ate almost zero processed food. I love to cook, and loved to just as much before this change, but my husband and I both were still a little plump before.

[rhubarbarin]

@DSeid

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.

Did you actually read that study? In 13 tribes, animal food consumption ranged from 99% of total cals consumed to only 26%. I assure you that the native Alaskans who were still subsisting at the time that data was collected on seals, whales and deep sea fish are not getting most of those calories from ‘lean meats’ (actually, they liked drinking rendered seal blubber) or ‘gathered fruits and vegetables’.

Nor were my Northern European ancestors. Bringing down the biggest, fattest ungulates they could is most of what kept them alive during the long cold winter. It’s ridiculous to even entertain the notion that they stripped the hundreds of pounds of subcutaneous and visceral fat from their kills and discarded it in favor of ‘lean meats’. During the warmer months of course, they enjoyed many plant foods and probably reduced their animal fat intake hugely in favor of seeds, tubers, fruit, honey, etc. But just because the lard fest wasn’t non-stop doesn’t mean their seasonal high fat intake wasn’t ‘paleo’.

Even I’m not that extreme by half - I may eat 200+ grams of mostly animal fat every day, but I also eat plenty of plant foods and moderate amounts of starch.

Hunter-gatherer populations can survive or thrive on vastly different macronutrient proportions. We can usually hunt and gather plenty of fat. In another Cordein paper he found that 97% of modern hunter-gatherers get more than the recommended 30% of their daily calories from fat.

[Lightlystarched]

I have high hopes for a documentary coming out about this. You can see the trailer here:

http://perfecthumandiet.us/

For the last 3-1/2 years, broadcast journalist CJ Hunt and his team have gone “In Search of the Perfect Human Diet TM.” An unprecedented global exploration to find a solution to the #1 killer in America - our growing epidemic of obesity and related chronic diseases - such as diabetes, hypertension and heart disease.

This investigative documentary bypasses common contradictory dietary bias and the recycling of confusion by filming interviews and explorations with many of the world’s top scientists and researchers in the fields of archaeological science, paleo and forensic anthropology, nutrition and metabolism, biomolecular archaeology, and the emerging field of human dietary evolution.

[MsRobyn]

@Stoid

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.

It may be the same thing, but we’re doing it for different reasons. If I were to try a restrictive diet (and I don’t care how you spin it, what you’re doing is restrictive), I would fail miserably, because that’s how my brain works. If it’s a choice, I’m OK with it and I will think it through before I do it. If it’s not a choice, I’ll do it because I know I’m not supposed to.

[DSeid]

@Stoid

We disagree.

Yes. But the basis what I am stating was Paleolithic nutrition are actual studies. Your basis is making it up.

@rhubarbarin

Did you actually read that study? … I assure you that the native Alaskans who were still subsisting at the time that data was collected on seals, whales and deep sea fish are not getting most of those calories from ‘lean meats’ (actually, they liked drinking rendered seal blubber) … the biggest, fattest ungulates

Why yes, I did. And actually understood what I read.

For the majority (53% n=122) of the world’s foraging cultures the dietary fat intake would lie between 36 and 43% of total energy (Cordain et al, 2000a), values not dissimilar from current Western intakes …

Note, not higher than typical Western fat, about the same, despite much higher protein intake. The difference, besides more protein per unit fat (pretty much the definition of “lean”) is the fact that the fat is high in omega-3 PUFAs and MUFAs. The saturated fat that is high in modern beef and pork is what is harmful

… Hypercholesterolemic fatty acids include 12:0, 14:0, 16:0 and trans-9 18:1 (Grundy, 1997), whereas monounsaturated (MUFA; Gardner & Kraemer 1995; Yu et al, 1995) and polyunsaturated (PUFA, Grundy, 1997) fatty acids are hypocholesterolemic, and 18:0 is neutral (Yu et al, 1995). Omega 3 PUFA have wide ranging cardiovascular protective capacities including lowering of plasma VLDL cholesterol and triacylglycerol (TG) concentrations (Connor & Connor, 1997). Consequently, it is entirely possible to consume relatively high-fat diets that do not necessarily produce a plasma lipid profile that promotes CVD (Garg et al, 1988; Nelson et al, 1995) given sufficient MUFA, PUFA (Gardner & Kraemer, 1995; Mensink & Katan, 1992) and an appropriate o-6=o-3 PUFA ratio (Connor & Connor, 1997) relative to the hypercholesterolemic fatty acids. … Although fat intake (28 – 58% energy) would have been similar to or higher than that found in Western diets, it is likely that important qualitative differences in fat intake, including relatively high levels of MUFA and PUFA and a lower o-6=o-3 fatty acid ratio, would have served to inhibit the development of CVD. Other dietary characteristics including high intakes of antioxidants, fiber, vitamins and phytochemicals along with a low salt intake may have operated synergistically …

(Bolding mine.)

Let me spell this out for you. The study documents that the diet of hunter-gatherers is consistently higher in protein while typically not having any more total fat, and much much less saturated fat. It is high in MUFAs and PUFAs especially omega 3s and 6’s (in particular the former). The high fat Eskimo hunter-gatherer diet is notable (see the articles table 3) in that that the saturated fat content is very low, only 22% of the total fat and 8% of total calories (half the 16% of total calories typical of Americans and less even than the 10% advised as the max by standard medical advice), compared to the MUFA content which is 57% of the total fat and the fairly high omega-3 which is 14% of total fat. (Getting even up to 1 gram of omega 3 a day is rare for most Americans. Even today Eskimos have an intake roughly 20 times that of other Americans.)

The diet of native Alaskans was very high in MUFA, PUFA (especially omega 3s), and very low in saturated fats that are high in the meat most Americans eat. Let alone compared to how much saturated fat some who are deluded into thinking they are practicing Paleolithic nutrition or “evolutionary metabolic milieu” are eating.

I understand that you don’t get this, but all animal fat is not the same. The fat of wild game, the fattest ungulates and of whale or seal blubber is not the same fat as that of modern industrial cattle. Unless you are eating game, seal or whale blubber, or fatty fish, those who are eating lots of meat are eating a diet that has very little to do with what was eaten in Paleolithic times or by extant hunter-gatherers. You can replicate that nutritional balance if you want to, but not by eating lots of modern beef and butter.

[Renee]

The way rhubarbin and I are eating actually does emphasize eating lots of fatty fish and avoiding factory farmed meat. I’m not perfect, but 95% of the meat and dairy I eat is pasture fed, and I do make an effort to eat wild-caught fish a couple of times a week.

[Stoid]

@DSeid

Yes. But the basis what I am stating was Paleolithic nutrition are actual studies. Your basis is making it up.

“very little overlap” between my consumption of animals, nuts, seeds, green vegetables & fruits and paleolithic consumption of animals, nuts, seeds, green vegetables & fruits? My consumption of dairy somehow cancels out the overlap in virtually every other component of my diet? Or do you discount cows, pigs, chickens and fish as being nutritionally different than insect larvae, duck and peccary?

I repeat: we disagree.

The saturated fat that is high in modern beef and pork is what is harmful(Bolding mine.)

Ooops. Saturated fat is not harmful. Period. Making the rest of your impassioned arguments a waste.

Seriously, that myth has been busted up and down the block a few times already. If you doubt that, I invite you to offer up the evidence. And evidence means controlled studies, not guesses and hazy, unsupported “correlation = causation” arguments.

In a three-year study conducted at the University of Washington,
researchers examined the diets and coronary artery conditions of 235
women in the United States with an average age of 66.

At the study’s
inception, researchers took X-rays of 10 locations along each woman’s
coronary arteries, wherein all subjects were found to have some measure
of plaque buildup. The women kept comprehensive records of the foods
they ate and in what amounts, including the types of oils they used for
frying and baking. At the end of the three year period, researchers then
took a second set of X-rays. It was found that women who had regularly eaten the highest amounts of saturated fats had the least amount of additional plaque buildup in their arteries. Also, women who ate more saturated fats had a healthier balance of good and bad cholesterols and more desirable blood concentrations of various kinds of fats. Factors such as age, education, smoking habits, and use of medication were accounted for by the researchers [1].Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Nov;80(5):1102-3. Saturated fat prevents coronary artery disease? An American paradox.

Or

in the June 2010 Journal of Lipids, a low carbohydrate, high saturated diet was observed to have a reduction in blood levels of saturated fatty acids despite higher intake than a low fat diet. Additionally, a decrease in inflammation was found despite a significant increase in arachidonic acid.

The researchers concluded that dietary saturated fat is efficiently metabolized in the presence of low carbohydrate [2].[2] Lipids. 2010 Sep 7, Limited Effect of Dietary Saturated Fat on Plasma Saturated Fat in the Context of a Low Carbohydrate Diet.

or

As a saturated fat, coconut oil has fallen out of favor as a cooking oil because of its alleged role in heart disease. But over a decade ago, a study on cooking oils was reported in the Journal of the Indian Medical Association.

The Department of Medicine at Safdarjang Hospital in New Delhi compared modern oils, such as sunflower and safflower, to coconut oil in relation to heart disease and Type II diabetes.The researchers found that while heart disease and diabetes had increased with consumption of the flower oils, it decreased with traditional oils like coconut oil. Decreased with coconut oil.

In another study on Lipoprotein(a), a pernicious cardiovascular risk factor, results indicated that a coconut oil-based diet favorably affected the fibrinolytic system, which regulates clotting and fibrin deposition, and Lipoprotein(a) concentrations compared with the unsaturated fatty acid diet. The proportions of dietary saturated fatty acids, more than the percentage of saturated fat energy, seem to have a beneficial influence on Lipoprotein(a) levels.

In other words, coconut oil lowers Lipoprotein(a) and reduces atherosclerotic plaque.

The problem is not our fat cows and pigs and butter. It’s all the processed oils and transfats created by our modern food industry.

So if it’s not the saturated fat from those steaks and burgers we Americans love so much that’s causing the rise in heart disease and obesity, then what is? Believe it or not, it’s the “heart-healthy” oils like canola that are doing much of the damage. When these oils are heated, they convert into trans fats and also produce large amounts of free radicals.These trans-fats are 97% positively correlated with arterial plaque and experts are now suggesting that trans-fats are responsible for between 30,000 and 100,000 heart disease deaths per year. Harvard researchers are calling trans-fats “the biggest food processing disaster in U.S. history.”

It has been determined that a 2% increase in calorie intake from trans fat has been associated with a 23% increase in cardiovascular risk. The American Heart Association recommends limiting trans fats to less than one percent of calorie intake, and the American Dietetic Association, the Institute of Medicine, US Dietary Guidelines, and the National Cholesterol Education Project all recommend limiting dietary trans-fat intake from industrial sources as much as possible.

Unfortunately, food manufactures are allowed to make the claim of “trans-fat free” when their content is less than half of a gram per serving. Yet, many products containing nearly a half a gram of trans fat, when consumed over the course of a day, can easily exceed the 2 gram maximum as recommended by American Heart Association [7].J Am Diet Assoc. 2010 Apr;110(4):585-92. Trans fats in America: a review of their use, consumption, health implications, and regulation.

There’s lots more, but you get the picture.

I also recommend this little snippet from the film “Fat Head”, (eh whole film can actually be watched in its entirety online via IMDB.)

[DSeid]

Renee, indeed what you describe is closer to a real Paleolithic diet.

Stoid, whether or not Atkin’s style is good or bad, is not the point of this conversation. The point is what is or is not similar to a Paleolithic diet and a Paleolithic diet, just as hunter gatherer diets inclusive of native Alaskans, was generally fairly low in saturated fats and high in MUFAs and PUFAs and especially omega 3s. Chicken wings fried in lard does not replicate that diet in any way. Corned beef does not. You are eating a high saturated fat/low carb diet and you are losing weight on it. I make no comment on that other than that I am happy to hear that you found something that works for you. But to call that “Paleo” demonstrates the extremely common ignorance of what the nutritional balance of a Paleolithic (or hunter-gatherer) diet actually was.

As to your request for controlled studies that establish that a diet relatively low in saturated fats and higher in PUFAs reduces coronary heart disease (CHD) … well here is the recent metaanalysis of randomized controlled studies on the subject:

From 346 identified abstracts, eight trials met inclusion criteria, totaling 13,614 participants … These findings provide evidence that consuming PUFA in place of SFA reduces CHD events in RCTs. This suggests that rather than trying to lower PUFA consumption, a shift toward greater population PUFA consumption in place of SFA would significantly reduce rates of CHD.

[DSeid]

BTW Stoid, your “cite” repeats a very false myth. No, normal cooking does not convert canola oil into trans fat.

temperatures for traditional frying (300 to 350 degrees) and relatively short cooking times (5 to 10 minutes) would have a negligible effect on the formation of trans fat in cooking oil. For example, a recent study conducted to determine the levels of trans fat isomers formed by heat found that in canola oil heated to 500 degrees for 30 minutes, trans fat levels were increased by only 1 percent. Traditional frying at lower temperatures for shorter lengths of time would produce significantly fewer trans fats.

In fact canola oil is an excellent source of monounsaturated fats … like those high in real Paleolithic and hunter-gatherer diets.

[Stoid]

@DSeid

Stoid, whether or not Atkin’s style is good or bad, is not the point of this conversation.

There’s several points in this conversation, however none of mine have been whether an Atkins style diet is good or bad.

The point is

That would be more accurately stated as “the point that I, Dseid, wish to make is…”

what is or is not similar to a Paleolithic diet and a Paleolithic diet,

And you have made your arguments for what does and does not count.

To which I say: hooey. Not really to specifics, but to the idea that you or anyone knows for sure one way or another. We can use modern hunter gatherer societies as a guideline, but there’s nothing magically infallible about that, far from it.

This is very interesting reading.

It’s rather long, but the bottom line is that equating studies of modern hunter-gatherers and deciding on that basis that we know what paleolithic human beings ate is dicey at best.

As to your request for controlled studies that establish that a diet relatively low in saturated fats and higher in PUFAs reduces coronary heart disease (CHD)

That’s not what I requested, Dseid, and I think you know that.

You stated, very simply that saturated fat is harmful:

The saturated fat that is high in modern beef and pork is what is harmful

I replied that it is not:

Saturated fat is not harmful. Period.

Then I said that if you doubted that, you should offer evidence.

Seriously, that myth has been busted up and down the block a few times already. If you doubt that, I invite you to offer up the evidence.

And what you offer does not in any way prove that saturated fat is harmful.

Your study was done because

…reduced SFA consumption is recommended as a way to avoid CHD [coronary artery disease] However, the evidence from individual randomized controlled trials that have studied CHD events (such as heart attacks and CHD-related deaths) have been mixed and could not support this recommendation.

And after all was sifted and sorted, they still ended up saying:

Because the trials included in this study looked only at replacing SFA with PUFA, it is not possible from this evidence alone to distinguish between the benefits of reducing SFA and the benefits of increasing PUFA. Furthermore, the small number of trials identified in this study all had design faults, so the risk reductions reported here may be inaccurate. However, other lines of evidence (for example, **observational studies **that have examined associations between the fat intake of populations and their risk of CHD) also suggest that consumption of PUFA in place of SFA reduces CHD risk.

Which is another way of saying that the rigorous real science didn’t end up proving much at all, so they just fell back on the sounds-like-science bullshit that is always being thrown around on the topic of nutrition but which is really just that old correlation=causation caca.

So if that’s your evidence for the idea that saturated fat is bad, it completely fails. The very best that can be said is that it is evidence that polyunsaturated fat is good, and I know you know that the two things are not the same.

[Stoid]

@DSeid

BTW Stoid, your “cite” repeats a very false myth. No, normal cooking does not convert canola oil into trans fat.

Yeah, I did a double take on that, I’d never heard it before. But it wasn’t my point so I didn’t follow up.
Incidentally, I ran across some very interesting stuff about polyunsaturated fats, basically that they cause cancer! Wow. What’s a person to do?

Polyunsaturated fats promote cancer

                                                                                        Many laboratories have shown that diets high in polyunsaturated fatty acids                         promote tumours.                         Cancer promotion is not the same as cancer causing. The subject is complex;                         suffice to say here                         that promoters are substances that help to speed up reproduction of existing                         cancer cells.                                           
                                                               It has been known since the early 1970s that it is linoleic acid that is the                         major culprit. As                         Professor Raymond Kearney of Sydney University put it in 1987:                                                  'Many laboratories have shown                         that a greater proportion of polyunsaturated fats are superior to diets rich in                         saturated fats in                         promoting the yield of experimental mammary tumours. In such studies, omega-6                         linoleic acid                         appeared to be the crucial fatty acid . . .' and 'Vegetable oils (eg Corn oil                         and sunflower oil)                         which are rich in linoleic acid are potent promoters of tumour growth.'                         [(14)](http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fats_and_cancer.html#N_14_)                                      
                                          **Polyunsaturated fats and breast cancer**

                                                                                    A study of 61,471 women aged forty to seventy-six, conducted in Sweden, looked                         into the                         relation of different fats and breast cancer. The results were published in                         January 1998. This                         study found an inverse association with monounsaturated fat and a positive                         association with                         polyunsaturated fat. In other words, monounsaturated fats protected against                         breast cancer and                         polyunsaturated fats increased the risk. Saturated fats were neutral.                         [(15)](http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fats_and_cancer.html#N_15_)

Saturated fats and animal fats are usually blamed for all manner of diseases in Western society. But look at the facts:

[ul]
[li] In the 19th-century, when animal fats were all that was available, cancers were rare (as was heart disease).[/li][li] Polyunsaturated fats and oils are used to suppress the immune system, such immunosuppression is known to cause cancers to start and promote cancer.[/li][li] In this last century there has been a change in favour of polyunsaturated fats and oils — and cancer rates have soared.[/li][/ul]

By the way, what is your issue with corned beef, anyway? I make my own and so far I have never used curing salt, (nitrates) so what is it about beef and salt and spices that you think is so un-Paleo? (Assuming your answer isn’t about how much fat is involved)

[DSeid]

Indeed Stoid, you can find web sites that say all kinds of crazy things. There are many mutually contradictory nutrition claims made all the time - gluten is evil, animal protein causes cancer and raises cholesterol and gluten protects from cancer, and on and on. What’s a person to do? Not make conclusions from crazy web sites. Pretty simple.

You want to believe that your diet of corned beef and chicken wings fried in lard is somehow replicating Paleolithic nutrition. It is not. That fact does not change because you say it is your opinion it is, or because you think that saturated fat is healthy. Again, multiple cites have been given that document that the diet of Paleolithic humans and of extant hunter-gatherers was fairly low in saturated fat, high in MUFAs, PUFAs and omega 3’s, low in salt etc.; the diet you are eating has the opposite ratios. (Yes, the beef with portraying corned beef as a “Paleo food” is its high saturated fat to protein ratio, its low amount of MUFA and PUFA, and its large amount of salt, all of which are the opposite of the animal products eaten in Paleolithic times and by extant hunter-gatherers (game meats and fish mostly). Nitrates would be even farther off from being “Paleo”, of course.

The statement that “Saturated fat is not harmful. Period” is incorrect. To be very precise, a diet higher in saturated fats than in PUFAs is harmful: if one keeps fat constant and replaces the saturated fat with PUFA one decreases coronary heart disease risks. If you want to believe that that “fails” to make the case that increasing saturated fat relative to PUFA is harmful, that increased saturated fat is harmful for CHD risks, then there is not more to say: you’ll believe what you want to believe and dismiss the rest as “bullshit”.

[Stoid]

@DSeid

Indeed Stoid, you can find web sites that say all kinds of crazy things. There are many mutually contradictory nutrition claims made all the time - gluten is evil, animal protein causes cancer and raises cholesterol and gluten protects from cancer, and on and on. What’s a person to do? Not make conclusions from crazy web sites. Pretty simple.

I absolutely agree. Which is why I only pay serious attention to sites that reference their sources, and then I make sure that the sources they reference are reputable, because of course JoBobBlogger saying that X is so because PhineasFacebook said it doesn’t mean anything.

You want to believe

I don’t want to believe anything. Belief doesn’t do a damn thing for me. I want to know, so I research and evaluate the information based on who, what, when, how.

that your diet of corned beef and chicken wings fried in lard is somehow replicating Paleolithic nutrition. It is not.

a. My diet is not only those two things, of course, as I said in the very post you are referring to, so you must have seen it, Post #91 (in which I was directly addressing the issue of fat in the diet and the effect of calories and weight loss, by the way, which is why the emphasis on describing the fat content).

b: I’ve also said since the start, Post #74 (The same post in which I said I’d been eating paleo in the first place)

@Stoid

I’m not religiously Paleo, I’m more about the carb restriction in general

(Although what I am referring to has more to do with my use of artificial sweeteners and cheese.)

Then I reminded you again in Post # 87, when you felt the need to state (based on nothing) that “corned beef is not Paleolithic”:

Originally Posted by Stoid, just a few words away from the corned beef reference
(I’m not religiously Paleo, I’m more about the carb restriction in general)

So do you keep responding to me as though I’ve been trying to prove what a perfect example of perfect Paleo eating my personal diet is because it’s easy to feel like a win? (Given that it’s an argument you are only having with yourself, after all.)

c: Are you going to explain your issue with corned beef? Salt and beef are not paleo because..? Chicken wings fried in lard are not Paleo because..? Paleolithic people didn’t eat salt or beef or lard or poultry? And you know this because the modern hunter-gatherers that have been studied don’t eat beef or salt or poultry or lard? Huh?

d: Finally, and most importantly: You are not the expert on paleolithic nutrition! And in fact, no one is because we can’t go back. In addition,in much the same way you are being totally selective about what you see in this thread, you are being very selective about acknowledging everything that we think we know based on modern hunter gatherers, ignoring the existence of what doesn’t doesn’t fit into your anti-saturated-fat mindset.

So why you think your unqualified assertions about what is and is not genuinely Paleolithic should be received as gospel, as though you just stepped out of your time machine with the video proof, is a mystery.

That fact does not change because you say it is your opinion it is

Of course facts don’t change based on my opinions or anyone elses. But we aren’t talking about facts. We’re talking about opinions and speculation, because the facts are not available to us. See the previous.

, or because you think that saturated fat is healthy.

My thinking on anything doesn’t have any effect. And as you know, I haven’t been presenting my “thoughts” as though they were facts. (Ahem…) I’ve been offering cites to the research which prove the facts: saturated fat is, at worst, absolutely harmless, and at best, very healthful, and in either case, definitely not bad, as you asserted.

Again, multiple cites have been given that document that the diet of Paleolithic humans

No such cites have been given, because they don’t exist. They can’t: we do not know.

What has been offered is the speculation of researchers that is based on what they have observed in some modern hunter-gatherer societies, virtually none of which can be said to be pristine, untouched examples of hunter-gatherer living, (and many of which feature lots of saturated fat in their diets anyway!).

The statement that “Saturated fat is not harmful. Period” is incorrect. To be very precise, a diet higher in saturated fats than in PUFAs is harmful: if one keeps fat constant and replaces the saturated fat with PUFA one decreases coronary heart disease risks.

Please share the “precise” research that “precisely” proves this. Because the study you linked to stated “precisely” the opposite, as I quoted previously:

Because the trials included in this study looked only at replacing SFA with PUFA,** it is not possible from this evidence alone to distinguish** between the benefits of reducing SFA and the benefits of increasing PUFA

You are ignoring that study’s plain conclusion and inserting the opposite in it’s place. So did you just make it up or simply forget to tell us where you heard it? As something you made up, it’s meaningless. But if you do have a good source for it, it’s no better than if you made it up if you don’t share the source so we can evaluate how reliable it is.

If you want to believe that that “fails” to make the case that increasing saturated fat relative to PUFA is harmful, that increased saturated fat is harmful for CHD risks,

Emphasis mine. What is the “that” that you believe to be so conclusive? Did you just forget to link out to some major study that proves your assertion? As it stands, the “that” refers only to statements you have made that not only have no support, they are precisely the opposite of what the research you originally cited states!

So yeah, total fail.

[misterW]

@Stoid

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.)

Are you asserting that, on average, one will take in just as many calories on the paleo diet as on a more typical diet? I know “more typical” diet is vague – I mean, when the average person starts their 30 day paleo trial, is it likely their caloric intake will be going up, staying the same, or going down?

[Jackmannii]

@DSeid

(Yes, the beef with portraying corned beef as a “Paleo food” is its high saturated fat to protein ratio, its low amount of MUFA and PUFA, and its large amount of salt, all of which are the opposite of the animal products eaten in Paleolithic times and by extant hunter-gatherers

Huh, I never realized there were so many hunter-gatherers patronizing Katz’s Deli.

I suspect that the reason for popularity of the “paleo” diet among a subset of the deluded is the assumption that one can scarf down all the lard and salt that one wants, at a caloric rate equivalent to what one was consuming before, as long as the Evil Carbohydrates are banished. And that’s likely to come back and bite you in the ass.*

*sorry for the resultant imagery.

[Stoid]

@misterW

Are you asserting that, on average, one will take in just as many calories on the paleo diet as on a more typical diet? I know “more typical” diet is vague – I mean, when the average person starts their 30 day paleo trial, is it likely their caloric intake will be going up, staying the same, or going down?

No, I’ve been refuting your assertion:

It’s damn hard to get enough calories with those foods.

Which was, as I said, a nonsense assertion, given the caloric density of those foods.

However, what is also true is that because of the carbohydrate changes and restriction, one’s appetite is likely to be noticeably affected, and therefore one is likely to consume fewer calories by naturally choosing to eat less food generally, not because “it’s hard to get enough calories with those foods”.

If that is what you meant by your statement, then I agree with it.

[twickster]

Stoid, the subject of this thread is the Paleo diet, not whatever diet you’re following that you consider a variation of the Paleo diet. Please stay on topic. If you want to discuss the differences between the Paleo diet and other plans, please start a new thread.

Thanks,

twickster, Cafe Society moderator.

[Stoid]

@twickster

Stoid, the subject of this thread is the Paleo diet

Which is why we have been discussing and debating what the definition of a Paleo diet actually is, since there is no clear, consistent agreement about it, either in the scientific community or the pop-diet community.

There is no One True Way to “eat Paleo”, not least because there is not One True Definition of what “eating Paleo” even means.

From the Paleo Gurus themselves:

**Robb Wolf:
**

“this paleo diet concept is a moving target”

J. Stanton:

However, though we as individuals can choose any point on the continuum, the print and online literature divides itself reasonably cleanly into two schools of thought. The traditionalists emphasize re-enactment of their perception of Paleolithic foods, make very specific claims about Paleolithic nutritional composition, and stress avoidance of all foods they view as Neolithic.
In contrast, the new school claims that re-enactment is impossible, many claims of Paleolithic nutritional composition are either unsupported or implausible, and that we must evaluate foods, even clearly Neolithic foods, on their nutritional merits to present-day humans—though within our evolutionary context.

I believe we need a simple, descriptive term that distinguishes the pro-fat, dairy- and potato-tolerant “new school” of Paleo from the lean-meats-nuts-and-veggies traditionalists, without being pejorative to either.

Some Paleo Diets are versions of the high-protein diets, such as the Atkins Diet. Other versions encourage the consumption of raw meat and fat. Sometimes the Paleo Diet is combined with fasting or calorie restriction. Some Paleo supporters recommend the consumption of insects. Generally the diet is 65% animal-based and 35% plant-based foods.

Here’s a nice breakdown of some “flavors” of Paleo eating:Loren Cordain – The Paleo Diet (considered the most restrictive)

[ul]
[li]Yes: meat (emphasis on lean) fruit, veges, nuts, seeds. Recommends fruit, nut and vege with all meals.[/li][li]Limited: Eggs, olive, avocado, walnut and flax oil, coffee, tea, alcohol, dried fruit[/li][li]** Avoid Entirely:** Dairy, cereal grains, legumes, starchy vege, processed meats and any salt-containing food (therefore no canned jarred foods), fatty meat, fruit juice and sweets.[/li][/ul]
**Robb Wolf– The Paleo Solution **

[ul]
[li]Yes: meat, (emphasis on wild caught or grass fed, and includes bacon, sausage and ribeye on his “yes” list) eggs, veges, nuts, seeds. Also ok with canned salmon, tuna.[/li][li]Recommended fats: coconut, olive, macadamia avocado oils and LARD[/li][li]Limited: fruit, some starchy vegetables[/li][li]Beverages: coffee, tea, water[/li][li]Avoid Entirely: Everything else[/li][/ul]
Art De Vany - The New Evolution Diet

[ul]
[li]**Eat: **⅓ raw veggie, ⅓ cooked veggie, ⅓ meat or fish[/li][li]Recommended fats: olive and canola oils (canola is considered extremely bad news by many other paleo promoters, this is very surprising)[/li][li]Limited: fruit, a little yogurt, nuts[/li][li]Beverages: coffee, tea, water[/li][li]**Avoid Entirely: **cereal grains, butter, lard, legumes, processed food[/li][/ul]
Mark Sisson - The Primal Blueprint

[ul]
[li]Yes: Lots of vegetables above all, organic meat, eggs[/li][li]Moderation: fruit, nuts, dairy[/li][li]Recommended fat: animal[/li][li]Beverages: coffee, tea, water[/li][li]“sensible indulgences”: alcohol, dark chocolate, high fat dessert[/li][li] Avoid Entirely: cereal grains, processed food, processed fats, legumes[/li][/ul]
Diana Hsieh - Modern Paleo

[ul]
[li]Yes: organic meat, eggs, non-starchy vege-with plenty of fat! Yogurt, kefir[/li][li]Moderation: fruit, nuts[/li][li]Recommended fat: butter, lard, tallow, coconut,olive, bacon grease[/li][li] Avoid Entirely: cereal grains, processed food, processed fats, legumes, canned food[/li][/ul]
**Clear agreement across the board:
**Paleo definitely means eating non-starchy vegetables and animal protein, not eating cereal grains, sugar and highly processed foods.Wide range of opinion

[ul]
[li]Type of animal protein[/li][li]fat type[/li][li]fat amount[/li][li]nuts[/li][li]fruit[/li][li]starchy vegetables[/li][li]dairy[/li][li]chocolate[/li][li]alcohol[/li][li]coffee[/li][li]degree of processing[/li][/ul]

There’s no question that my diet is Paleo, with the single exception of artfical sweeteners, which have not been an issue in any of this discussion.

Saturated fat has been, however, with Dseid simply declaring that chicken wings fried in lard and my (home cured) corned beef are “not Paleo”. But of course they absolutely are, as you can plainly see.

And on the subject of saturated fat, this is great reading.

[misterW]

@Stoid

No, I’ve been refuting your assertion:

Which was, as I said, a nonsense assertion, given the caloric density of those foods.

Caloric density of what foods? Yes, avocados and nuts have some calories. What else do you have? One generally doesn’t sit and eat plates of avocados and nuts all day. In the paleo diet, your meat will be leaner and you will eating many more vegetables in place of things like rice or pasta. How is that going to be offset?

However, what is also true is that because of the carbohydrate changes and restriction, one’s appetite is likely to be noticeably affected, and therefore one is likely to consume fewer calories by naturally choosing to eat less food generally, not because “it’s hard to get enough calories with those foods”.

Ok, maybe “hard” is a tough word to quantify. You must at least admit that it is hardER?

[Stoid]

@misterW

Caloric density of what foods?

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.

In the paleo diet, your meat will be leaner and you will eating many more vegetables in place of things like rice or pasta. How is that going to be offset?

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.

Ok, maybe “hard” is a tough word to quantify. You must at least admit that it is hardER?

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: by 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.