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)
Good job! Although I think your definition of chubby is pretty liberal…
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good starting place, with lots of great links:
If you just can’t shake the idea that Fat is Bad, try this.
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 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. Clearly it varied by location and by time.
Another set of open questions are how diverse 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.
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.”
Another example of what the actual experts have concluded the ancestral diet consisted of:
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.
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.
Actually, I haven’t noticed anyone at all making that argument.
Again, haven’t seen anyone arguing against that.
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:
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 there are lots more you can pretend don’t exist as well.
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.
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.
You’re right, I mixed up the original links!
Try this.
(Hint: in order to evaluate cites, you need to read them, and more importantly read the cites they give. )
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. 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.
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 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.
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.)
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)
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 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?
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.
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.
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 animals, organ and marrow inclusive, is relatively very high in MUFA/PUFA/omega 3, while being relatively low in saturated fats.
(All bolding mine.)
Looking at the complete diet as well, much more PUFA and much more omega 3.
Putting it simply:
No real debate. Wild meat is and was low saturated fat and high in PUFA 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.
That’s the saddest thing I’ve ever seen… it’s exactly like Dseid’s sad little "proof", 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 don’t seem to agree with your view of what can be learned from it, and provide some very interesting quotes from it:
From the study itself:
What a clear, unambiguous declaration that saturated fat has finally been conclusively shown to lead to heart disease! :rolleyes:
How about this study instead?
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 *…let’s take a look:
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 meta analysis (PDF)…surely they must have the evidence for the evils of saturated fat!
Well, surely total fat will show a relationship, won’t it?
Oh. Turns out that the only fats that are a real problem are the processed trans-fats…
“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 meta-analysis?
But then, something did pop out:
In other words, **processed oils and carbohydrates.
**
Interesting article about Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) Expo in New Orleans.
Your conviction that saturated fat is evil is looking increasingly bizarre.
We’re about fighting ignorance here, but you appear to be very attached to yours. If you change your mind, it’s all there for you to take in.
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.
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.