The Achilles heel of paleo dieting

[Razz]

Sure one may only be 95-99% Paleo, but then wouldn't you still say you're a believer in Paleo? Obviously there are very few people who stick to a 100% Paleo.. I've found for myself it's almost impossible not to end up with 1 cheat meal per week unless I want to fast..

[Adam Rezner]

If a "paleo" diet can include an neolithic food that isn't disagreeable with an individual then I don't get the point of calling it "paleo." Why not called it my "gargibugundal diet?" That basically makes the term "paleo" meaningless.

That's not true. A paleolithic diet means different things to different people. Like a commenter said above, the term "paleo" is simply a way to refer to a style of eating (living?) in a way that many people can instantly recognize. I think it is a far more accurate term than something like "caveman diet". I however prefer Mark Sisson's way of thinking in his "Primal Blueprint."

By your logic, it would be entirely impossible to eat a truly paleolithic diet because of the vast changes that have occurred since the so-called Agricultural Revolution. Do you eat beef? Then you are eating meat from a domesticated animal not available to our paleolithic ancestors. Do you eat strawberries out of season? Then you are most definitely not paleo. Do you enjoy coconuts? Not "paleo," strictly speaking. Not to mention the fact that the foods that our paleolithic ancestors ate were game that they hunted themselves, and wild plants, none of which are available to most of us today.

That is why I say that a paleolithic diet is not about mimicking exactly what our ancestors did, because that is entirely impossible, and misses the point. The point is to learn from our hunter-gatherer ancestors to determine what a healthy, human diet resembles, and to try to replicate that as best we can with the foods available to us today. Additionally, we may conduct some n=1 experiments to determine what neolithic foods are beneficial to us, and add those to our diet as well. And finally, we may choose to selectively consume foods that are most definitely not paleolithic, and perhaps not even beneficial, because they bring enjoyment to us. I'm not going to turn down a slice of apple pie at Thanksgiving just because it's not healthy. As long as it is on a limited basis, the negative effects are minimal.

That is what a paleolithic diet means to me. It's about eating for optimal health, most of the time, by trying to eat foods similar to the ones our ancestors evolved to eat, and adding on whatever happens to work for me.

[Neal Winkler]

That's not true. A paleolithic diet means different things to different people. Like a commenter said above, the term "paleo" is simply a way to refer to a style of eating (living?) in a way that many people can instantly recognize.

But what is that way? Meats, fruits, veggies, nuts & seeds. The original conception and popularization of the "paleo diet" was specifically done to cause people to eliminate grains and dairy from their diet.

By your logic, it would be entirely impossible to eat a truly paleolithic diet because of the vast changes that have occurred since the so-called Agricultural Revolution. Do you eat beef? Then you are eating meat from a domesticated animal not available to our paleolithic ancestors. Do you eat strawberries out of season? Then you are most definitely not paleo. Do you enjoy coconuts? Not "paleo," strictly speaking. Not to mention the fact that the foods that our paleolithic ancestors ate were game that they hunted themselves, and wild plants, none of which are available to most of us today.

We may not have all the specific meat, fruits, and veggies that our ancestors, but we do have meat, fruits, and veggies. The term "paleo diet" isn't about eating the specific foods our ancestors did but the same food groups.

Additionally, we may conduct some n=1 experiments to determine what neolithic foods are beneficial to us, and add those to our diet as well.

So if I do my n=1 experiments and find that grains, dairy, and legumes are beneficial to me then I can still call this "paleo?" Why isn't it a "mediterranean" diet? Or a "USDA" diet? Or if it is, then I fail to see how the term "paleo" is informative as being informative means it must differentiate from other terms.

That is what a paleolithic diet means to me. It's about eating for optimal health, most of the time, by trying to eat foods similar to the ones our ancestors evolved to eat, and adding on whatever happens to work for me.

But when you tack on "adding whatever happens to work for me" you've potentially described ANY diet depending on what you add.

[Neal Winkler]

Sure one may only be 95-99% Paleo, but then wouldn't you still say you're a believer in Paleo? Obviously there are very few people who stick to a 100% Paleo.. I've found for myself it's almost impossible not to end up with 1 cheat meal per week unless I want to fast..

Yeah, but this guy is saying you can eat dairy, grains, and legumes on the regular and still be eating a paleo diet.

[Tarun Suri]

By that definition, if I use 5-10lbs weight when doing hanging leg raises, then am I really doing gymnastic exercises?

The question in the first place is wrong. One should never ask "Is eating this or that paleo"? It shouldn't be a religion. Think of the word paleo not as a diet but more as a movement away from the current mass' take on what is nutritional food. Ultimately, the word or brand use to describe something as vast paleo is but in the power of the masses who eat "paleo". It's called paleo because people call it paleo. If the stricter, original view of eliminating all grains, and legumes, etc. is viewed, then you should equally ask, why isn't it called the ketogenic diet by the masses? By theory, language always strives to simplify reality and fails since perspectives and interpretations are unique.

Chances are in 10-15 years, the masses will not call it paleo anyways...

[Razz]

I agree with triangle one should not say they're eating paleo if they eat stuff that's not. Paleo should be paleo. Rather to be correct they should say: I'm eating 95-98% paleo

But then I have to argue that Paleo is not the optimal solution, paleo+supplementation+beneficial foods such as coffe/tea/coconut is optimal.

[Neal Winkler]

By that definition, if I use 5-10lbs weight when doing hanging leg raises, then am I really doing gymnastic exercises?

I don't know.

The question in the first place is wrong. One should never ask "Is eating this or that paleo"? It shouldn't be a religion. Think of the word paleo not as a diet but more as a movement away from the current mass' take on what is nutritional food.

So any diet that moves away from convention is "paleo?"

If the stricter, original view of eliminating all grains, and legumes, etc. is viewed, then you should equally ask, why isn't it called the ketogenic diet by the masses?

Because you can eat enough fruit on a paleo diet that ketosis does not occur.

[Adam Rezner]

One should never ask "Is eating this or that paleo"? It shouldn't be a religion. Think of the word paleo not as a diet but more as a movement away from the current mass' take on what is nutritional food.

That's really what it all comes down to. In my opinion, it is futile to attempt to define exactly what foods are/are not paleo, because in reality there is no such thing as a "paleolithic diet." What I mean by that is that people in Sub-Saharan Africa did not eat the same things that people ate in Mesopotamia, who did not eat the same things as people in Europe, who did not eat the same thing as Native Americans, etc. etc.

It's been shown in studies of tribal peoples that the closer one lives to the equator, the more plant foods are in one's diet, and the closer one moves to the poles the more one relies on animals for one's dietary needs. So you have an astounding array of "paleo-type" diets ranging from Inuit eating almost all of their calories from animals, and tribal people's near the equator who derive some 60% of their calories from plants. You also have confounding factors like the Kitavans who eat much more carbohydrates than is recommended by paleo advocates in the form of starchy vegetables (and I believe a number of them even smoke), but who are remarkably robust and healthy.

So taking all this into account, what is a paleo diet? It all becomes very confusing the more you try to narrow it down, and in the end it doesn't really matter because as long as you stick to basic principles of eating meat, vegetables, fruit, and some nuts and seeds you are going to be exceptionally healthy.

So to me a paleo diet is attempting to stick to these principles as the basis for my diet, not as the end-all be-all. Other mays say that because I drink beer I'm not "paleo." That's fine. I'm not trying to be part of a cult that rejects all modern foods, I'm simply trying to find a balance between optimal health and sensible enjoyment of various things that modern life has to offer.

[pogo69]

I agree with triangle one should not say they're eating paleo if they eat stuff that's not. Paleo should be paleo. Rather to be correct they should say: I'm eating 95-98% paleo

Agreed. And you're right Razz; there are very few people who eat strictly paleo, particularly if they're shooting for optimal performance in athletic pursuits.

But then I have to argue that Paleo is not the optimal solution, paleo+supplementation+beneficial foods such as coffe/tea/coconut is optimal.

I think that depends on how one defines "optimal". For (as above) optimal performance in athletic pursuits? Sure, you'll probably require non-paleo food sources and supplementation. But for optimal health and longevity? I don't believe you *need* anything but good quality paleo food.

As I said before; show me the studies that prove that eating nothing but meat, fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds is in any way harmful (particularly if fruit consumption is kept to a reasonable level). There is a reason no such study exists. That isn't to say that you can't do your body harm on purely paleo food sources; eat like a pig and suffer the consequences no matter the quality of your food, but that's just common sense.

I believe it benefit everyone to try eating purely "paleo" for a little while; eliminate all grains and dairy for a period of time and re-introduce small quantities of each to see how you feel with and without. Whether you want to call it paleo, celiac, elimination diet or gargibugundal, doesn't really matter. Some of us (many of us?) do have intolerances to these food sources that have been introduced to the human diet in more recent millenia; you won't know if you're one of them without experimenting on yourself.

Damn; I think I'm rambling off topic a little. But as triangle and razz postulate, paleo == paleo (or as near to it as the modern world can supply) food sources. If you want to ingest something outside what was available to our paleolithic ancestors, go ahead. But trying to justify it as beneficial and therefore in line with paleo principles is only fooling yourself; you're at most only "mostly" paleo.

[pogo69]

what is a paleo diet? It all becomes very confusing the more you try to narrow it down, and in the end it doesn't really matter because as long as you stick to basic principles of eating meat, vegetables, fruit, and some nuts and seeds you are going to be exceptionally healthy.

So to me a paleo diet is attempting to stick to these principles as the basis for my diet, not as the end-all be-all. Other mays say that because I drink beer I'm not "paleo." That's fine. I'm not trying to be part of a cult that rejects all modern foods, I'm simply trying to find a balance between optimal health and sensible enjoyment of various things that modern life has to offer.

I completely agree; and I believe Razz and Triangle would also. We all know that there were many different "variations" of paleo diet, dependent upon the specific food sources available to people in their area.

But others here are talking about justifying non-paleo food sources (those unknown to ANY paleo man) as beneficial and therefore in line with paleo principles. Which is just plain wrong.

Can non-paleo food sources be good for you? Potentially, yes. Can they be beneficial? Potentially, yes; for some more than others. Are they required for optimal health and longevity? I don't believe so, no. But I may be wrong; who knows? Are they paleo? Absolutely NOT.

I still think the fundamental flaw with the original premise of this thread is putting forward a study that shows moderate alcohol consumption as being beneficial, as some kind of flaw in the paleo diet. Beneficial in what way? And is it beneficial to those who are already consuming a balanced, purely paleo diet? I'm betting that study has never been done.

[Tarun Suri]

Triangle, I don't really understand what you're arguing about. It just sounds like your trying to provoke thought using post-modernist means. I guess I understand what you're trying to provoke, but I have no idea as to what you're recommending. Unless you're trying to tell me that I should label any healthy eating habits that I see by a completely different name. Do you not believe that paleo is an ideology?

[Neal Winkler]

Does paleo really improve peoples intestinal health, or is it all a placebo?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... ne.0015591

[Philip Chubb]

I think you can find a study on the internet to prove or disprove anything. We have even seen a study showing how static stretching improves performance but we all know how flawed this is.

[William Bateson]

If you say to someone alcohol in moderation is fine they'll hear "alcohol is fine". They don't want to stop drinking it, and they would like to be given a free pass to drink to their livers content. So which is the lesser of two evils, or the easier of two evils; answering every alcoholics question every week about exact amounts of what constitutes "moderate", or just saying don't drink alcohol? I get that you're trying to make a point, but the truth of the matter is when left to their own devices, many people have no self control and cannot regulate a single thing they do. In walks the PALEO PHILOSOPHY and says, "Here's a list of things you can't have, here's a list of things you can have. You can't have ANY AMOUNT of anything on the can't list, and you can have ANY AMOUNT of things on the can list. Just stop eating when you're full, call me in a month!"

Every body on this earth likes to think they are special, but we really aren't all that different. Maybe you'll do a little better on more carbs than me, maybe I'll be able to handle alcohol a little better, who knows. I see the paleo philosophy as setting a baseline with foods that generally do more harm than good, and than its up to the individual to add and subtract from there. That last part will never come for many people, because they cannot get out of their own way when it comes to their health, and they'll slowly add twinkies till they're 20 lbs overweight.

Maybe this study seems at odds with "paleo" to you because you understand it to be something different than what other people view it as?