Weight Loss
Moderators: devilish_patsy, spoiled_candy, coach_k, nycgirl, Mollybygolly


Paleo lifestyle for weight loss

thhq
Oct 15 2010 14:40
Member posts
Send message

Quote  |  Reply

After a few recent exchanges regarding the paleo diet, I've been giving this a lot of thought.  So as not to create arguments right away, I'll post the wiki link as a sort of arbiter of pros and cons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

 I've lost a lot of weight, maintained the loss for 3 years, and have improved many markers for improved health (blood tests, waistline, BMI).  This has resulted from three major lifestyle changes.  I'm coming to the realization that in many ways these are shifts toward paleo lifestyle.  In order of importance:

1. Doing more.  Most of my health improvements are related to increased activity.  I'm disappointed now when I can't be actively exercising 2-3 hours a day.  This behavior is also the prime distingusher of the hunter/gatherer paleos from present western society. 

2. Eating less.  In moving from obese weight (30 BMI) to overweight (27 BMI) this was my most important factor, even over exercise.  Eating less was also probably a paleo trait.  Hopefully someone might be able to show some academic evidence for this.  I wouldn't expect that obesity was much of a problem for paleos, and that eating probably was along th lines of binge/starve.  We certainly still carry the ability to do this today. A lot of my obesity problem stemmed from my ability to eat 5x the number of calories I can metabolize.  But I didn't regulate my weight by going 5 days without eating after the binge....

3. Eating healthier.  At the outset of my weight loss I suffered from the diseases of affluence (high blood pressure, blood sugar and A1C).  I was able to control the sugar and A1C immediately by restricting my consumption of easily digestable carbohydrates.  Whether all paleos had access to these foods is unknown to me, and probably varied a lot from high meat eating to tuber/fruit eating paleo cultures.  But the paleo cultures would have had in common a lack of easy access to these foods.

I've ranked these in what I feel are the order of importance in emulating a paleo lifestyle.  I don't want to quibble, but I consider the third one less important than the other two.  Dietary choices were very important when I was obese, but became less important as my weight came down.  There are some that consider this to be the overriding difference between paleo and modern living but this was/is not my experience.  All foods were on the table for paleos, and all foods are on the table for me.  A paleo would eat anything that would not kill him, and would have happily eaten Cheetos given the chance.

This is a syncretic approach to paleo, not an absolutist Luddite one.  I can see the benefits of exercise, reduced eating, and making better diet choices as good things about paleo life.  But I can also see the benefits of using the computer, going to the doctor and dentist, and riding in a car (or walking) to the store to get food.  I'm not interested in life ending suddenly at age 25 by starving, being gored by a buffalo or eating nightshade berries. 

120 Replies (last)
Original Post by neanderthin:

The paleo type diet and it's macronutrient ratio's are based on the ethnographical atlas of the collected data of around 230 H-G sites and it shows the Animal to Plant ratio to be an average depending on geographical location of around 65:35 and around 30/35/35 P/C/F.

That would be some interesting data to see, if anyone knows of a link to it.  Not just what the average ratios are but how widely the 230 various groups varied from the average.

Original Post by jp5074139:

Original Post by neanderthin:

The paleo type diet and it's macronutrient ratio's are based on the ethnographical atlas of the collected data of around 230 H-G sites and it shows the Animal to Plant ratio to be an average depending on geographical location of around 65:35 and around 30/35/35 P/C/F.

That would be some interesting data to see, if anyone knows of a link to it.  Not just what the average ratios are but how widely the 230 various groups varied from the average.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/682

 

Figure #2 is probably what your asking.

thhq
Oct 22 2010 15:03
Member posts
Send message
#64  
Quote  |  Reply
Original Post by melkor:

 An 80% protein diet would be pretty silly anyway, given that a high-protein/moderate-carbohydrate diet has a decently-sized metabolic advantage over a high-protein/no-carb diet.

Interesting to see that cutting carbs had a negative effect on energy expenditure - it supports the hypothesis that the crucial part is not low-carb but adequate-protein. 

 Thanks, Melkor.  I eat carbs for the energy they give me when I eat them, which in turn supports a high level of activity.  If I went on an extreme protein diet I wouldn't get the boost I need because proteins are slow to convert to blood glucose.  Being lethargic and sluggish from a gutful of undigested protein and fat is the last thing I want on my daily walks.

Kvalhion, are you still paying attention to all this?  These are the kind of studies I was asking you for a week ago, to support your assertion that a diet containing grain caused leaky gut syndrome.

I used to have to write, publish and review articles like this.  They ends up in esoteric journals which are hard to access, but which are well known to specialists in a given field.  They represent expensive research done well.  Unfortunately my company/industry don't support this kind of work anymore. There's not enough benefit to justify the cost.

Now I'm starting to get an idea where the concept of the daily apple comes from, too.  That's all the carbs you're allowed for a day, speaking in extreme paleo-ese?  Well, it's time to wax aphoristic.....

I like to go to the carnival every once in a while to play dime-in-a-dish. The merchandise is right up front and I occasionally win an ashtray or a glass.  In dietary terms this is the effect I get from taking a statin or exercising for cholesterol control.  The benefit is clearly seen for the money I pay. 

By contrast I don't like going into the tent to see the fat lady or the giant alligator.  For this you have to pay a fee to a barker, and I alway's been disappointed with what I saw inside.  Diet wise, this is the impression I had when I was sent to adamsdailyapple for information on cholesterol.  The barker is a ripped-looking virtual surfer guy.  The information on cholesterol is vague useless terms, not standard measurements I can relate to.  But there is a very direct appeal for money to buy a book and dietary supplements, along with the now familiar insinuations of toxicity from eating HEALTHY diets.

Think about it kvalhion.   Paleo has some merits, but adamsdailyapple does their best to make it look like the new lemonade diet.  I'm starting to wonder if you're their sock puppet.

Original Post by neanderthin:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/682

 

Figure #2 is probably what your asking.

I'll read through that when I get a chance, thanks.  It looks interesting.

Another (somewhat related) thought.  Experimental studies of one diet vs another are clearly applicable in this debate.   But I have to wonder something about basing a diet on anthropological data.  Do the pro-paleo folks ever take into consideration how much the lives and lifestyles of paleo humans differs considerably from ours?  We live indoors and have reliable heat in the winter, most of us don't hunt or gather for hours per day, we don't typically live constantly so close to the threat of starvation, we live far longer than they did.  Why should we simply assume that what might have been evolutionarily optimal for them is optimal for us?

Original Post by thhq:

I eat carbs for the energy they give me when I eat them, which in turn supports a high level of activity.  If I went on an extreme protein diet I wouldn't get the boost I need because proteins are slow to convert to blood glucose. 

 I fail to see what the problem is here.   Please quote me where I said you should eat an extreme protein diet, or limit carbohydrates in any way.   I eat as many vegetables and occasional fruits every single day that I am nowhere near what someone would describe as 'low carb'.  Nor am I eating 10 steaks a day to be 'extreme protein'.   If these are what the studies are using for their data, then its irrelevent to me.

Original Post by thhq:

Kvalhion, are you still paying attention to all this?  These are the kind of studies I was asking you for a week ago, to support your assertion that a diet containing grain caused leaky gut syndrome.

 I'm paying attention to this but I do not see anything worth commenting on.  No one has refuted that lectins in grain do not damage the lining of the gut which can lead to leaky gut syndrome, especially if the diet is high protein combined with high sugar in the forms of grains or sweets.   Over time the gut can get damaged to a point to cause leaky gut syndrome.   

Original Post by thhq:

Now I'm starting to get an idea where the concept of the daily apple comes from, too.  That's all the carbs you're allowed for a day, speaking in extreme paleo-ese?  Well, it's time to wax aphoristic.....

 No, it's not.   I'm sure you've head the expression 'an apple a day keeps the doctor away'.  Hence, the 'daily apple'.  Its advice and articles about health thats usually updated daily.

Paleo says nothing about limiting carbohydrate intake.  Not sure where this 180 came from on your attitude.    Paleo simply says avoid processed foods and minimize grains.  Robb Wolf says try a 30 day challenge and eliminate grains, dairy, and legumes completely to see how you do.  Others say follow a 80 / 20 pattern.    Eat a ton of vegetables, eat fruits if you are maintaining or minimize fruit if you are trying to lose weight.   I really fail to see why people must make this more complicated than it is.

Original Post by thhq:

In dietary terms this is the effect I get from taking a statin or exercising for cholesterol control.  The benefit is clearly seen for the money I pay. 

I am choosing an alternate path;  I do not want to have to take a statin drug and be exposed to the possible side effects.  For example:

Pinning down the side effects of statins
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/09/healt h/la-he-statins-side-effects-20100809

Original Post by thhq:

Diet wise, this is the impression I had when I was sent to adamsdailyapple for information on cholesterol.  The barker is a ripped-looking virtual surfer guy.  The information on cholesterol is vague useless terms, not standard measurements I can relate to.  But there is a very direct appeal for money to buy a book and dietary supplements, along with the now familiar insinuations of toxicity from eating HEALTHY diets.

Ad hominem attack.  It's pretty childish to get the name wrong and make fun of how someone looks as a basis to try to discredit what they say.  You've said nothing that refutes the information about cholesterol in that link.    Yes, he like many others has a book, but nowhere does it say "you have to buy my book for me to explain it".   Yes, he offers supplements, but nowhere does it say you must buy his supplements to follow the advice.

Original Post by thhq:

Think about it kvalhion.   Paleo has some merits, but adamsdailyapple does their best to make it look like the new lemonade diet.  I'm starting to wonder if you're their sock puppet.

 Don't worry, I'm starting to wonder a few things about you myself.  One day you are against it, next day you start a thread supporting it, now you are against it again for reasons that make absolutely no sense.

Do whatever you want, I honestly have no stake in it.   I just dont get what the point is of mischaracterizing very basic advice:   avoid processed foods, eat whole foods, eat a lot of vegetables and some fruits, and eat healthy proteins.  That's it.

Good luck to you, sounds like you may need it. :)

 

thhq
Oct 22 2010 17:00
Member posts
Send message
#67  
Quote  |  Reply

" Don't worry, I'm starting to wonder a few things about you myself.  One day you are against it, next day you start a thread supporting it, now you are against it again for reasons that make absolutely no sense."

kvalhion, I'll pick and choose what makes sense to me in light of my experience and education.  I read all sources, but I prefer the peer reviewed papers because they've already had to withstand review.  For instance, from everything that has been presented in this thread so far I can see some benefit to slightly increasing the protein in my diet.  I also see that for me personally it would be foolish to go to what you call the "80:20" diet.  I initiated this thread because a LIFESTYLE of activity and moderation matched paleo behavior, not because of anything related to a particular diet.  You have a problem with that apparently. 

"Ad hominem" is a popular term with you.  Do you know what an aphorism is?  Do you have a sense of humor at all? 

Now let's talk about sock puppetry. I have not heard one critical word from you regarding Wolf or adamsdailyapple.  If anyone on this thread dares to criticize these sources, you become vindictive.  Who are you trying to protect? Why?

Original Post by jp5074139:

But I have to wonder something about basing a diet on anthropological data.  Do the pro-paleo folks ever take into consideration how much the lives and lifestyles of paleo humans differs considerably from ours?  We live indoors and have reliable heat in the winter, most of us don't hunt or gather for hours per day, we don't typically live constantly so close to the threat of starvation, we live far longer than they did.  Why should we simply assume that what might have been evolutionarily optimal for them is optimal for us?

As opposed to what?   How does having reliable heat in the winter, not hunting or gathering, and having no threat of starvation lead to recommending high amounts of grains and sugar in our diet?

People studying paleo type diets take into account food availability over millions of years leading up to the paleolithic era, not just a small window.   When the overabundance and ease of processed foods became available, disease and obesity have become more prevalent.

The point here is that studying the biochemistry of these foods does not rely upon hours upon hours of daily activity in order for the body's response to be considered healthy.   Whether you exercise hours a day or not, the same principles apply and studies have reflected this.    If you eat primarily proteins and vegetables (neither in the extreme), then you limit inflammation and insulin insensitivity.

Again, what is your basis for recommending grains and other processed foods other than you like them and how they taste?  Wheres the studies that show grains have a better nutritional content than vegetables and fruit?   If there are are no such studies, what is the problem with minimizing or eliminating foods that have little or no nutritional benefit over other foods?

It's funny how people who minimize or eliminate grains and sugars are considered extremists yet the people on here trying to come up with any possible excuse to keep eating sugar are supposedly "healthy".

Original Post by thhq:

kvalhion, I'll pick and choose what makes sense to me in light of my experience and education.  I read all sources, but I prefer the peer reviewed papers because they've already had to withstand review.  For instance, from everything that has been presented in this thread so far I can see some benefit to slightly increasing the protein in my diet.  I also see that for me personally it would be foolish to go to what you call the "80:20" diet.  I initiated this thread because a LIFESTYLE of activity and moderation matched paleo behavior, not because of anything related to a particular diet.  You have a problem with that apparently. 

 You are putting words in my mouth again.   When I refer to 80 / 20 diet I do not mean 80% protein.  I mean you follow the paleo principles (lean proteins, vegetables, some fruits, nuts, eggs, fish) 80% of the time when you eat.  The other 20% of the time you incorporate foods that are not considered ideal, such as grains, legumes, dairy, sweets.   If you cannot handle this as a lifestyle then you must do what you must.    I do not see this as unreasonable at all.

If you want to decide solely upon 'peer reviewed' research then knock yourself out.  There's plenty of 'peer reviewed' research that has been shown to be inaccurate.  Simply because its been 'peer reviewed' doesn't mean the conclusions reached or the methods undertaken are accurate.

For me I do not dismiss something out of hand just because it is coming from a research biochemist or doctor.   If something they've said has been thoroughly refuted then I certainly take that into account.   Yet nothing they've said is being refuted;  its simply being dismissed because other people with their own particular bias have not peer reviewed it to the extent you are comfortable with.

 

Original Post by thhq:

"Ad hominem" is a popular term with you.  Do you know what an aphorism is?  Do you have a sense of humor at all? 

Now let's talk about sock puppetry. I have not heard one critical word from you regarding Wolf or adamsdailyapple.  If anyone on this thread dares to criticize these sources, you become vindictive.  Who are you trying to protect? Why?

 It's popular because its a logical fallacy you seem to enjoy. :)   No I do not have a sense of humor when words are purposely misconstrued or logical information is dismissed out of hand.   What's the point of referring to marksdailyapple.com constantly as adamsdailyapple?   Maybe its just an error, but if not, its childish and not very amusing.

You can call me all the names you want but the point here is you've refuted nothing they've said.  Why would I be critical of these sources when they are not making extraordinary claims and do have many sources of published research to back up what they say?  They obviously do not need me or anyone else to 'defend' them.   All I've done is point out what you and others have misconstrued and attributed to them.   Why people feel they must do this is really beyond my comprehension.

 Eh, Mark Sisson's all right - I don't always agree with him and when he quotes research he picks cherries like it's going out of style, but the end result of his narrative is a reasonably healthy diet even if he arrives at it by some fairly dubious window-dressing. It's just not the only healthy diet out there, and the case against grains he's building is - oh, weak to non-existent

 Though sometimes I'm in two minds about it - is it all right to use what's essentially science fantasy if the end result is reasonable anyway?

 

thhq
Oct 22 2010 18:22
Member posts
Send message
#71  
Quote  |  Reply

Well I see what you mean jp, and from here on in he's all yours.....I can't keep a straight face much longer.....

And I'm afraid that if that ripped virtual surfer dude at adamsdailyapple (er, MARKSdailyapple - I don't want ANYONE to screw up the link and miss the opportunity to buy books and diet supplements) ever gets me inside his tent he'll beat the cr#p out of me.....think I could probably outrun him though.....looks like a heart attack waiting to happen......

Original Post by jp5074139:

Original Post by neanderthin:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/682

 

Figure #2 is probably what your asking.

I'll read through that when I get a chance, thanks.  It looks interesting.

Another (somewhat related) thought.  Experimental studies of one diet vs another are clearly applicable in this debate.   But I have to wonder something about basing a diet on anthropological data.  Do the pro-paleo folks ever take into consideration how much the lives and lifestyles of paleo humans differs considerably from ours?  We live indoors and have reliable heat in the winter, most of us don't hunt or gather for hours per day, we don't typically live constantly so close to the threat of starvation, we live far longer than they did.  Why should we simply assume that what might have been evolutionarily optimal for them is optimal for us?

To answer you last question we would probably need to find out if it was the nutritional aspect of their lives that was the cause of their short life span, and if it was, then we could conclude that it was the food they were eating that caused their lives to be shortened. The raw data doesn't support that hypothesis, on the contrary death from diseases was pretty much non existent. One of the problems of assessing life span are confounders like child mortality where 30 to 40 % die off before the age of 10 and most before the age of 5. Lets say we have 100 babies and 40 die off and the others average 60 years  we would have an overall average life span of under 40 even though 60 % of the population lived to be 60. Hazards from childbirth, accidents, animal attacks including poisonous snakes and insects, toxic plants, winter weather, and just surviving in a wild and dangerous environment in general will reduce life span.....but to say it was the food that caused them to die is not supported anywhere.....survival of the fittest, optimal foraging techniques would assure the next generation of a strong immune system going forward, it's just the way of nature and if the food was killing them (disease we as a species would probably have died out many millenniums ago) but it shows we were a very strong and resourceful breed despite all of natures dangerous hurtles.

 

If a natural diet, one that is low in fasting blood sugar due to the sheer amount of vegetation and lean protein and is seen as a good applicable template for good health and able to not only slow down but reverse the symptoms of metabolic syndrome and diabetes and I'm not talking a paleo diet here, I'm talking anyone of the many diets that have that philosophy at their foundation, then why would we not include a diet that has sustained us since time emporium be considered bad for us? It must be the sacred grain and dairy that people have a hard time giving up, me included. Just the fact that a natural diet is more harmonious with our natural hormonal balances plays a key role in weight management.

A natural diet compared to the SAD diet improves most symptoms of metabolic syndrome in sedentary people without a deficit as described in one the first links I provided.....Modern lazy people, us, that don't move a lot would live longer by changing from a diet where over 65% of their daily macro's come from foods that are highly processed to ones that aren't, so I can't see why a diet based on that premise would somehow be deleterious whether it be paleo, med, zone, dieabetes diet simply because we don't move much or need to defend our lives every minute of every day....

 

Personally I like the idea of a paleolithic diet as it pertains to my health based on the evidence but I also know that I could never adhere to it or agree with the dogma that surrounds this diet.....unless we have aversions to grain and dairy I can't justify leaving them out of my diet all together. I will admit I stay away from wheat as much as I can and the small amount of grains I do eat are natural and I will never give up dairy, no way, no chance. Does this mean I don't believe in a paleo diet, not at all, it's just the fact that I don't believe that including some grain and dairy can't be part of a natural diet. I give the paleo diet its due..........the guru diatribe and dogma I can do without though.

I'm not suggesting that their diet is what caused our paleo ancestors' shorter lifespans.  I'm saying that what's optimal for someone who has a shorter lifespan (for whatever reasons) may not be optimal for someone with a longer one and who will face different sets of health challenges (and not just from diet, but from the greater exposure to disease due to living in more crowded conditions, etc).  And of course that it might not be optimal for the kinds of lives we lead compared to the ones they did.  Even among modern humans there's no one optimal intake balance across all lifestyles, consider whether the optimal level of macronutrients for a bodybuilder is the same as that for a marathon distance runner or the same as that for a fairly-active desk jockey like myself.

Nor am I suggesting the paleo diet is bad for us.  Just that it is not necessarily more optimal, and even if it DOES turn out to be at or close to optimal (a possibility I will concede but have yet to see demonstrated) how much MORE optimal it turns out to be - and most importantly, whether that is worth the added costs of adopting it. 

As I was saying in an earlier post, if eating paleo is only going to get me an average of another 40.5 years instead of 40, I'm simply not interested.  I'm just not into the kind of dietary purity-of-essence that has people optimizing everything that can be optimized and diminishing every risk factor that can be diminished regardless of how small it is or how much it costs to do so.   For me there is definitely a point of diminishing returns, and I've yet to see anything that shows me going paleo isn't beyond it.  For me, anyway, I recognize that others might have their thresholds for "why bother?" set differently than I do. 

 

Original Post by melkor:

 Eh, Mark Sisson's all right - I don't always agree with him and when he quotes research he picks cherries like it's going out of style, but the end result of his narrative is a reasonably healthy diet even if he arrives at it by some fairly dubious window-dressing. It's just not the only healthy diet out there, and the case against grains he's building is - oh, weak to non-existent.  

You do realize the study you pointed do shows that wheat was in fact damaging to health, don't you?  How is that showing the case against grains is weak or nonexistent?   I must be missing something here.

http://www.paleo-diet.co/2010/09/wheat-is-mur der/

Denise Minger (relatively famous for destroying Campbell’s China Study claims) has posted her long awaited “wheat post”. It is so awesome you should not be wasting your time here if you have not already read it and should immediately go there now:  The China Study, Wheat, and Heart Disease; Oh My!

Highlights – wheat consumption is strongly correlated with heart disease no matter what confounding variables and multivariate analyses were thrown at it. Denise did a great job of exploring many of the alternative possibilities that could vindicate wheat. This seems to be in stark contrast to many “nutrition scientists” who seem to focus too much on their preconceived ideas. Peter at Hyperlipid discusses a paper where the authors basically went back and re-performed thier own earlier study to ensure that the results were more inline with their views.

Another interesting correlation that Denise found is that wheat is tied to increased BMI (Body Mass Index), even with apparently lower caloric consumption and possibly higher physical activity.  (WGA, a wheat lectin, is known to be insulin-mimetic, so maybe this plays a role, but this is just wild speculation on my part.)

 

Original Post by thhq:

Well I see what you mean jp, and from here on in he's all yours.....I can't keep a straight face much longer.....

And I'm afraid that if that ripped virtual surfer dude at adamsdailyapple (er, MARKSdailyapple - I don't want ANYONE to screw up the link and miss the opportunity to buy books and diet supplements) ever gets me inside his tent he'll beat the cr#p out of me.....think I could probably outrun him though.....looks like a heart attack waiting to happen......

Yeah, because Mark Sission is the only person who has written a book on nutrition, or sells nutrtional products.   Great detective work exposing this fraud!!

 Your post, in message forum land, is how to say you've lost whatever point you were trying to debate.   No substance whatsoever and then you say "oh well I didn't care anyway".

Take care now. :)

thhq
Oct 22 2010 20:18
Member posts
Send message
#76  
Quote  |  Reply

kvalhion, it was you who came in and cr#pped on my thread in the first place.

Not once have you supported my thesis about the paleo lifestyle.  You took it right back to the diet.  You are the one who perverted my intent.

But it doesnt really matter.  You're amusing.  And melkor and neanderthin supplied us all with some helpful information.  And you lost some weight ,which I credit you for.

So don't go away mad.  You did good.

And as always I expect that you will want the last word.  Be my guest.

Hard to say jp.......there is no 1 factor that will guarantee an extension of life, just like there is no 1 factor that caused the degenerative diseases of civilization. What is optimal? We do know that the collision with our ancient genome from modern novel foods have factored in to our ill health, and we're world renown for it, just ask any nation or people that have tried adopting it. Like I said a natural diet should sustain good nutritional health regardless of lifespan...The divergence within a natural diet shouldn't really factor into longevity, I guessing. The H-G data shows a wide range of macronutrient variances, so I agree we can do the same without much harm to self. If for some reason your under the impression that there is some kind of predetermined ratio based on a paleo diet, I certainly am not the one that has or is preaching it.

It's not so much the macronutrient ratios I have issues with, it's the whole Thou Shalt Not bit.  Not eat grain, not eat nuts, not eat potatoes, not eat dairy.  Heck I was reading there's paleos who won't eat tomatoes, a perfectly acceptable vegetable in every way besides not being available in paleo days. 

I just have to ask: for what?  I can find out how many years smoking takes off my life.  Ditto for high blood pressure and diabetes.  I know what the benefits of exercise are.  When somebody can tell me how much life or how much quality of my life I'm likely to lose from eating grains and the other forbidden things, if any, I'll decide what to do then. 

I've already made a good number of changes in my diet and lifestyle.  They weren't easy but I know they're worth it.  If those get me 99% of the way to the best health and longest life I can expect from my genome and it's going to take another change just as large (i.e. giving up grains and nuts and dairy) for another half-percent, would that be worth it?  (rhetorical question, don't worry about answering it - I've got my answer and others can find theirs)

 

tomatoes, peppers, etc are nightshades which can cause irritation in some people.  if it doesnt cause irritation then there is no reason to cut it out.  for robb wolfs thirty day challenge he says cut anything out that may be contributing to digestion issues then add them back in.  if you dont have any symptoms during the challenge but feel awful adding them back in then you know what foods are the culprit.  if you know you dont have issues with these foods then you dont need to cut them out.  i eat some dairy .. mainly small amounts of cheese or creamer and i love peppers and tomatoes so i dont cut them out.

these diets really arent about exclusion..they are focusing on health.  that will mean different things to different people.  the one universal thing is lowering sugar intake usually by limiting grains.

i try to focus on the purpose of the guidelines and the results i want instead or worrying whether or not i am breaking a set of rules.  so far so good.

Original Post by kvalhion:

for robb wolfs thirty day challenge he says cut anything out that may be contributing to digestion issues then add them back in.  if you dont have any symptoms during the challenge but feel awful adding them back in then you know what foods are the culprit.

That would include "fiber".  Ever try going from a low-fiber intake to a high fiber intake in a short time?  I have.  It is distinctly and decidedly unpleasant while your intestinal flora and fauna scramble to adjust, which is why it's recommended (and I wish I'd known at the time) to increase your fiber slowly, like over 4-6 weeks.  Yet we know fiber is beneficial.

And yes, the paleo diet is about exclusion.  How can you go on about the horrors of grain consumption and say the paleo diet isn't about exclusion?  It's all about exclusion.

120 Replies (last)
Advertisement