• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Calories in vs. calories out, caloric quality etc.

G

gramboh

Platinum Member
I came across this blog post this morning that seems to argue against the simple calories in versus calories out (or at least states it is an oversimplification) as well as other issues. I'm pretty clueless about the science behind nutrition and only understand the basics, but I found it interesting. There are some good comments as well discussing grains (which the paleo diet suggets avoiding).

http://byerscrossfit.blogspot....-fat-loss-edition.html
 
I skimmed through the post quickly and it seems like a decent summary. This thread on the CF messageboards has a decent discussion of these topics as well. Things definitely aren't as simple as calories in vs. calories out: the type of food eaten is just as important as the quantity. In fact, most people would probably have far more success in getting healthy by eating a diet consisting of entirely whole foods (changing the type of calories) than by just trying to eat less (changing the quantity of calories).
 
To be perfectly honest, I find that article substantially lacking. He talks about all these things, but 1) never cites any sort of research for it, 2) speculates quite a bit and then mentions it as fact, 3) really pigeonholes the possible solutions via the "I drank the CF koolaid" kinda mentality. I agree that endocrinology does affect how things are digested and such. However, he doesn't really prove anything. He just says that fat is a more efficient fuel source, what you eat may change your BMR, and that you should take out a lot of good things from your diet (dairy, legumes). I don't think this argument would be the same at all if written by someone who had equal amounts of education in nutrition as he does in chemistry. Clearly mainstream nutrition is rarely right, but I believe someone with more knowledge on this could write a much more efficient and explanatory article.
 
If you look at it on a daily basis, the calories in vs calories out actually is supreme in determining weight. Yes, your body metabolism shifts so that the amount of calories you need/burn can be different, but if you are constantly adjusting your calorie intake (and/or exercise) to match observed weight gain/loss, then you will lose weight (or fat).

Calorie watching has always been dependent on physical observation. A calorie calculator can't tell you precisely what you need to do. Calorie counting does give you a means to control weight loss, and to gauge how much you are eating and changes to your diet.
 
Originally posted by: Crono
If you look at it on a daily basis, the calories in vs calories out actually is supreme in determining weight. Yes, your body metabolism shifts so that the amount of calories you need/burn can be different, but if you are constantly adjusting your calorie intake (and/or exercise) to match observed weight gain/loss, then you will lose weight (or fat).
Click to expand...

The problem is that your body metabolism may shift depending on the type of calories you eat. Moreover, so may your hunger levels. For example, if you believe the carbohydrate hypothesis (as Taubes describes in GCBC), eating too many processed carbs makes your body less efficient at using your fat stores for energy. If this is true, then when you eat a high carb diet, you are severely impeding your own weight loss by reducing the "calories out" portion of the equation. Moreover, hunger levels tend to be more problematic on a high carb diet, so not only are you burning fewer calories, but it's actually harder to force yourself to eat fewer calories.

Now, I don't know know if the carbohydrate hypothesis is true, but there is an awful lot of evidence of all sorts that shows that the type of calories you eat can impact weight loss (and other health measurements) just as much as the quantity of calories you eat. This makes the calories in vs. calories out equation a fairly weak and ineffective tool for many people. Take some time to browse through the CF messageboard thread I mentioned, including this post that shows how calories in vs. calories out just doesn't tell the whole story.
 
Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
To be perfectly honest, I find that article substantially lacking. He talks about all these things, but 1) never cites any sort of research for it, 2) speculates quite a bit and then mentions it as fact, 3) really pigeonholes the possible solutions via the "I drank the CF koolaid" kinda mentality. I agree that endocrinology does affect how things are digested and such. However, he doesn't really prove anything. He just says that fat is a more efficient fuel source, what you eat may change your BMR, and that you should take out a lot of good things from your diet (dairy, legumes). I don't think this argument would be the same at all if written by someone who had equal amounts of education in nutrition as he does in chemistry. Clearly mainstream nutrition is rarely right, but I believe someone with more knowledge on this could write a much more efficient and explanatory article.
Click to expand...

Although the content of the post is pretty interesting and there is research out there to back up a lot of it, I do agree that the fact that none of the research is cited is a bit problematic. To be fair, this is a blog post, and as mentioned in one of the first few paragraphs, a lot of what's discussed comes from Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" which has several hundred pages of citations. Still, there are a lot of bold and controversial claims in the article that he probably should have taken the time to provide some evidence for. Oh, and the dairy/legume thing may seem somewhat out of the blue, but it's there because the guy is promoting a paleo diet, which believes in eliminating any food man did not eat before the advent of agriculture.
 
Paleo diets are probably harmless but I don't exactly buy the rationale behind the "no carbohydrate" claim - that "our ancestors" did not eat them. I am not sure that is anthropologically accurate. Especially because "no carb" is the current trend in dieting, and this diet nicely fits into that mold. As far as I am concerned the "no carb" people are really a small but vocal minority. Current wisdom seems to suggest that a plant-centric diet is absolutely essential for long-term health and longevity.

I do agree with them that consumption of highly processed carbohydrates is problematic, but I think it's a bit of a logical jump to then go to "all carbohydrates are bad," and then lump legumes in with this claim. I haven't read Taubes' book but this claim alone makes me pretty skeptical.

Ultimately, weight loss probably all about what combination works for you (i.e. what you can stick to). If Mr. X can STAY on a high-fat, low carbohydrate diet and lose weight, good for him. But diets may not work for Mrs. Y, in which case she might need to take up more exercise.
 
I like how that thread goes about explaining it. It makes a lot of sense in considering how the body processes these different things. However, I'd go as far as saying as a calorie IS still a calorie although it's effects are not necessarily the same. The net calories involved are going to be different, but the calories coming in will maintain the same value. That's like saying celery has negative calories, which isn't technically true. Celery has very few calories, but when it is processed by the body, the net result is a negative value (metabolic energy put into digesting it is greater than what is received from the celery). So the calorie is still a calorie, but depending on where that calorie comes from modifies the body's expenditure of energy via hormonal input.
 
Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I like how that thread goes about explaining it. It makes a lot of sense in considering how the body processes these different things. However, I'd go as far as saying as a calorie IS still a calorie. However, it's effects are not necessarily the same. The net calories involved are going to be different, but the calories coming in will maintain the same value. That's like saying celery has negative calories, which isn't technically true. Celery has very few calories, but when it is processed by the body, the net result is a negative value (metabolic energy put into digesting it is greater than what is received from the celery). So the calorie is still a calorie, but depending on where that calorie comes from modifies the body's expenditure of energy via hormonal input.
Click to expand...

To add yet another wrinkle to this already complicated puzzle, your genetic makeup also controls how your body responds to ingested nutrients - although this is still a evolving area of research.

Consider all the inputs that go into determining your hereditary genetic makeup, the genes involved in forming the hundreds of enzymes that process nutrients in your body, the widespread variability between populations and individuals, and you have well...a nightmare.
 
Originally posted by: Kipper
Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged
I like how that thread goes about explaining it. It makes a lot of sense in considering how the body processes these different things. However, I'd go as far as saying as a calorie IS still a calorie. However, it's effects are not necessarily the same. The net calories involved are going to be different, but the calories coming in will maintain the same value. That's like saying celery has negative calories, which isn't technically true. Celery has very few calories, but when it is processed by the body, the net result is a negative value (metabolic energy put into digesting it is greater than what is received from the celery). So the calorie is still a calorie, but depending on where that calorie comes from modifies the body's expenditure of energy via hormonal input.
Click to expand...

To add yet another wrinkle to this already complicated puzzle, your genetic makeup also controls how your body responds to ingested nutrients - although this is still a evolving area of research.

Consider all the inputs that go into determining your hereditary genetic makeup, the genes involved in forming the hundreds of enzymes that process nutrients in your body, the widespread variability between populations and individuals, and you have well...a nightmare.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This may play a significant role in a person's response to foods. It's really hard to try to cater to everyone because of this so the calorie in vs calorie out is still the easiest way to explain things to a mass of people. Everybody has to figure out what works best for them essentially.
 
Originally posted by: Kipper
Paleo diets are probably harmless but I don't exactly buy the rationale behind the "no carbohydrate" claim - that "our ancestors" did not eat them. I am not sure that is anthropologically accurate. Especially because "no carb" is the current trend in dieting, and this diet nicely fits into that mold. As far as I am concerned the "no carb" people are really a small but vocal minority. Current wisdom seems to suggest that a plant-centric diet is absolutely essential for long-term health and longevity.

I do agree with them that consumption of highly processed carbohydrates is problematic, but I think it's a bit of a logical jump to then go to "all carbohydrates are bad," and then lump legumes in with this claim. I haven't read Taubes' book but this claim alone makes me pretty skeptical.

Ultimately, weight loss probably all about what combination works for you (i.e. what you can stick to). If Mr. X can STAY on a high-fat, low carbohydrate diet and lose weight, good for him. But diets may not work for Mrs. Y, in which case she might need to take up more exercise.
Click to expand...

Where does that article say to eat NO carbs? The main recommendation there is to eat paleo foods which effectively are LOW carbs, but this not even close to a ketogenic diet. In fact, the Zone diet (which is also recommended in that post) typically has 40% of the calories coming from carbs, which is quite far from zero carbs. Same comment goes for Taubes' book: if you actually read it, he is NOT recommending ketogenic diets. The main point of the book is to prove the fat hypothesis wrong (that dietary fat is the cause of obesity and "bad" for you) and suggest an alternative hypothesis that too many highly processed carbs are likely more problematic. This doesn't mean you should stop eating all carbs, but simply reduce your carb intake, especially highly processed carbs.

Edit --> just went back through the article and noticed that he does suggest a cyclic ketogenic diet if you are unable to lose weight on the Zone diet. However, this sounds like a last resort and he mentions that it will result in decreased performance. I'd say this is quite far from the main suggestions of the article.
 
What? Calories in VS. Calories out is an oversimplification?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I don't believe it.



...



Health is not numbers.

(sorry for trolling, I admit I haven't read much of the article)
 
Originally posted by: brikis98

Where does that article say to eat NO carbs? The main recommendation there is to eat paleo foods which effectively are LOW carbs, but this not even close to a ketogenic diet. In fact, the Zone diet (which is also recommended in that post) typically has 40% of the calories coming from carbs, which is quite far from zero carbs. Same comment goes for Taubes' book: if you actually read it, he is NOT recommending ketogenic diets. The main point of the book is to prove the fat hypothesis wrong (that dietary fat is the cause of obesity and "bad" for you) and suggest an alternative hypothesis that too many highly processed carbs are likely more problematic. This doesn't mean you should stop eating all carbs, but simply reduce your carb intake, especially highly processed carbs.

Edit --> just went back through the article and noticed that he does suggest a cyclic ketogenic diet if you are unable to lose weight on the Zone diet. However, this sounds like a last resort and he mentions that it will result in decreased performance. I'd say this is quite far from the main suggestions of the article.
Click to expand...

In this case, "low carbs" may just as well be "no carbs." The diet advocated here recommends: "some fruit, little starch, no sugar, no grains, no dairy, no legumes." That very well cuts out all of the major carbohydrate sources in the human diet. Vegetables, with the exception of certain tubers and roots (beets, potatoes, carrots, parsnips, etc. that would probably be precluded from the diet - note the avoidance of 'starches') contain little or no digestible carbohydrate - and I am assuming, that at even high levels of consumption this would presumably still keep one in a ketotic state, or at least induce some degree of ketogenesis. At least, that's what I take away from this all.

Also:
Yes. Ideally, one would only want to consume enough complex carbohydrates to be able to perform optimally during exercise, with the remainder of the calories consisting of protein and fat. Eating only as many complex carbohydrates as absolutely necessary is especially true if the carbohydrates are coming from insulin spiking sources such as bread. (You shouldn?t have to worry about your intake of vegetables, however.)
Click to expand...

Clearly, this person is not a huge fan of carbohydrates. Whether they're running with Taubes' theory I don't know, but whatever this blog seems to be advocating it certainly seems to be conveniently in bed with the current "carbs are bad" trend, which I find somewhat problematic.

That aside...

I, for one, am fairly convinced that the obesity crisis rose out of recommendations for low-fat diets in the early 80s, paired with the following "carb scare." As manufacturers shunned fat, they increased the proportion of carbohydrate in the products (mostly by adding sugar) to make up for the lack of flavor and texture. The net result was that overall caloric intake didn't particularly drop appreciably. Now, we're headed in the opposite direction. Carbs are bad, fat is good. Surprise, a lot of items touted as "low-carbohydrate" are also rich in fat. The problem isn't one particular macronutrient. Here's where the debate centers: the camp that the problem is America's addiction to heavily processed "value-added" foods, an addiction largely fueled by the ubiquity of artificially cheap grain and powerful food lobby in Washington. Then, on the other side you have people who stress "personal responsibility" and a need for physical exercise and education. Both are probably right to some extent.
 
Originally posted by: Kipper
In this case, "low carbs" may just as well be "no carbs." The diet advocated here recommends: "some fruit, little starch, no sugar, no grains, no dairy, no legumes." That very well cuts out all of the major carbohydrate sources in the human diet. Vegetables, with the exception of certain tubers and roots (beets, potatoes, carrots, parsnips, etc. that would probably be precluded from the diet - note the avoidance of 'starches') contain little or no digestible carbohydrate - and I am assuming, that at even high levels of consumption this would presumably still keep one in a ketotic state, or at least induce some degree of ketogenesis. At least, that's what I take away from this all.
Click to expand...
Although I don't know the author personally, I think your assumption is wrong. This is a Crossfit blog, the article mentions crossfit numerous times, and the advice to eat "some fruit, little starch..." is just a modification of Crossfit's "world class fitness in 100 words" (check it out on the right side of this page). As such, it's worth noting that Crossfit's typical diet recommendation is a Zone diet (one of the recommendations in the article), which typically recommends 40% of the calories to come from carbs. You wouldn't even call the Zone diet low carb (just like 40% fat wouldn't be called low fat), so we are a VERY long way from ketogenic. If you're eating 2000 calories per day, that's about 200g of carbs. To get into ketosis, you probably need to drop under 50g, which would be a quarter of that amount. Fruits and veggies and the other plant foods in the paleo diet contain plenty of carbs to get you well above that mark.

Originally posted by: Kipper
Also:
Yes. Ideally, one would only want to consume enough complex carbohydrates to be able to perform optimally during exercise, with the remainder of the calories consisting of protein and fat. Eating only as many complex carbohydrates as absolutely necessary is especially true if the carbohydrates are coming from insulin spiking sources such as bread. (You shouldn?t have to worry about your intake of vegetables, however.)
Click to expand...

Clearly, this person is not a huge fan of carbohydrates. Whether they're running with Taubes' theory I don't know, but whatever this blog seems to be advocating it certainly seems to be conveniently in bed with the current "carbs are bad" trend, which I find somewhat problematic.
Click to expand...
Again, I think you are misinterpreting it. In the one section where a ketogenic diet is mentioned, the author clearly warns that "decreased performance is almost a guarantee". So if we are to "consume enough complex carbohydrates to be able to perform optimally during exercise", there is no way that we are anywhere near a ketogenic diet. In fact, most CFers believe the Zone diet provides the optimal macronutrient breakdown for exercise, and as I've said, that's 40% carbs.
 
Originally posted by: brikis98

Although I don't know the author personally, I think your assumption is wrong. This is a Crossfit blog, the article mentions crossfit numerous times, and the advice to eat "some fruit, little starch..." is just a modification of Crossfit's "world class fitness in 100 words" (check it out on the right side of this page). As such, it's worth noting that Crossfit's typical diet recommendation is a Zone diet (one of the recommendations in the article), which typically recommends 40% of the calories to come from carbs. You wouldn't even call the Zone diet low carb (just like 40% fat wouldn't be called low fat), so we are a VERY long way from ketogenic. If you're eating 2000 calories per day, that's about 200g of carbs. To get into ketosis, you probably need to drop under 50g, which would be a quarter of that amount. Fruits and veggies and the other plant foods in the paleo diet contain plenty of carbs to get you well above that mark.
Click to expand...

We're arguing in circles (again). My gripe is not with the Zone diet (that's a different topic entirely). It is with the paleo diet, which as mentioned in that blog entry (which is actually quoting another person, Mathieu LaLonde) is one which basically cuts out all forms of carbohydrate and prescribes abstinence from grains and legumes. THIS is what I have a problem with, since I don't believe that this conclusion is well substantiated, scientifically or anthropologically. On a side note, ketosis is generally induced at or below 120 g/day, roughly the amount of glucose the brain requires...whether you'd get to that level with no starchy foods and "limited" fruit is anybody's guess.

Again, I think you are misinterpreting it. In the one section where a ketogenic diet is mentioned, the author clearly warns that "decreased performance is almost a guarantee". So if we are to "consume enough complex carbohydrates to be able to perform optimally during exercise", there is no way that we are anywhere near a ketogenic diet. In fact, most CFers believe the Zone diet provides the optimal macronutrient breakdown for exercise, and as I've said, that's 40% carbs.
Click to expand...

See above. The author is suggesting that people should eliminate major sources of carbohydrate in the diet (essentially furthering that "carbs are evil" mantra) for weight loss, and this is my problem with the recommendations.
 
Originally posted by: silverpig
You can't violate the laws of thermodynamics...
Click to expand...

true but how many calories are flushed out through waste is definitely gonna be a function of what you eat

Just like if you eat 20K calories in 1 day and fast for 9 days you are gonna be much different than 2K calories a day for 10 days.
 
Originally posted by: Kipper
We're arguing in circles (again). My gripe is not with the Zone diet (that's a different topic entirely). It is with the paleo diet, which as mentioned in that blog entry (which is actually quoting another person, Mathieu LaLonde) is one which basically cuts out all forms of carbohydrate and prescribes abstinence from grains and legumes. THIS is what I have a problem with, since I don't believe that this conclusion is well substantiated, scientifically or anthropologically. On a side note, ketosis is generally induced at or below 120 g/day, roughly the amount of glucose the brain requires...whether you'd get to that level with no starchy foods and "limited" fruit is anybody's guess.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: if you read the CF literature and message boards, the recommendation is to eat a paleo diet (the "what") using Zone proportions (the "how much"). The paleo diet says nothing about avoiding carbs, but rather avoiding foods that were not eaten during paleolithic times. It is likely that our ancestors probably ate far fewer carbs than we do now, but that doesn't mean it was zero. If you wanted to, you could eat a diet of almost 80% carbs and still be paleo. However, what I'm taking issue with is that you seem to be reading this article, ignoring the recommendations to eat Zone (with 40% carbs) and then saying the article is telling us to eat zero carbs.
 
Originally posted by: brikis98
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: if you read the CF literature and message boards, the recommendation is to eat a paleo diet (the "what") using Zone proportions (the "how much"). The paleo diet says nothing about avoiding carbs, but rather avoiding foods that were not eaten during paleolithic times. It is likely that our ancestors probably ate far fewer carbs than we do now, but that doesn't mean it was zero. If you wanted to, you could eat a diet of almost 80% carbs and still be paleo. However, what I'm taking issue with is that you seem to be reading this article, ignoring the recommendations to eat Zone (with 40% carbs) and then saying the article is telling us to eat zero carbs.
Click to expand...

Not particularly familiar with crossfit nutritional recommendations, but what you say makes more sense. We're arguing over each others' heads. I am pointing out my gripes with the "paleolithic diet," you are talking about "The Zone" diet using "paleo" ingredients (very confusing use of words). I'm still curious how one would eat a large proportion of CHO by abstaining entirely from grain, dairy, legumes, etc., but I'm guessing people do not follow it to the letter. Wouldn't it just be easier to use "whole/basic foods" instead of "paleo" because of the obvious confusion? When I see "Paleolithic," I automatically see certain foods excluded, just as the term "vegetarian" makes people assume certain things.

Talking strictly about the Paleolithic diet, it DOES demand abstinence from grains, legumes, dairy, starches and other major sources of carbohydrate, so you really couldn't eat a large proportion of your calories on a strictly Paleolithic diet. The assumption, I guess, is that our "ancestors" didn't consume any sort of grain or cereal - a claim I find *quite* hard to substantiate.
 
Originally posted by: Kipper
I'm still curious how one would eat a large proportion of CHO by abstaining entirely from grain, dairy, legumes, etc., but I'm guessing people do not follow it to the letter.
Click to expand...
I haven't read it, but perhaps the "How do you get 40% of your diet to be Carbohydrates if no grains?" thread on the CF message boards answers that question. My guess is that you eat a LOT of fruits & veggies, which in terms of keeping healthy, is probably a good thing.

Originally posted by: Kipper
Wouldn't it just be easier to use "whole/basic foods" instead of "paleo" because of the obvious confusion? When I see "Paleolithic," I automatically see certain foods excluded, just as the term "vegetarian" makes people assume certain things.
Click to expand...
I personally just do the "whole food" diet, but many CFers are strict paleo, which means they DO exclude legumes, milk, etc. I think the common trend is that we're all trying to get away from the "Western Diet" and its numerous processed foods, just some people choose to go further away from it than others.

Originally posted by: Kipper
Talking strictly about the Paleolithic diet, it DOES demand abstinence from grains, legumes, dairy, starches and other major sources of carbohydrate, so you really couldn't eat a large proportion of your calories on a strictly Paleolithic diet. The assumption, I guess, is that our "ancestors" didn't consume any sort of grain or cereal - a claim I find *quite* hard to substantiate.
Click to expand...
It probably is true that grains and cereal were not a significant part of the human diet before the advent of agriculture. One big reason is that the wild ancestors of many of our staple crops are VERY different than the domesticated versions, typically containing edible parts (seeds, fruit, etc) that are far too small or not nearly plentiful enough to be particularly worthwhile. The ancestor of corn, for example, is completely unrecognizable compared to what we eat today. It was only through many years of domestication and selective breeding that we have the crops we do today and that they've become such a huge part of our diet. Milk is also excluded from paleo for a simple reason: paleolithic man did not have any domesticated animals. And believe me, you would not walk up to the wild ancestor of a cow and just start drinking its milk 🙂

There are numerous other reasons too, many of which are discussed in Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond and in the various papers by Loren Cordain.
 
Originally posted by: mchammer187
Originally posted by: silverpig
You can't violate the laws of thermodynamics...
Click to expand...

true but how many calories are flushed out through waste is definitely gonna be a function of what you eat

Just like if you eat 20K calories in 1 day and fast for 9 days you are gonna be much different than 2K calories a day for 10 days.
Click to expand...

Well of course. It's a calories absorbed vs. calories burned issue.

You could flush a big mac through the pipes with a pint of prune juice and you'd get nothing out of it. Those don't count as calories in.
 
Originally posted by: brikis98

It probably is true that grains and cereal were not a significant part of the human diet before the advent of agriculture. One big reason is that the wild ancestors of many of our staple crops are VERY different than the domesticated versions, typically containing edible parts (seeds, fruit, etc) that are far too small or not nearly plentiful enough to be particularly worthwhile. The ancestor of corn, for example, is completely unrecognizable compared to what we eat today. It was only through many years of domestication and selective breeding that we have the crops we do today and that they've become such a huge part of our diet. Milk is also excluded from paleo for a simple reason: paleolithic man did not have any domesticated animals. And believe me, you would not walk up to the wild ancestor of a cow and just start drinking its milk 🙂

There are numerous other reasons too, many of which are discussed in Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond and in the various papers by Loren Cordain.
Click to expand...

Now that we're on the same page (*phew*), I feel obligated to point out that there are two sides to this coin. Our modern sources of meat (beef, pork, poultry, lamb) are ALSO the product of hundreds of generations of selective breeding for desirable characteristics - fat and muscle makeup. They, too, bear very little resemblance to their ancestors, and their 'modern' diets, in turn, can hardly be said to resemble that of their wild-ancestors - because they are vegetarian and eat...plants (which as you've mentioned, have changed). This all creates a somewhat problematic historical/anthropological case for applying the Paleolithic diet in a modern supermarket. That, and the scientifically questionable idea of "carbohydrate avoidance" combine to make a bit of a shaky argument.

The idea of a "diet built into your genes" is a bit sexy, but I think it really ends there. There is such variability in human diets (ranging from the mostly protein-fat diets of the Inuits) to a more diverse Mediterranean palate, to the heavily plant-based Buddhist diets that the Paleolithic notion doesn't really seem to fit. Many of these populations show impressive lifespans coupled with a virtual absence of "Western" (read: American) diseases, so I think we can pretty much all agree that whatever the problem is, it probably lies with the "meat with a side of meat and meat for dessert" American lifestyle.
 
Originally posted by: Kipper
Now that we're on the same page (*phew*), I feel obligated to point out that there are two sides to this coin. Our modern sources of meat (beef, pork, poultry, lamb) are ALSO the product of hundreds of generations of selective breeding for desirable characteristics - fat and muscle makeup. They, too, bear very little resemblance to their ancestors, and their 'modern' diets, in turn, can hardly be said to resemble that of their wild-ancestors - because they are vegetarian and eat...plants (which as you've mentioned, have changed). This all creates a somewhat problematic historical/anthropological case for applying the Paleolithic diet in a modern supermarket. That, and the scientifically questionable idea of "carbohydrate avoidance" combine to make a bit of a shaky argument.

The idea of a "diet built into your genes" is a bit sexy, but I think it really ends there. There is such variability in human diets (ranging from the mostly protein-fat diets of the Inuits) to a more diverse Mediterranean palate, to the heavily plant-based Buddhist diets that the Paleolithic notion doesn't really seem to fit. Many of these populations show impressive lifespans coupled with a virtual absence of "Western" (read: American) diseases, so I think we can pretty much all agree that whatever the problem is, it probably lies with the "meat with a side of meat and meat for dessert" American lifestyle.
Click to expand...

I agree completely, which is why I personally don't follow the paleo diet. There are many logical flaws with the reasoning behind it and it's incredibly tricky to accomplish in the modern world. Having said, that, just about any diet that gets us away from the Western Diet and gets people to stop eating processed crap is probably a good thing. And even if the modern economy means you can't be 100% truly paleo, even going 70% of the way there is bound to be a huge improvement.

My own dietary practices sound similar to yours, in that I try to eat a diet of whole foods similar to what Michael Pollan describes in "In Defense of Food". I avoid processed crap, including highly processed grains, cereals, pastas, candy, bread, etc. However, if people were eating it a few hundred years ago - whether it's whole grains, milk, legumes, etc - it's fine by me. I wrote a bit about it in my diet experiment thread, although I haven't updated that in a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top