[Chad Daring]

If youre looking to get more calories in your system naturally, try coconut milk. Its 100% fat, very high in calories (like 600 in one small can) but from what I've read the fat is good fat and actually has some strange property of not being able to be stored by the body and therefore is burned off as energy. I tried drinking a whole can one day at work, it was like taking an energy drink, I was bouncing off the walls.

Mix one can with a tablespoon of honey and poor it over ice.

[Smitty]

(09-18-2011 09:44 AM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

If youre looking to get more calories in your system naturally, try coconut milk. Its 100% fat, very high in calories (like 600 in one small can) but from what I've read the fat is good fat and actually has some strange property of not being able to be stored by the body and therefore is burned off as energy. I tried drinking a whole can one day at work, it was like taking an energy drink, I was bouncing off the walls.

Mix one can with a tablespoon of honey and poor it over ice.

Excellent suggestion. On that same note, consider switching to coconut oil for cooking. High in fat, delicious in flavor, and very healthy.

[Chad Daring]

(09-18-2011 10:30 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

(09-18-2011 09:44 AM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

If youre looking to get more calories in your system naturally, try coconut milk. Its 100% fat, very high in calories (like 600 in one small can) but from what I've read the fat is good fat and actually has some strange property of not being able to be stored by the body and therefore is burned off as energy. I tried drinking a whole can one day at work, it was like taking an energy drink, I was bouncing off the walls.

Mix one can with a tablespoon of honey and poor it over ice.

Excellent suggestion. On that same note, consider switching to coconut oil for cooking. High in fat, delicious in flavor, and very healthy.

I've seen and heard so many points as to why almost all vegetable based oils are absolutely terrible for you. Olive and Coconut are okay because they occur naturally, but soy, canola, and corn oil are basically poison. The vegetable has to be chemically treated and go through a very artificial process to get oil out of it.

[Smitty]

(09-18-2011 11:58 AM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

(09-18-2011 10:30 AM)Smitty Wrote:  

(09-18-2011 09:44 AM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

If youre looking to get more calories in your system naturally, try coconut milk. Its 100% fat, very high in calories (like 600 in one small can) but from what I've read the fat is good fat and actually has some strange property of not being able to be stored by the body and therefore is burned off as energy. I tried drinking a whole can one day at work, it was like taking an energy drink, I was bouncing off the walls.

Mix one can with a tablespoon of honey and poor it over ice.

Excellent suggestion. On that same note, consider switching to coconut oil for cooking. High in fat, delicious in flavor, and very healthy.

I've seen and heard so many points as to why almost all vegetable based oils are absolutely terrible for you. Olive and Coconut are okay because they occur naturally, but soy, canola, and corn oil are basically poison. The vegetable has to be chemically treated and go through a very artificial process to get oil out of it.

Canola oil is good for a lubricant to beat off with...just sayin'

[Basil Ransom]

http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Health-Die...0982720904

This is supposed to be a very well documented book on the paleo diet. It veers a little from mainstream paleo, in recommending a little less protein, more fat and rice and starchy tubers, but seems much more grounded in actual evidence. I haven't read it, this is just what I've garnered from reviews and their blog, which covers the same ground.

[Caligula]

(09-20-2011 12:03 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Health-Die...0982720904

This is supposed to be a very well documented book on the paleo diet. It veers a little from mainstream paleo, in recommending a little less protein, more fat and rice and starchy tubers, but seems much more grounded in actual evidence. I haven't read it, this is just what I've garnered from reviews and their blog, which covers the same ground.

I'm getting this, looks very good.

As much as I like the overall idea, one of my gripes with paleo is its reliance on the 'paleo' aspect grounded in contentious views of human evolution. I'm more interested in nutritional science and what has been proven to be a good diet (rather than what our paleolithic ancestors with less than half our life expectancy may or may not have eaten). The two clearly overlap, but it's good to see more rigorous science behind it.

[gringochileno]

(09-20-2011 05:29 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 12:03 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Health-Die...0982720904

This is supposed to be a very well documented book on the paleo diet. It veers a little from mainstream paleo, in recommending a little less protein, more fat and rice and starchy tubers, but seems much more grounded in actual evidence. I haven't read it, this is just what I've garnered from reviews and their blog, which covers the same ground.

I'm getting this, looks very good.

As much as I like the overall idea, one of my gripes with paleo is its reliance on the 'paleo' aspect grounded in contentious views of human evolution. I'm more interested in nutritional science and what has been proven to be a good diet (rather than what our paleolithic ancestors with less than half our life expectancy may or may not have eaten). The two clearly overlap, but it's good to see more rigorous science behind it.

It's definitely true that the "eat exactly like a caveman" thing can be taken too far, but there's also a lot of evidence that getting your nutrition from sources closer to what people had available to them while we were still evolving has positive health benefits.

Basically, there's scientific evidence from comparing the physiology of our digestive system to other animals that we're well-adapted to consume a particular proportion of fats, protein, and carbohydrates, and the Paleo diet rests on the hypothesis that the kind of things people were eating hundreds of thousands of years ago are what our bodies evolved to metabolize the best. To give one example, if you look at the ratio of the size of the large and small intestines in different animals, herbivores tend to have larger small intestines and carnivores have larger large intestines, with humans somewhere in between.

Once the agricultural revolution occurred about 10,000 years ago and people moved from nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyles, people started to eat a much higher proportion of grains than they do now, and the argument is that we're not particularly well adapted to consume as much carbohydrate as we do now since 10,000 years isn't very long on an evolutionary timescale. So in some sense it would be "healthier" if we consumed a ratio of nutrients closer to what our ancestors did. Generally, that means more protein and fat and fewer carbohydrates than what most people consider a "normal" diet. There are also other restrictions designed to mimic cavemen's macronutrient intake--for example, consuming things like grass-fed beef which have a high ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids.

Some people also argue that to truly get the benefits of a "Paleo" lifestyle, you need to eliminate any food sources that weren't available to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. I'm a little skeptical of this--as long as you're getting the same overall nutrient balance I don't see why it would make any difference whether or not a caveman literally could have eaten what you ate. In any case, there have been some studies that have shown health benefits from eating Paleo-style diets, including some randomized controlled trials. Here's one I found on PubMed.

[Caligula]

(09-20-2011 06:01 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 05:29 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 12:03 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Health-Die...0982720904

This is supposed to be a very well documented book on the paleo diet. It veers a little from mainstream paleo, in recommending a little less protein, more fat and rice and starchy tubers, but seems much more grounded in actual evidence. I haven't read it, this is just what I've garnered from reviews and their blog, which covers the same ground.

I'm getting this, looks very good.

As much as I like the overall idea, one of my gripes with paleo is its reliance on the 'paleo' aspect grounded in contentious views of human evolution. I'm more interested in nutritional science and what has been proven to be a good diet (rather than what our paleolithic ancestors with less than half our life expectancy may or may not have eaten). The two clearly overlap, but it's good to see more rigorous science behind it.

Basically, there's scientific evidence from comparing the physiology of our digestive system to other animals that we're well-adapted to consume a particular proportion of fats, protein, and carbohydrates, and the Paleo diet rests on the hypothesis that the kind of things people were eating hundreds of thousands of years ago are what our bodies evolved to metabolize the best. To give one example, if you look at the ratio of the size of the large and small intestines in different animals, herbivores tend to have larger small intestines and carnivores have larger large intestines, with humans somewhere in between.

Once the agricultural revolution occurred about 10,000 years ago and people moved from nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyles, people started to eat a much higher proportion of grains than they do now, and the argument is that we're not particularly well adapted to consume as much carbohydrate as we do now since 10,000 years isn't very long on an evolutionary timescale. So in some sense it would be "healthier" if we consumed a ratio of nutrients closer to what our ancestors did. Generally, that means more protein and fat and fewer carbohydrates than what most people consider a "normal" diet. There are also other restrictions designed to mimic cavemen's macronutrient intake--for example, consuming things like grass-fed beef which have a high ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids.

Some people also argue that to truly get the benefits of a "Paleo" lifestyle, you need to eliminate any food sources that weren't available to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. I'm a little skeptical of this--as long as you're getting the same overall nutrient balance I don't see why it would make any difference whether or not a caveman literally could have eaten what you ate. In any case, there have been some studies that have shown health benefits from eating Paleo-style diets, including some randomized controlled trials. Here's one I found on PubMed.

Thanks for clarifying. I don't doubt the health benefits and that some of the scientific reasoning behind it is sound. However, there was some adaptation in the last 10,000 years. Eg. Northern Europeans developed high lactose tolerance, while in some parts of Africa over 90% of people are lactose intolerant. Evolution is a nonlinear, complex process that changes pace depending on environmental pressures.

Still looking forward to getting stuck into the diet.

[gringochileno]

(09-20-2011 06:16 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 06:01 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 05:29 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 12:03 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

http://www.amazon.com/Perfect-Health-Die...0982720904

This is supposed to be a very well documented book on the paleo diet. It veers a little from mainstream paleo, in recommending a little less protein, more fat and rice and starchy tubers, but seems much more grounded in actual evidence. I haven't read it, this is just what I've garnered from reviews and their blog, which covers the same ground.

I'm getting this, looks very good.

As much as I like the overall idea, one of my gripes with paleo is its reliance on the 'paleo' aspect grounded in contentious views of human evolution. I'm more interested in nutritional science and what has been proven to be a good diet (rather than what our paleolithic ancestors with less than half our life expectancy may or may not have eaten). The two clearly overlap, but it's good to see more rigorous science behind it.

Basically, there's scientific evidence from comparing the physiology of our digestive system to other animals that we're well-adapted to consume a particular proportion of fats, protein, and carbohydrates, and the Paleo diet rests on the hypothesis that the kind of things people were eating hundreds of thousands of years ago are what our bodies evolved to metabolize the best. To give one example, if you look at the ratio of the size of the large and small intestines in different animals, herbivores tend to have larger small intestines and carnivores have larger large intestines, with humans somewhere in between.

Once the agricultural revolution occurred about 10,000 years ago and people moved from nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyles, people started to eat a much higher proportion of grains than they do now, and the argument is that we're not particularly well adapted to consume as much carbohydrate as we do now since 10,000 years isn't very long on an evolutionary timescale. So in some sense it would be "healthier" if we consumed a ratio of nutrients closer to what our ancestors did. Generally, that means more protein and fat and fewer carbohydrates than what most people consider a "normal" diet. There are also other restrictions designed to mimic cavemen's macronutrient intake--for example, consuming things like grass-fed beef which have a high ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids.

Some people also argue that to truly get the benefits of a "Paleo" lifestyle, you need to eliminate any food sources that weren't available to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. I'm a little skeptical of this--as long as you're getting the same overall nutrient balance I don't see why it would make any difference whether or not a caveman literally could have eaten what you ate. In any case, there have been some studies that have shown health benefits from eating Paleo-style diets, including some randomized controlled trials. Here's one I found on PubMed.

Thanks for clarifying. I don't doubt the health benefits and that some of the scientific reasoning behind it is sound. However, there was some adaptation in the last 10,000 years. Eg. Northern Europeans developed high lactose tolerance, while in some parts of Africa over 90% of people are lactose intolerant. Evolution is a nonlinear, complex process that changes pace depending on environmental pressures.

Still looking forward to getting stuck into the diet.

Lactose intolerance is caused by a deficiency of lactase, an enzyme that's produced by only one gene. Most of human digestion is mediated by mechanisms that are far, far more complex and should be more evolutionarily stable than a single-gene trait. Your metabolic requirements depend on the action of all the systems of your body that utilize energy and it's unlikely that there would be major adaptations to changes in our diet since the agricultural revolution.

[ManAbout]

(09-20-2011 05:29 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

I'm more interested in nutritional science and what has been proven to be a good diet (rather than what our paleolithic ancestors with less than half our life expectancy may or may not have eaten). The two clearly overlap, but it's good to see more rigorous science behind it.

What is your definition of a "good diet"? To me a good diet is one that promotes a healthy body and protects from disease for as long as possible. My interest is in longevity rather than aesthetics. I am not convinced that paleo diet is the healthiest one for us humans. Most adherents of paleo are looking for sub 10% body fat. I don't think this obsession with percentage body fat is healthy. You may have visible abs and be at 7% body fat, but this is no indication of your overall health. You could very well be rotting inside.

Paleo diets glorify meat protein and villify carbohydrates from legumes and most other vegetable sources. Yet, studies of societies with the longest lifespans have in fact come to the conclusion that a plant based diet is optimal for longevity.

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

Quote:

The people inhabiting Blue Zones share common lifestyle characteristics that contribute to their longevity. Among the lifestyle characteristics shared among the Okinawa, Sardinia, and Loma Linda Blue Zones are the following:[7]
Family - Family is put ahead of other concerns.
No Smoking - Centenarians do not typically smoke.
Plant-based diet - The majority of food consumed is derived from plants.
Constant moderate physical activity - Moderate physical activity is an inseparable part of life.
Social engagement - People of all ages are socially active and integrated into their communities.
Legumes - Legumes are commonly consumed.

[Caligula]

(09-20-2011 06:34 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 05:29 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

I'm more interested in nutritional science and what has been proven to be a good diet (rather than what our paleolithic ancestors with less than half our life expectancy may or may not have eaten). The two clearly overlap, but it's good to see more rigorous science behind it.

What is your definition of a "good diet"? To me a good diet is one that promotes a healthy body and protects from disease for as long as possible. My interest is in longevity rather than aesthetics. I am not convinced that paleo diet is the healthiest one for us humans. Most adherents of paleo are looking for sub 10% body fat. I don't think this obsession with percentage body fat is healthy. You may have visible abs and be at 7% body fat, but this is no indication of your overall health. You could very well be rotting inside.

Paleo diets glorify meat protein and villify carbohydrates from legumes and most other vegetable sources. Yet, studies of societies with the longest lifespans have in fact come to the conclusion that a plant based diet is optimal for longevity.

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

Quote:

The people inhabiting Blue Zones share common lifestyle characteristics that contribute to their longevity. Among the lifestyle characteristics shared among the Okinawa, Sardinia, and Loma Linda Blue Zones are the following:[7]
Family - Family is put ahead of other concerns.
No Smoking - Centenarians do not typically smoke.
Plant-based diet - The majority of food consumed is derived from plants.
Constant moderate physical activity - Moderate physical activity is an inseparable part of life.
Social engagement - People of all ages are socially active and integrated into their communities.
Legumes - Legumes are commonly consumed.

Not really into strength training or fat reduction. More into health and overall wellbeing. Do you follow a particular diet or do you just use common sense based on the above?

[ManAbout]

(09-20-2011 06:46 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

Not really into strength training or fat reduction. More into health and overall wellbeing. Do you follow a particular diet or do you just use common sense based on the above?

Common sense.

Number One Most Important Thing - Keep Refined Sugar to a Minimum. I try to completely avoid the following:

- Pop, soda, sugary drinks, bottled fruit juices, desserts, cakes, ice cream etc. I have it once a month maybe. But, the ideal is ZERO.

- Avoid bread of any kind and also pasta. Basically no flour products. I indulge in these maybe once a week. Again, ideal is zero.

- Nothing that comes out of a bag. No chips, cheetos, nachos, cheerios or any of those garbage snacks.

- No prepackaged, frozen meals.

- Absolutely no fast food. Nothing from the food courts. Though I do get the craving for french fries once a month or so.

- No bacon, hot dogs, sausages etc.

What I do eat:

- Different kinds of beans and legumes - Black beans, garbanzo beans etc.

- Eggs, but only one egg yolk a day, that too omega3 eggs.

- Wild Pacific Salmon - No farmed salmon, i.e Atlantic salmon

- Sweet Potatoes

- Quinoa

- Tofu

- Avocadoes

- All kinds of vegetables specially cruciferous - i.e broccoli, cauliflower etc.

- Different fruits - Apples, oranges, grapes, strawberries, blueberries - organic as much as possible.

- Nuts - mainly walnuts

- Olive oil

- Organic chicken once a week or so.

- Red meat maybe once a month or so.

[mofo]

Soy is bad for you. Don't eat tofu.

[Smitty]

(09-20-2011 07:17 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 06:46 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

Not really into strength training or fat reduction. More into health and overall wellbeing. Do you follow a particular diet or do you just use common sense based on the above?

Common sense.

Number One Most Important Thing - Keep Refined Sugar to a Minimum. I try to completely avoid the following:

- Pop, soda, sugary drinks, bottled fruit juices, desserts, cakes, ice cream etc. I have it once a month maybe. But, the ideal is ZERO.

- Avoid bread of any kind and also pasta. Basically no flour products. I indulge in these maybe once a week. Again, ideal is zero.

- Nothing that comes out of a bag. No chips, cheetos, nachos, cheerios or any of those garbage snacks.

- No prepackaged, frozen meals.

- Absolutely no fast food. Nothing from the food courts. Though I do get the craving for french fries once a month or so.

- No bacon, hot dogs, sausages etc.

What I do eat:

- Different kinds of beans and legumes - Black beans, garbanzo beans etc.

- Eggs, but only one egg yolk a day, that too omega3 eggs.

- Wild Pacific Salmon - No farmed salmon, i.e Atlantic salmon

- Sweet Potatoes

- Quinoa

- Tofu

- Avocadoes

- All kinds of vegetables specially cruciferous - i.e broccoli, cauliflower etc.

- Different fruits - Apples, oranges, grapes, strawberries, blueberries - organic as much as possible.

- Nuts - mainly walnuts

- Olive oil

- Organic chicken once a week or so.

- Red meat maybe once a month or so.

Good post and I eat almost identical except I got rid of the beans and I eat more red meat than once/month. I used to follow my metabolic type (mediterranean) and eat red meat once a week at most, but I've learned that a good piece of lean red meat doesn't make me feel bad whereas a cheap cut makes me feel lethargic and unhealthy. I'm convinced that quality of meat (fat content and how the animal was raised) makes a difference.

[ManAbout]

(09-20-2011 08:36 PM)mofo Wrote:  

Soy is bad for you. Don't eat tofu.

You can tell the Weston A Price foundation to go fuck itself.

Japanese men, who eat soy on a daily basis, have the lowest rates of prostate cancer in the world. They also live longer than fat Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...expectancy

[ManAbout]

(09-20-2011 08:41 PM)Smitty Wrote:  

Good post and I eat almost identical except I got rid of the beans and I eat more red meat than once/month. I used to follow my metabolic type (mediterranean) and eat red meat once a week at most, but I've learned that a good piece of lean red meat doesn't make me feel bad whereas a cheap cut makes me feel lethargic and unhealthy. I'm convinced that quality of meat (fat content and how the animal was raised) makes a difference.

How do you cook the meat?

Grilling and cooking at high temperatures creates Heterocyclic Amines which are known carcinogens. If you must eat, braise it at a low temperatures. Cook it in a casserole or something like a Moroccan tagine.

[mofo]

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/10-things...bout-tofu/

He says that tofu is processed food. Just an example.

I read from other reputable sources that soy can increase the risk of cancer and lowers your testosterone. I'd avoid soy.

[ManAbout]

(09-20-2011 09:03 PM)mofo Wrote:  

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/10-things...bout-tofu/

He says that tofu is processed food. Just an example.

I read from other reputable sources that soy can increase the risk of cancer and lowers your testosterone. I'd avoid soy.

Thanks, but I will go with the statistics. Life expectancy for men in both Japan and China where they consume a lot more soy products than N America is higher. Their prostate cancer rates are a lot lower.

I have researched this in detail. Saying the soy increases cancer risk is scare mongering by the Weston A Price and large dairy farms. It is dairy and milk products in fact which have been linked to increase cancer risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12869409

Quote:

Our results indicate a reduced risk of prostate cancer associated with consumption of soy foods and isoflavones.

Meta Analysis - i.e. results combined from a number of studies.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/4/1155.abstract

Quote:

Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that consumption of soy foods is associated with a reduction in prostate cancer risk in men.

Edit: Forgot to add, try to avoid any soy products from genetically modified soybeans. The only tofu I buy to make at a home is organic, sprouted tofu made by a company called Wildwood.

[CrackerJack]

(09-20-2011 07:17 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 06:46 PM)Caligula Wrote:  

Not really into strength training or fat reduction. More into health and overall wellbeing. Do you follow a particular diet or do you just use common sense based on the above?

Common sense.

Number One Most Important Thing - Keep Refined Sugar to a Minimum. I try to completely avoid the following:

- Pop, soda, sugary drinks, bottled fruit juices, desserts, cakes, ice cream etc. I have it once a month maybe. But, the ideal is ZERO.

- Avoid bread of any kind and also pasta. Basically no flour products. I indulge in these maybe once a week. Again, ideal is zero.

- Nothing that comes out of a bag. No chips, cheetos, nachos, cheerios or any of those garbage snacks.

- No prepackaged, frozen meals.

- Absolutely no fast food. Nothing from the food courts. Though I do get the craving for french fries once a month or so.

- No bacon, hot dogs, sausages etc.

What I do eat:

- Different kinds of beans and legumes - Black beans, garbanzo beans etc.

- Eggs, but only one egg yolk a day, that too omega3 eggs.

- Wild Pacific Salmon - No farmed salmon, i.e Atlantic salmon

- Sweet Potatoes

- Quinoa

- Tofu

- Avocadoes

- All kinds of vegetables specially cruciferous - i.e broccoli, cauliflower etc.

- Different fruits - Apples, oranges, grapes, strawberries, blueberries - organic as much as possible.

- Nuts - mainly walnuts

- Olive oil

- Organic chicken once a week or so.

- Red meat maybe once a month or so.

Just curious, why only one egg yolk, no bacon, and sausages?

[mofo]

(09-20-2011 09:14 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(09-20-2011 09:03 PM)mofo Wrote:  

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/10-things...bout-tofu/

He says that tofu is processed food. Just an example.

I read from other reputable sources that soy can increase the risk of cancer and lowers your testosterone. I'd avoid soy.

Thanks, but I will go with the statistics. Life expectancy for men in both Japan and China where they consume a lot more soy products than N America is higher. Their prostate cancer rates are a lot lower.

I have researched this in detail. Saying the soy increases cancer risk is scare mongering by the Weston A Price and large dairy farms. It is dairy and milk products in fact which have been linked to increase cancer risk.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12869409

Quote:

Our results indicate a reduced risk of prostate cancer associated with consumption of soy foods and isoflavones.

Meta Analysis - i.e. results combined from a number of studies.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/89/4/1155.abstract

Quote:

Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that consumption of soy foods is associated with a reduction in prostate cancer risk in men.

Edit: Forgot to add, try to avoid any soy products from genetically modified soybeans. The only tofu I buy to make at a home is organic, sprouted tofu made by a company called Wildwood.

Japanese and Chinese men do not live long because of soy I think. There are many different factors.

Why do you eat tofu? Why do you need soy?

[babelfish669]

(09-20-2011 06:34 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

What is your definition of a "good diet"? To me a good diet is one that promotes a healthy body and protects from disease for as long as possible. My interest is in longevity rather than aesthetics. I am not convinced that paleo diet is the healthiest one for us humans. Most adherents of paleo are looking for sub 10% body fat. I don't think this obsession with percentage body fat is healthy. You may have visible abs and be at 7% body fat, but this is no indication of your overall health. You could very well be rotting inside.

Paleo diets glorify meat protein and villify carbohydrates from legumes and most other vegetable sources. Yet, studies of societies with the longest lifespans have in fact come to the conclusion that a plant based diet is optimal for longevity.

You should also take a look at the book "The Jungle Effect." I've read both The Jungle Effect and Blue Zones.

This diet stuff is very complicated. About as much agreement on whats right and whats wrong as economics. I've spent a significant amount of my time in the past 4 years researching, adjusting, and analyzing my diet. My physical health has vastly improved. There are only a few things I've come to an absolute certainty about.

The only proven method of increasing longevity is through caloric restriction. If you look at the societies studied in Blue Zones, most are poor. Being poor and not eating a lot of meat often means your diet is caloric restricted.

The region in Japan producing the longest lived individuals is Okinawa. World War II and its aftermath definitely left those populations short of calories, but not of nutrition.

If your goal is to live to 120, the paleo diet is absolutely not for you. The scientific evidence is pretty strong that animal products cause genetic damage.

There is divergence even within the paleo community. On one hand you have authors that can get really popular advocating eating bacon every day and grass fed butter. If you read "Food and Western Disease" (the only scientific literature about paleo I've found, the other books range from ok to psuedo science) the studied population actually mostly eats just fish and has a calories from fat consumption right around what is recommended by the scientific community (about 20%.)

The paleo diet really is not about eating shitloads of meat. Its about not eating stuff that wasn't around prior to human civilization. If you do this and ensure you have no vitamin deficiencies, and keep the meat and fat consumption within reason you'll be very healthy.

I look at high meat paleo as a transitory diet. Its a diet that a normal guy can absolutely adhere to. Try going from a western diet to whatever other fad diet, atkins, weight watchers, whatever, its not happening. And those diets probably aren't very healthy.

If your concerned about the health effects of paleo but are eating a traditional western diet your a hypocrite. If your eating a traditional Okinawan diet 100% of the time you'll catch no flack from me.

[ManAbout]

(09-20-2011 09:34 PM)CrackerJack Wrote:  

Just curious, why only one egg yolk, no bacon, and sausages?

Just to minimize by exposure to animal products. Also, they are both linked to increased risk of colorectal cancer and heart disease. I am sorry, but I am not in the "all mainstream research is biased against red meat and saturated fats" camp that is so prevalent on these paleo websites. I have done my own extensive research. And in my opinion, there is enough unbiased research and studies out there to implicate them in a number of illnesses. The paleo camp wants to blame everything on carbs and insulin. All the research is wrong because everybody was consuming carbs as well as red meat is the common "head in the sand" response from the paleo crowd. I think there is enough evidence to show that they are indeed dangerous.

Quote:

Processed meats, including ham, bacon and sausage, were associated with the biggest health hazard: people who ate 3.5 ounces of processed meats a day had a 36% greater chance of developing colon cancer, compared with those who ate none. The more processed meat people ate, the higher their colon cancer risk.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/27/st...ncer-risk/

That's just one. Repeated studies draw the same conclusion.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/05/27/st...z1YYJIe05C

(09-20-2011 09:46 PM)mofo Wrote:  

Japanese and Chinese men do not live long because of soy I think. There are many different factors.

Why do you eat tofu? Why do you need soy?

As a replacement for animal protein. And because it has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

[ManAbout]

(09-20-2011 09:56 PM)babelfish669 Wrote:  

The only proven method of increasing longevity is through caloric restriction. If you look at the societies studied in Blue Zones, most are poor. Being poor and not eating a lot of meat often means your diet is caloric restricted.

By cutting out everything that is high in refined sugar, even bread and pasta, and also red meat, you automatically become somewhat calorie restricted. When you are eating whole foods, your body has to work for each calorie it extracts. You are not sucking it down in instantly accessible form. Honestly, I find it hard to even reach 2000 calories some days. I don't feel hungry most of the day after eating a breakfast of mostly egg whites and black beans.

Quote:

On one hand you have authors that can get really popular advocating eating bacon every day

Which is why I stopped going to sites like Marks Daily Apple. The stupidity of some of those people on the forums astounds and disgusts me. They view a KFC Doubledown as some sort of health food.

Quote:

If your concerned about the health effects of paleo but are eating a traditional western diet your a hypocrite. If your eating a traditional Okinawan diet 100% of the time you'll catch no flack from me.

On a paleo diet, you are replacing calories from carbs with calories from meat and saturated fats. Yes, you lose weight. But, does it mean you are actually healthier in the long term? I think that point is debatable.

[babelfish669]

(09-20-2011 10:34 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

On a paleo diet, you are replacing calories from carbs with calories from meat and saturated fats. Yes, you lose weight. But, does it mean you are actually healthier in the long term? I think that point is debatable.

Traditional western diet and all the crap it entails, definitely. This diet is so unhealthy that certain groups are now seeing their life expectancy drop.

I think we need to be careful with the description of "paleo diet"; there is nothing about this diet that says you can't get lots of carbs. Like I referenced in a previous post, the only scientific book about paleo I've read, the studied group got 20% of their calories from fat.

I eat a lot of bananas and sweet potatoes. I eat a lot of grass fed beef, but alternate it with fish.

Between where I was before starting "paleo" and where I am now is a night and day difference. My athletic endurance levels doubled even though I was running prior, and no longer run regularly. The only thing about the diet that is controversial is the red meat. And calcium intake, which I've missed out on all along since I haven't drink milk since about age 6.

[Chad Daring]

Has anyone noticed that this diet makes you facial hair grow faster?

I used to get away with shaving once every three days, and by day three I was getting pretty scruffy, lately I've been having to shave every single day, and when I'd shave in the afternoon after work I'd notice substantial growth by even the next morning. Only thing I've changed is dropping processed foods and eating more fruits and veggies.