Attempt at going Paleo

DuckDogDr · December 2016

Probably didn't do something right.. However first day of paleo so still transitioning.

Bacon wrapped venison tenderloin
Brown rice
corn on the cob (natives had corn so I'm ruling this fair game )

Supper albeit late was good and hit the spot.

Grillin_beers · December 2016

Take the transition easy or you'll get the carb flu really bad. I went from zero to full Paleo right away and two weeks later I felt like death.

Great looking cook btw.

SaintJohnsEgger · December 2016

I'm on two diets. I couldn't get enough to eat on just one diet.

Mad_Wally · December 2016

So paleo is better because this how the first humans ate? Perhaps they ate that way because they didn't have anything better to eat. These first humans had a life expectancy of only 20 years. It wasn't until they started farming (and eating carbs) that life expectancy greatly increased. I guess since they didn't have modern medicine we should stop using those as well? Modern illnesses are mostly due to obesity and the fact that we are getting so old.

Spaightlabs · December 2016

A lot of obesity and many 'modern' illnesses are related to metabolic syndrome. If you take a week and seriously record every bit of food that goes into your body you will be astonished by how much sugar and/or sugar substitutes you are taking in...

An ear of corn has around 32 grams of carbs (sugar)...you are probably north of 50g of carbs on your rice...those carbs are just gonna leave you wanting more.

If you can get your carbs from green veggies and the very occasional piece of fruit you will get plenty of carbs and have fewer cravings.

Hydrate, hydrate, hydrate.

J-dubya · December 2016

Good luck! I'm been on super low carb (20ish a day) for a while now. I wouldn't touch that corn, but it does look good. "Atkins flu" is easily cured by salt (a lot).

been eating 2-3 dozen eggs a week for over a year, LDL just came back 121 - PCP thought I was joking about the egg intake.

gdenby · December 2016

Mad_Wally said:

So paleo is better because this how the first humans ate? Perhaps they ate that way because they didn't have anything better to eat. These first humans had a life expectancy of only 20 years. It wasn't until they started farming (and eating carbs) that life expectancy greatly increased. I guess since they didn't have modern medicine we should stop using those as well? Modern illnesses are mostly due to obesity and the fact that we are getting so old.

Define 1st humans. Evidence has been found that even homo erectus was cooking, which improves food for digestion, and ease of eating.

Not so sure 20 is a reasonable age for average death. The "iceman Otzi" appears to have been around 45, and died by wound, not starvation. I've read that 35 was common, but that was because small wounds would become infected, not because of diet.

According to a curator of ancient art I knew, every time a society went into a "mono culture" focusing on a few crops, life expectancy went down. Had more kids, just didn't live as long.

Grillin_beers · December 2016

Mad_Wally said:

So paleo is better because this how the first humans ate? Perhaps they ate that way because they didn't have anything better to eat. These first humans had a life expectancy of only 20 years. It wasn't until they started farming (and eating carbs) that life expectancy greatly increased. I guess since they didn't have modern medicine we should stop using those as well? Modern illnesses are mostly due to obesity and the fact that we are getting so old.

I went paleo because it aligned with my lifting goals and the macros line up for me.

J-dubya · December 2016

Mad_Wally said:

So paleo is better because this how the first humans ate? Perhaps they ate that way because they didn't have anything better to eat. These first humans had a life expectancy of only 20 years. It wasn't until they started farming (and eating carbs) that life expectancy greatly increased. I guess since they didn't have modern medicine we should stop using those as well? Modern illnesses are mostly due to obesity and the fact that we are getting so old.

I think you need to check your facts on life expectancy. Life expectancy in paleo times is equal (or higher) than right up until 1900.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/magazine/who-lives-longest.html

HeavyG · December 2016

Of course one can decide for themselves what to eat but the hard core paleo folks would tell you that corn and brown rice are not paleo.

I see you called an audible on the corn but modern "Big Farma" corn has little resemblance to the corn eaten hundreds/thousand years ago. However, that's true for a lot of vegetables available in our supermarkets today.

Good luck on your paleo journey.

Legume · December 2016

I think for full paleo, you need to get rid of guns and knives and only use sharpened sticks and rocks. Check your local laws on concealed carry.

THEBuckeye · December 2016

NO FORKS, paleo or no paleo

SkySaw · December 2016

Life expectancy as a measure is too confounded by childhood death rates. When life expectancy is 35, it's not because the average person dies at 35, it's partly because not a lot lived to be really old, and mostly because many died under the age of 5.

Paleo might be great for losing weight, but there is no real science to support its use as a long-term solution for good health; the main benefit from Paleo is that is cuts out added sugar and processed and refined carbs that are easily converted into sugar.

I have a question for those on the Paleo diet - can your total cholesterol get below 150 on the Paleo diet? Research shows that heart disease can be reversed when total cholesterol is below 150.

tonyled · December 2016

J-dubya said:

Good luck! I'm been on super low carb (20ish a day) for a while now. I wouldn't touch that corn, but it does look good. "Atkins flu" is easily cured by salt (a lot).

been eating 2-3 dozen eggs a week for over a year, LDL just came back 121 - PCP thought I was joking about the egg intake.

im doing the same diet

amazing how much more energy and how much less hungry i am

onedbguru · December 2016

Mad_Wally said:

So paleo is better because this how the first humans ate? Perhaps they ate that way because they didn't have anything better to eat. These first humans had a life expectancy of only 20 years. It wasn't until they started farming (and eating carbs) that life expectancy greatly increased. I guess since they didn't have modern medicine we should stop using those as well? Modern illnesses are mostly due to obesity and the fact that we are getting so old.

Only if you listen to evolutionist:
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
After the flood (Noah), man did not typically live longer than 120 years.

Just sayin...

bigalsworth · December 2016

I'm a carb cycle guy myself. twice a week I get to carb load which means I eat as much carbs as I can. They are supposed to be good unrefined carbs but I take liberties to keep my sanity, such as drink a bunch of beer. The rest of the week I have to keep carbs under 65g. It has worked really well, my appetite is down and I have lost 30lbs since august. I would be down a lot more if I was much more strict, but I am happy to have a continuous downward trend and still be able to enjoy food and drink, then lose a ton fast.

Another thing for those guys who find it hard to get the motivation. Take a looking into weight loss betting websites. I have joined dietbet.com and it seems to help keep me motivated. The payout isn't enormous but you can pretty much expect to get out twice what you put into it (which is at most $125) give or take some bucks. Who wouldn't want to double their money just to lose some weight?

Spaightlabs · December 2016

@SkySaw - I've been100% paleo 90% of the time for about 3 years. Lost about 55 pounds, haven't been to the Doc for a year but total cholesterol was a hair under 130 last year.

bhedges1987 · December 2016

Total cholesterol dropped from 425 - 215 on a Ketosis diet.

Good went from 13 - 59

DuckDogDr · December 2016

One of my nurses is on it .. Her Doctor is really advocating this. He told her you can pay for your health in food or you can pay for it in medical fees and prescriptions.

before i started vet school inadvertently was 100% paleo and didn't know it. my body responded very well actually. I think diets are like Aleve for me vs Tylenol for Joe shcmo for headaches / muscle aches

i packed on pure muscle and lost fat.

Mad wally .. As stated above studies have show that if caveman could avoid death from illness or trample by mastodon he lived just as long as we do now. There was also less cancer per capita (although I realize this is probably skewed due to lack of fossil evidence we've found)

SkySaw · December 2016

Spaightlabs said:

@SkySaw - I've been100% paleo 90% of the time for about 3 years. Lost about 55 pounds, haven't been to the Doc for a year but total cholesterol was a hair under 130 last year.

Below 130 for total cholesterol is impressive! I know that the reduction in processed flour and sugar can lead to lower cholesterol from Paleo, but I din't know it could help to get it that low!

HeavyG · December 2016

SkySaw said:

Spaightlabs said:

@SkySaw - I've been100% paleo 90% of the time for about 3 years. Lost about 55 pounds, haven't been to the Doc for a year but total cholesterol was a hair under 130 last year.

Below 130 for total cholesterol is impressive! I know that the reduction in processed flour and sugar can lead to lower cholesterol from Paleo, but I din't know it could help to get it that low!

My total cholesterol from my latest blood work was 127. It has NEVER been more than 140. I don't eat paleo.

Just lucky genetically in that regard.

J-dubya · December 2016

SkySaw said:

Life expectancy as a measure is too confounded by childhood death rates. When life expectancy is 35, it's not because the average person dies at 35, it's partly because not a lot lived to be really old, and mostly because many died under the age of 5.

Paleo might be great for losing weight, but there is no real science to support its use as a long-term solution for good health; the main benefit from Paleo is that is cuts out added sugar and processed and refined carbs that are easily converted into sugar.

I have a question for those on the Paleo diet - can your total cholesterol get below 150 on the Paleo diet? Research shows that heart disease can be reversed when total cholesterol is below 150.

While I have low cholesterol (which was unchanged/slightly lower with a massive increase in dietary intake), I would not go chasing low cholesterol.

It's become very clear that some sub-types of LDL are actually good, and some subtypes of HDL are bad. Cholesterol is super important for lots if things (like brain function), it makes no sense to try to lower all types and it's a product of our incomplete understanding of heart disease.

Spaightlabs · December 2016

HeavyG said:

SkySaw said:

Spaightlabs said:

@SkySaw - I've been100% paleo 90% of the time for about 3 years. Lost about 55 pounds, haven't been to the Doc for a year but total cholesterol was a hair under 130 last year.

Below 130 for total cholesterol is impressive! I know that the reduction in processed flour and sugar can lead to lower cholesterol from Paleo, but I din't know it could help to get it that low!

My total cholesterol from my latest blood work was 127. It has NEVER been more than 140. I don't eat paleo.

Just lucky genetically in that regard.

I think genetics is a huge part of it. My Dad is in his 90's and not on a single med, good cholesterol etc. We eat whole foods we cook ourselves and do Crossfit 4 to 6 times a week, but no doubt genetics plays a big part as my wife is exceptionally fit and cholesterol is still in the 190's, though her ratios are excellent.

SkySaw · December 2016

J-dubya said:

SkySaw said:

Life expectancy as a measure is too confounded by childhood death rates. When life expectancy is 35, it's not because the average person dies at 35, it's partly because not a lot lived to be really old, and mostly because many died under the age of 5.

Paleo might be great for losing weight, but there is no real science to support its use as a long-term solution for good health; the main benefit from Paleo is that is cuts out added sugar and processed and refined carbs that are easily converted into sugar.

I have a question for those on the Paleo diet - can your total cholesterol get below 150 on the Paleo diet? Research shows that heart disease can be reversed when total cholesterol is below 150.

While I have low cholesterol (which was unchanged/slightly lower with a massive increase in dietary intake), I would not go chasing low cholesterol.

It's become very clear that some sub-types of LDL are actually good, and some subtypes of HDL are bad. Cholesterol is super important for lots if things (like brain function), it makes no sense to try to lower all types and it's a product of our incomplete understanding of heart disease.

It is certain that we do not require additional cholesterol for health; our bodies produce all the cholesterol we need. Another thing known about cholesterol is that it is a strong predictor of cardiovascular disease, and plays an active role in the production and formation of arterial scarring (the things that are responsible for heart attacks). a confusing thing about cholesterol levels is the difference between recommended blood levels of cholesterol and incidence of heart disease. The recommendation is for blood levels at or below 200, but many people with levels this low still have heart attacks. However, rates of heart disease dramatically decrease at levels below 180, and are basically non-existent below 150. That's all I need to know to do something about decreasing my chance of heart attack (and stroke).

SkySaw · December 2016

Spaightlabs said:

I think genetics is a huge part of it. My Dad is in his 90's and not on a single med, good cholesterol etc. We eat whole foods we cook ourselves and do Crossfit 4 to 6 times a week, but no doubt genetics plays a big part as my wife is exceptionally fit and cholesterol is still in the 190's, though her ratios are excellent.

Agreed. I think HeavyG is genetically lucky in this case. Some people will have levels close to 400 regardless of what they do.

Despite what I thought was a well balanced diet my cholesterol used to be close to 200. After changing my diet (not paleo) my cholesterol dropped to the mid-to-low 130's and has remained there for 5 years.

Spaightlabs · December 2016

@SkySaw - are you primarily plant based or did you go 100% ?

Either way - respect.

J-dubya · December 2016

SkySaw said:

J-dubya said:

SkySaw said:

Life expectancy as a measure is too confounded by childhood death rates. When life expectancy is 35, it's not because the average person dies at 35, it's partly because not a lot lived to be really old, and mostly because many died under the age of 5.

Paleo might be great for losing weight, but there is no real science to support its use as a long-term solution for good health; the main benefit from Paleo is that is cuts out added sugar and processed and refined carbs that are easily converted into sugar.

I have a question for those on the Paleo diet - can your total cholesterol get below 150 on the Paleo diet? Research shows that heart disease can be reversed when total cholesterol is below 150.

While I have low cholesterol (which was unchanged/slightly lower with a massive increase in dietary intake), I would not go chasing low cholesterol.

It's become very clear that some sub-types of LDL are actually good, and some subtypes of HDL are bad. Cholesterol is super important for lots if things (like brain function), it makes no sense to try to lower all types and it's a product of our incomplete understanding of heart disease.

It is certain that we do not require additional cholesterol for health; our bodies produce all the cholesterol we need. Another thing known about cholesterol is that it is a strong predictor of cardiovascular disease, and plays an active role in the production and formation of arterial scarring (the things that are responsible for heart attacks). a confusing thing about cholesterol levels is the difference between recommended blood levels of cholesterol and incidence of heart disease. The recommendation is for blood levels at or below 200, but many people with levels this low still have heart attacks. However, rates of heart disease dramatically decrease at levels below 180, and are basically non-existent below 150. That's all I need to know to do something about decreasing my chance of heart attack (and stroke).

Very low cholesterol (<150) is associated with less heart attacks, unfortunately, it's also linked with higher mortality :( At these very low numbers, the risk of stroke and cancer is increased, accounting for the increased risk of death.

Your comments, which sum how many doctors felt in the late 1990s, have been widely challenged. The studies used to promote super low values are almost always funded by pharm companies. This obvious conflict of interest has been noted by a wide range of experts.

I suggest you keep an open mind and reexamine the evidence (that's what I did).

SkySaw · December 2016

Spaightlabs said:

@SkySaw - are you primarily plant based or did you go 100% ?

100% plant based, plus I don't add oil (or sugar) to my food. I still love food just as much as I ever did. The hardest part is that I have to prepare just about everything my family eats, since prepared foods are always full of salt, sugar, or oil. It makes for a lot of cooking and food prep. Actually, it reminds me a lot of how I was fed growing up in the '70s, except without the pot roast or minute steaks.

Spaightlabs · December 2016

Good on ya. We only buy ingredients and make all of our own food as well, with the very occasional indulgence. No added sugar or any of it's 20-some alter egos, healthy fats, coconut or avocado oil.

Sunday is shopping in the AM (4 stores) then cooking the rest of the day. Just 2 of us, we go through 10 to 12 pounds of green veg a week. It's a pain for a while, but after a while it turns into good quality time together and I actually look forward to it.

HeavyG · December 2016

J-dubya said:

SkySaw said:

J-dubya said:

SkySaw said:

Life expectancy as a measure is too confounded by childhood death rates. When life expectancy is 35, it's not because the average person dies at 35, it's partly because not a lot lived to be really old, and mostly because many died under the age of 5.

Paleo might be great for losing weight, but there is no real science to support its use as a long-term solution for good health; the main benefit from Paleo is that is cuts out added sugar and processed and refined carbs that are easily converted into sugar.

I have a question for those on the Paleo diet - can your total cholesterol get below 150 on the Paleo diet? Research shows that heart disease can be reversed when total cholesterol is below 150.

While I have low cholesterol (which was unchanged/slightly lower with a massive increase in dietary intake), I would not go chasing low cholesterol.

It's become very clear that some sub-types of LDL are actually good, and some subtypes of HDL are bad. Cholesterol is super important for lots if things (like brain function), it makes no sense to try to lower all types and it's a product of our incomplete understanding of heart disease.

It is certain that we do not require additional cholesterol for health; our bodies produce all the cholesterol we need. Another thing known about cholesterol is that it is a strong predictor of cardiovascular disease, and plays an active role in the production and formation of arterial scarring (the things that are responsible for heart attacks). a confusing thing about cholesterol levels is the difference between recommended blood levels of cholesterol and incidence of heart disease. The recommendation is for blood levels at or below 200, but many people with levels this low still have heart attacks. However, rates of heart disease dramatically decrease at levels below 180, and are basically non-existent below 150. That's all I need to know to do something about decreasing my chance of heart attack (and stroke).

Very low cholesterol (<150) is associated with less heart attacks, unfortunately, it's also linked with higher mortality :( At these very low numbers, the risk of stroke and cancer is increased, accounting for the increased risk of death.

Your comments, which sum how many doctors felt in the late 1990s, have been widely challenged. The studies used to promote super low values are almost always funded by pharm companies. This obvious conflict of interest has been noted by a wide range of experts.

I suggest you keep an open mind and reexamine the evidence (that's what I did).

In my case while I have always had low total cholesterol regardless of my diet my family history shows the men dying of heart attacks in their late 50's and early 60's.

So, genetically "lucky" in that regard also.

SkySaw · December 2016

J-dubya said:

Very low cholesterol (<150) is associated with less heart attacks, unfortunately, it's also linked with higher mortality :( At these very low numbers, the risk of stroke and cancer is increased, accounting for the increased risk of death.

Your comments, which sum how many doctors felt in the late 1990s, have been widely challenged. The studies used to promote super low values are almost always funded by pharm companies. This obvious conflict of interest has been noted by a wide range of experts.

I suggest you keep an open mind and reexamine the evidence (that's what I did).

I completely agree with your last sentence and suspect we share similar approaches to integrating new knowledge into our lives. You've got to be open minded to decide to stop eating pulled pork for health reasons! I am very aware of the kinds of research methods flaws pharma companies exploit to demonstrate positive findings for their products; but I'm also aware of the kinds of bias that are so often used to interpret scientific studies to support a particular preference for one type of diet or another.

The American Association for Cancer Research concluded that plant based diets are strongly associated with an overall reduced risk of cancer, and in particular for reduced stomach and colon cancer (I believe that low cholesterol has been associated with higher risk of colon cancer in at least one study). A plant-based diet is also largely responsible for lowering cholesterol levels to below 150. So to reduce cancer risk, I eat a plant-based diet (but also to reduce heart disease risk). The strongest scientific evidence is evidence that comes from multiple sources using multiple perspectives. The health perspectives (cardiovascular, cancer, stroke, etc.) all converge around a plant-based diet, which is why I have made that choice. And that evidence has been mounting steadily over the past 15 years. I try to understand the scientific merits of the paleo approach, but the research is still very murky.

Attempt at going Paleo

Comments

Categories