The Paleo Diet

[jbischke]

So I'm the middle of reading The Paleo Diet, a book that came highly recommended by a friend who has spent a lot of time studying nutrition. The general premise of the book is that if we shift our dietary patterns more to those of our Paleolithic ancestors we would be healthier and leaner. The emphasis then is placed on fresh fruits and vegetables, lean meats and healthy fats. The diet discourages cereals, grains, simple sugars and processed foods.

I'd be curious to hear what others think about this. Here's my take:

*Pros*

1. No doubt our ancestors were leaner and in better shape than we were. I'm sure physical activity was a huge part of this but diet probably played a role as well.

2. Anything that gets back to "nature" seems to make sense to me. The less work/processing that went into our food the better it probably is for us.

3. The two things that we need to survive are protein and fat. Carbs are not absolutely necessary. Therefore, a high-carb diet does seem a little counterintuitive.

*Cons*

1. The diet emphasizes lean meat consumption which I'm not sure I agree with. It does make the point that free-range/grass-fed/etc. is much better for you. But even if you limit yourself to high-quality meats, I'm still not convinced that we need to be eating more meat (for a number of reasons too long to go into here).

2. The fact of the matter is that even though our ancestors were leaner and persumably healthier than we are today as a society, they also had a much shorter life span. So I'm trying to reconcile the health benefits of a diet based around people who lived only a third as long as we do.

I'm not done with the book yet so I'll post more thoughts as they occur. In the meantime, I'd love to hear any feedback from others.

[impaul99]

I'm studying nutrition as well. If you have a specific question post it and I'll try to answer from my understanding.

Here's one thing that I learned just the other day. A wild pig/hog has approximately 1.3-1.9% body fat. A farm grown pig/hog ranges from 35-42% body fat. So, even if our ancestors ate meat, it's not the same meat we're talking about here. It's the same thing with our beef supply as well, it's plumped up with fat to make it more flavorfull and since it's sold by weight it makes more profit to sell steak fattened up.

So even if our ancestors ate meat 3-4 times a week, you'd have to take into account the difference in meat they ate back then compared to now.

[jbischke]

Yeah, this seems to be one of the main weaknesses in this diet (not being able to easily find true high-quality meats). I'm guessing the author is going to address this so I'll let you know when I get to that part.

[ReallyGoodIdeas]

I haven't read the book, but mercola seems to agree with it. I've found that eating much less grains and sugars makes me feel much better. How much meat do they recommend? I'm currently eating a diet that's usually about 60% raw vegan, 30% cooked vegies and 10% meat. I'm losing weight and feeling great.

As for the meat issue, can you not get organic and free range meat where you are?

The ratio between omega 3 and 6 fatty acids is very different between commercially grain fed animals and free range grass fed animals.

joy to you
Hazel

[jbischke]

So I finished up the book tonight and I'm not sure what to think. On one hand it makes a lot of sense in that it seems a more "natural" way of eating. On the other hand, eating meat or seafood at every meal doesn't seem to me to be all that healthy. A few more thoughts:

1. There wasn't an acknowledgement made about either the expense associated with only buying organic/free-range meats (and buying them for every meal) or the fact that when you're eating out you can rarely get organic/free-range meats.

2. The author does allude to the acid/alkaline theory of nutrition to which I buy into for the most part. However, meat is pretty acidic and therefore it seems strange to advocate so much consumption of it (even if you have lots of fruits and veggie as a "buffer"). He has states that you can't eat too much protein because as you approach high levels you'll start to feel nausea, etc. Um, I'd prefer not to have a diet that relies on me getting sick to know when I've had too much...

3. Another thing that is not really addressed is the environmental issues associated with this diet. The author does acknowledge that if everyone adopted The Paleo Diet than the world would not be able to support nearly the population we currently have. That's probably true but begs the question of whether it's ethical to advocate a diet that isn't sustainable? That was curious to me.

On the whole, this book did make me re-think things and I'm going to do some more research into this diet and how it stacks up re: others. In 2006, I was probably 95% vegan with my diet and while I feel that I'm generally pretty healthy right now I'm always looking to optimize.

[Lauxa]

The Paleo diet is very similar to what was reccommended by Dr. Weston Price. Dr. Price was a dentist in the late 1800's who noticed an alarming increase in the rate of cavities and studied cultures around the world to see what was the role of diet in this. He found that cultures that had adopted the Western diet (more grains and sugars) were suffering from more cavities as well as smaller dental arches and more crowding of teeth where cultures still on their native diets had much better teeth with very few cavities. He also found that dental health had a big correspondence to general health. Of the cultures he studied still on their indiginous diets, it seemed that the people could eat as much meat and fat as they could get and have no problems, whereas the vegetarian/vegan cultures were the least healthy. This is why I am suspicious of the vegetarian/vegan diet advocates. Also, eating more carbs and sugars seem to make my mood swings worse and make my husband gain weight. However, we cannot afford to eat only high-quality meats, fruits, and vegatables so I am still struggling to find a workable diet plan for my family.

One thing is that many of the cultures that Price studied would soak and sprout their grains to make them more nutritious. But that requires a lot of planning and organization and I'm not quite there yet...

[ChefSalad]

Actually, I'd say that, while difficult, getting rid of breads and grains is doable on the cheap. It just requires going back to less often purchased vegetables, and in-season purchasing. And, of course, canning. This year, I'm going to try to can an entire years' worth of fruits and vegetables as they come in season so I can save a boatload. Think about it like this: out of season peaches cost $1.29-$1.49 per pound, whereas in season peaches cost $0.39 per pound (and lower toward the end of the season if you know where to shop). Canning a years' worth could save you a buttload, if you're a peach eater like me. For a years' worth, I intend on canning nearly 200 lbs. At those quantities, prices plummet to indescribably low levels (indescribable because they're sold by the bushel and not the pound). I should end up saving around $200/yr for my peaches alone. It's the same with a whole bunch of things. And if you don't like canning, you can always freeze things. Most fruits and veggies freeze quite well and will keep upwards of one year in a good chest freezer.

And, when on a budget, you should be sure to shop the more local farmers' type markets. Every town has them, and their produce prices usually are significantly better than the big box stores. And be sure to pick up the less often used root vegetables when they're in season (right now in the northern hemisphere) like beets, turnips, parsnips and rutabegas. Those veggies are very filling, extremely tasty and quite cheap (but only at stores which sell a lot of them, like farmers' markets). Those are really what allowed me to ditch bread. That and curry.

As far as true paleo, I'm not sure if I want to give up beans, lentils and rice. Those are far too cheap and easy to cook. I'm tryin' though, Ringo. I'm tryin' real' hard.

[Lauxa]

I love curry but my daughter won't touch it And don't you usually serve it with rice?

I love beets, haven't yet had a good experience with turnips (tried them as a potato substitute while on a low-carb diet), and haven't ever tried parsnips or rutabegas... a deficiency I'll have to remedy. Do you eat them alone or do you have recipies?

[Dimitry]

So what about mutligrain products or whole wheat? I thought those were supposed to be good for you and provided high quality fiber, no?

[ChefSalad]

Dimitry: The thought is that grains aren't something that humans evolved to eat and that, regardless of their wholeness, they tend to cause problems with out physiology. Humans first appeared something like 35 kYa, but have only been eating grain for 10 kY. Ten thousand years may be a long time but it's not enough for us to evolve a new digestive system that can handle mostly starches instead of our previous mix of protein and fibrous vegetables. Honestly, I still feel the negative effects of eating grain no matter how "good" the grain is for me. White bread is just worse than whole grain.

Lauxa: I sometimes eat curry with brown rice, but it goes fine without. I just tend to use less hot pepper so I can handle it without the heatsink that is rice.

Parsnips are quite similar to carrots, but stronger flavored with a pronounced hint of anise. You can eat them in much the same manner as carrots if you cook them with stuff (in stews, roasts, cooked mixed vegetables). They don't eat so well raw unless they're grated, but they're delicious roasted. I tend to use them as filler vegetables in stews and soups. Note, however, that by themselves, they tend to be a bit watery if you boil them.

Rutebegas are something that I'm just starting to get into, so I can't comment much there, except that they're supposed to be fairly similar to turnips. Turnips, on the other hand, I can comment on. I wouldn't try using them as a substitute for potatoes the way that most people use potatoes. While they look like potatoes, they don't cook like them. The exception here is mashed turnips. With a little butter and garlic, they're very delicious.

I usually use turnips in a couple of ways. Kept raw, and cut into small strips, they go great in salads. Lightly boiled with salted water, shocked in an ice bath, and drained, they're an excellent addition to more hardy salads like pasta salad (I know it's not paleo, but whatever). Either roasted or boiled, they're an excellent substitute for potatoes in potato salad (I guess it would be turnip salad then.). Turnips are also great in soups, stews and with roasts. I even eat them roasted plain or topped with garlic mustard sauce. While this may be surprising, you can use them as substitute for cabbage in many cooked cabbage recipes. Their tastes and textures are very similar.

[duhshuh]

I also read "The Paleo Diet" and would recommend it to anyone interested in nutrition.

If nothing else, I think the book offers insight into the possible benefits of a Paleo diet. While I don't agree completely with everything the author suggests I think there is much truth in many of his claims. If free range/grass fed, antibiotic-free, hormone-free meat is available I do believe it is a better choice than grains.

If this meat is too expensive for you, you may want to consider finding a local farmer to buy from rather than the grocery store. In my area there are many farmers who sell their meats at or below what you would pay in the grocery store for meat from grain fed, etc sources. Just look around... there is probably more available than what it may seem.

[Dimitry]

So far a Vegan who implements this diet, all that's left for them to eat is Fruits and Veggies then no? That would seem like you're missing out on a lot of different vitamins, minerals and various other goodies.

Plus the how long we've been eating grains for sounds like a pretty bad argument to me. The reason I'd guess why we only started eating grains 10k year ago is because that's when we learnt how to handle them and what we can do with them that'll be edible.

Also, from what I roughly recall of history, the prehistoric people first started hunting for food and mostly ate meat with some berries. Then, after they were able to farm, they started growing veggies (and possibly fruit). Do we at that point determine that the length of time we're eating fruits/veggies isn't enough also and just eat meat? So what do vegans at this point eat, water.

I'm not trying to be difficult here or anything nor have I read the book yet. Each person is also free to do what he or she wants so I'm not out attacking personal calls on diet. I'm just trying to say that be very careful what you eliminate. Some of the nutrients you might not even realize you're lacking until years later when problems start occuring. At that point it might be hard to trace why they happen too.

[Angela]

Hey, Jon -- "carbs are not absolutely necessary"??? I'm assuming they're only referring to processed foods, right? A life without fruit and carbohydrate-rich vegetables would be a pretty sad one. (Avocados = necessary!)

Plus, have you ever hung out with someone who's on the Atkins Diet (protein, fat)? yeeee-uck regarding their breath! pleh!

[ChefSalad]

Actually, our ancestors were mainly insect eating leaf-eaters who also ate fruit until about 2.5 Mya. We slowly evolved a penchant for meat which culminated in our ancestors' large (pre-human) brains about 200 kya. Then we really started eating meat; it comprised probably more than half our diet. Homo sapiens sapiens (that would be us) appeared about 35 kya with a digestive system thoroughly adapted for meat eating. 10 kya we started farming, our body size decreased as did our constitution and life expectancy. Berries were probably a rare treat for most of our ancestors.

As for being vegan on the paleo diet, this is contrary to the whole point of the paleo diet. The paleo diet is about eating what our ancestors evolved to eat (that is, lean meats, fruits and vegetables but not grain, dairy or beans), not about someone's idea of morality.

[Dimitry]

See, that's the other interesting thing I noticed. You said no beans whereas most other people and dieticians and lots of people on this board day to eat beans.

I'm not trying to go against this diet but what I'm questioning is how exactly DO you figure out what's right for YOU as a person RIGHT NOW. Each person tries to say that their diet is the most optimal one and that others are jsut missing evidence or something like that. How does one figure out the "truth"?

[ChefSalad]

Really we don't. I don't necessarily think that the paleo diet is any more right than any other decent diet; I just happen to like it. It feels right when I talk about it and think about it and feels good when I eat it. The closer I stick to the paleo diet the easier time I have losing weight and gaining muscle and strength.

When I'm on more traditional carb-centric diets (standard American, veg*n (tried all three)) I feel moody, tired and irritable, I gain weight (or at least don't lose it) and I don't gain muscle or strength very easily in my lifting. So I'd say for me, paleo is right. For you, paleo may be completely wrong and cause you hella problems.

Of course, I'm not going to excuse crappy diets, but I will admit that there are many other useful, healthy diets out there. The standard American diet is certainly not on my list of healthy and neither are fad diets like Atkins. Veg*n diets could be on my list of decent healthy diets but only if they take into account things like human protein requirements. One gram of protein per pound of lean body weight is a good protein guideline for most people. You can go up to double if you exercise more than like six hours per week, and lower it to as far as half if don't exercise at all. Unfortunately, most people who eat vegan diets (lacto-ovo vegetarians tend to be fine since dairy and eggs contain a lot of protein) tend to eat far too little protein, and tend to look it. There's a reason the vegan stereotype is a short skinny chick with sub-A cups who looks anorexic and has crappy blown out pores; it's because of deficiencies in their poorly planned vegan diets. That's not to say that all vegans are eating poorly, but enough are to create a stereotype.

I think that in the end, the best diet for us is the diet that gives us the bodies we want and the mind we want. If a diet doesn't feel right or otherwise doesn't work for you, then don't do it. If you hate the idea of animals dying for your meals, then be a veg*n (but plan it well). If grains, dairy and beans don't float your boat but you don't mind meat, stick with something that does like paleo. If neither sounds right then find something else that sounds better. Look at and listen to your body and your mind; that's how you figure out what diet is right for you.

[ChefSalad]

Originally Posted by jbischke

*Cons*

2. The fact of the matter is that even though our ancestors were leaner and persumably healthier than we are today as a society, they also had a much shorter life span. So I'm trying to reconcile the health benefits of a diet based around people who lived only a third as long as we do.

I meant to reply to this point a while ago but I forgot about it. I'll reply now. While the average age of someone living in the caveman era was certainly low (like 35-45), it's also probably the least important number to think about. That's because of things like high infant mortality rates and childhood deaths. Those are things that we don't have anymore. The more important number is expected lifespan of adults which was more like sixty to seventy back then, pretty close to what it is now. It would be a little bit higher than that if we factored out deaths from plagues that we can now cure.

[spirited]

ChefSalad, would you mind sharing what you ate when you were vegan? I have heard the veganism did not work for me and paleo/atkins/etc did statement a lot and usually I think it is because the people were eating a pretty terrible vegan diet and then went on to eat a completely unprocessed paleo diet. Of course they'll feel better. That's not because there is something inherently wrong with vegan diets, but because there is something wrong with the standard american diet - even if you veganize that and even if you eat the supposedly healthy products like whole grain bread and olive oil.

A vegan diet should be centered about vegetables and (to a lesser degree) fruits, nuts, beans and whole grains. Entire civilizations have thrived on diets that were centered around these food groups. Sure, most civilizations ate meat, but it was never the center of their diet.

As for the paleo diet: we don't know nearly as much about how our ancestors ate than some book authors claim we do. Furthermore, like impaul points out, meat back then can not be compared AT ALL with meat now, even if you eat organic grass fed meat. Fruits and vegetables are very different too, by the way.

Does it matter what some people millennia ago ate? Or should we look at what the healthiest people on earth NOW eat? I go with the latter. The longest living, healthiest people on earth all eat a plant based diet. Sure, they'll often add some meat, but the bulk of their diet is plant based whole foods.

There are some highly focal meat proponents on the internet that will point you to groups that eat an animal based diet and are still healthy, but they are usually incorrect or forget to mention that the average life span in that country is below (and even if you factor in infant mortality, it is still low). Also, keep in mind that diet is only one part of the health equasion. People in hunter-gatherer societies are much, much more physically active than we are. They also have close family ties, much less stress, etc.