Anyone on the Paleo Diet?

[fuzzybabybunny]

How's it working out for you?

Meat, fruit, veggies. Like the cavemen.

No grains. No dairy.

 

[eits]

love it

 

[Bulldog13]

I am on a slightly modified version. I take whey protein supplements along with the normal diet.

I love it. Feel great. I have lost a bunch of weight since the new year. Went from 283 to 264 (last weigh in). I expect to be 261ish on the next weigh in (Monday).

Obviously, the big thing is your diet restriction. I miss milk and pasta. Bad. But after the first 10 days or 2 weeks your body kind of adjusts and you get over it. You basically end up eating alot of stir fry and salad.

I find the three most important things are:

1.) Empty your house of all shit food
2.) Always have some food ready. I bake 2 pans of chicken breasts twice a week and eat that plus microwave veggies every night for dinner (except Friday nights, Friday night is steak night). Canned tuna / chicken for emergencies. Bagged veggies and lettuce too.
3.) Get yourself some type of George Foreman grill, it makes it pretty easy to cook meat without having to hover over it.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Paleo diet is good as a general guideline but allows for too much saturated fat, especially since most people don't eat free-range/grass-fed/whatever meats. Also, if you don't have any problems with milk, beans, etc, there's not much reason to stop utilizing those. Sure, dairy products may promote some inflammation, but it's also a great source of carbs, protein, vitamin d, and calcium. Lentils/beans may agitate some people's digestion, but they're massively high in fiber and provide quite a bit of protein per serving. Rather than go with the extreme of Paleo, it's frequently best for individuals just starting to change their diet to pick something a bit more moderate.

 

[SZLiao214]

I agree with what SC said about being a bit more moderate. Last i remember you aren't close to being fat.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Paleo diet is good as a general guideline but allows for too much saturated fat, especially since most people don't eat free-range/grass-fed/whatever meats. Also, if you don't have any problems with milk, beans, etc, there's not much reason to stop utilizing those. Sure, dairy products may promote some inflammation, but it's also a great source of carbs, protein, vitamin d, and calcium. Lentils/beans may agitate some people's digestion, but they're massively high in fiber and provide quite a bit of protein per serving. Rather than go with the extreme of Paleo, it's frequently best for individuals just starting to change their diet to pick something a bit more moderate.

This.

I think the paleo is a good starting point, but is too restrictive. By following the guidelines of "get rid of this processed junk and eat a more natural diet" you'll get the same effects.

 

[dealmaster00]

This.

I think the paleo is a good starting point, but is too restrictive. By following the guidelines of "get rid of this processed junk and eat a more natural diet" you'll get the same effects.

agreed.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I try to adhere about 90% .

I did it 90 days super strict before but that was unrealistic for me. I don't have an intolerance towards dairy so I do greek yogurt and skim milk as well.

Other than that its really easy for me to follow. Meats and veggies and fruit and nuts.

I tend to shed fat weight FAST when I'm following this tightly. Conversely if/when I can't follow it or slip up I feel bloated and gain weight fast.

PRO TIP: I buy raw nuts from the bulk bins at a local health food store and make my own mix with organic raisins. I break these into lunch baggie servings and I always have some on me for snacking when I get hungry.

 

[Deeko]

meh @ paleo.

 

[Kaido]

How's it working out for you?

Meat, fruit, veggies. Like the cavemen.

No grains. No dairy.

Funny you mention this, I just saw a buddy today I haven't seen in a long time - he's been on the paleo diet and looks great! He said it's really been working out well for him, been on it for a few months. He was never out of shape, but he looks even younger now despite getting gray hair. He's in his car all day traveling for work and just kind of grazes and nuts and fruit and whatnot. Seems to be working out really well for him!

 

[eits]

I try to adhere about 90% .

I did it 90 days super strict before but that was unrealistic for me. I don't have an intolerance towards dairy so I do greek yogurt and skim milk as well.

Other than that its really easy for me to follow. Meats and veggies and fruit and nuts.

I tend to shed fat weight FAST when I'm following this tightly. Conversely if/when I can't follow it or slip up I feel bloated and gain weight fast.

PRO TIP: I buy raw nuts from the bulk bins at a local health food store and make my own mix with organic raisins. I break these into lunch baggie servings and I always have some on me for snacking when I get hungry.

yup. this.

 

[bossman34]

My fiance and I have been following a somewhat modified Paleo diet for about 6 months and we love it. I don't think I'll ever go back to conventional eating 100% of the time. My fiance used to have digestive/IBS and thyroid issues that have disappeared since we have started and we have both lost significant body fat without any changes to our exercise routine...this included the holidays.

I say modified because I still eat some dairy. Mainly organic, grass-fed yogurt and cheese. However, I do eat far less cheese and yogurt than I did before I started especially lately when I really want to cut.

If you're going to do it, you really have to commit to buying organic, grass-fed meat. Conventionally raised, grain-fed beef has a horrible omega-6 to omega-3 fat ratio (something like 6:1 when it should be closer to 1:1). Not to mention the hormones and antibiotics that are pumped into conventionally raised beef. If you're going to do Paleo, this is pretty much a must or you're going to be eating a ton of bad fat and other crap. Same goes for fish, farm raised fish is as bad if not worse than conventionally raised meat...stay far, far away.

Also, don't worry about getting too much saturated fat. There is nothing wrong with saturated fat IF, IF, IF you're not consuming large amounts of carbs. I'm not going to explain here unless I'm asked because it's complicated explanation, but if you follow the rest of the Paleo Diet, there is no reason to be afraid of saturated fats (and as long as you eat the good meat, too).



I have to say it's much easier than I thought it would be and I don't crave pasta, potatoes, rice, bread, etc. I eat lots of red meat, bacon (no nitrites, preservatives), fish, chicken (skin and all), nuts, and fruits & veggies. Who wouldn't like that??

We do go out every week or two with friends where we'll eat whatever we want, but we've still had great results and feel great. Though, when we do eat out we tend to feel like absolute crap afterwards!

I say give it a good try for 30 days (with no cheating) to see how you feel. I am willing to bet that you'll never turn back.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Bossman, I've read all Paleo has to say and the saturated fat content of a typical Paleo diet is a bit outta whack. Regardless of carbohydrate intake, saturated fat consistently increases LDLs. Each and every strict Paleo eater whose lipid profiles I've seen has had high cholesterol (and I've seen 10-15 lipid panels by now). Most pro-Paleo members regurgitate that there's a difference between small dense LDLs and large buoyant LDLs. While it's true that saturated fat leads to increases in large buoyant LDLs, which are less pathological than small dense LDLs (typically paired with sugar intake), all LDLs are atherogenic. I don't care if you have all large buoyant LDLs - if your cholesterol is 250+, you're at risk for atherosclerosis and all the related diseases.

 

[bossman34]

Bossman, I've read all Paleo has to say and the saturated fat content of a typical Paleo diet is a bit outta whack. Regardless of carbohydrate intake, saturated fat consistently increases LDLs. Each and every strict Paleo eater whose lipid profiles I've seen has had high cholesterol (and I've seen 10-15 lipid panels by now). Most pro-Paleo members regurgitate that there's a difference between small dense LDLs and large buoyant LDLs. While it's true that saturated fat leads to increases in large buoyant LDLs, which are less pathological than small dense LDLs (typically paired with sugar intake), all LDLs are atherogenic. I don't care if you have all large buoyant LDLs - if your cholesterol is 250+, you're at risk for atherosclerosis and all the related diseases.

Loren Cordain, the author of the Paleo Diet, is pretty much against saturated fats for this reason so I don't agree with everything he says.

Most high cholesterol profiles don't mean anything unless you look at the big picture and underlying factors. HDL and LDL numbers only tell part of the story. Some of the healthiest people in the world (ie. Japan...Okinawa) have "elevated" cholesterol. Even further, more than half of first time heart attack victims have perfectly "normal" cholesterol levels.

Cholesterol profiles mean little unless biomarkers for inflammation are checked, which usually only happens AFTER a heart attack or a serious medical condition has been found.

What causes inflammation? Carbs...mainly from sugars, grains, starches, and other processed carbs. LDL rises directly not with the amount of saturated fat consumed, but with rising levels of inflammation caused by carbs and trans fats.

Also, LDL is elevated when it's oxidized by free radicals (ie. trans fat). So far, we know that LDL is increased by excessive carb intake (inflammation) and free radicals from substances such as trans fat. Where does saturated fat come in to play? It doesn't unless it's in the presence of a high carbohydrate diet which causes systemic inflammation. I challenge you to find a study with solid methodology regarding saturated fat and cholesterol levels with a low-carbohydrate diet.

A truly meaningful cholesterol screen includes C-reactive protein (an inflammatory marker) and small particle LDL numbers. Total cholesterol of 250 might not be dangerous at all if HDL is high and small particle LDL is low.

LDLs are only atherogenic if there is a large number of small particle LDLs which is likely because of systemic inflammation or oxidation... the more important problem. In the absence of these those issues, large particle LDLs are pretty much neutral.

I've read all Paleo has to say about pretty much everything which doesn't mean....anything. I've learned a lot from it, but through my own research and education I've been able to decide what I believe is right and wrong. You may not agree with what I believe, but do your research (find stuff that doesn't rely on studies that are 30 years old) and I think you might agree.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Cholesterol profiles have, for decades, been significant predictors of heart disease, regardless of all other factors (including MORE important factors than sugar consumption like age, gender, etc). Yes, HDL to LDL ratios and triglyceride levels are important measures, but it's rare that high total cholesterol comes without its risks. There is such a thing as reactive increases in HDL due to the high magnitude of LDL. The ratio may change, but the patient with this reactive increase is still very at risk for plaque formation.

Also, I'd be interested in seeing any significant research showing that saturated fat and LDL aren't linked... because I've read 40 years of research showing just the opposite. It's true that carb intake does negatively affect LDL skew, perhaps in a more detrimental way per unit. However, saturated fat has the LARGEST GLOBAL EFFECT on LDL within the body. The volume wins out and saturated fat remains king of ruining your arteries.

C-reactive protein is a useful measure, but is not always a great predictor of atherosclerotic risk in itself. Think of autoimmune diseases - they have massive C-reactive protein measures, but don't always have increased risks of heart disease (some do). The correlation has yet to be solidified properly between C-reactive protein and risk.

No, all LDLs are atherogenic to a certain degree. If you had a big bowl of large, buoyant LDLs floating around in your blood stream, you'd still get heart disease over time with a normal HDL. Again, there is research showing small dense LDLs are more atherosclerotic, but there is no research showing large buoyant LDLs are harmless. In fact, most research states the opposite.

Yes, chronic inflammation is a bad thing. I understand that, but cholesterol profiles as a whole do give good information about things to change. You have to balance minimizing the two together. You can't just focus on one and forget the other.