Why do people look down on paleo/primal dieting?

[MrM27]

Pretty sure they don't want your "opinion"... Think they are looking for some published literature to back up your claims.

Exactly. I'm getting tired of asking actual questions and we keep getting this "I believe" nonsense. The problem with that is what is believed is false to begin with primarily due to the lack of full understanding of how insulin works and glycogen and pretty much everything. I keep asking for science but I keep getting opinions.

[jwarrenfit]

well again i posted a study showing the different absorption rates of different sugars it doesnt take a rocket scientist to conclude that if you are stocked up on glycogen a faster release in of glucose in your bloodstream means less opportunity to use those glycogen stores, thus more fat.

My point isnt to say you have to eat paleo to look good. What I dont understand is how someone can blindly accept that our bodies are simple machines and you can accurately calculate exactly how much body fat will be lost if you take in specific amounts of macros ect..

Lets say someone hit there macros only from mcdonalds. They got their carbs in the form of soda and bread, fats in industrial beef and processed cheese and protein from those beef as well.

someone else with the exact same genetics hits the exact same macros from grass fed beef, sweet potatoes and grass-fed ghee. Will they feel the same? I think most of you would say no the person eating real food will feel better and be more healthy overall.

But will they look the same? what about after a year of this diet? This is a study that is impossible to do so we will never know for sure but I personally dont believe so because our bodies are so much more complex than we give them credit for. We have to look at the big picture is all im saying. If you count your calories and eat real food then im sure you will get results. But what i often see is someone posting something wondering about how they should eat and somone just replies "IIFYM your fine, go ahead a have that mutated fat or refined sugar if it doesnt put you in a surplus" I dont think this is the right approach for long term health and good body comp.

Taking out the satiety side of things lets look at this. The person eating crappy mcdonalds is taking in all kinds of transfats and unfavorable long chain fatty acids. The fats we consume are largely responsible for the phospholipid layer of our cells plasma membrane. If it is not a mix of favorable saturated and unsaturated fats you are weakening yourself on a cellular level inhibiting you ability to move waste products an get nutrients into the cell. This could lead to waste products in the bloodstream causing large amounts of inflammation, this in turn will hamper your ability to recover from workouts, especially when in a deficit. It will also have a large role in dictating hormonal balance which at the end of the day regulates metabolism and TDEE

if you are consuming a higher percentage of carbohydrates and eating frequently, as opposed to fasting or doing ketogenic, you are more dependent on meal timing to ensure no lean muscle is loss. If you have to miss a meal or two for whatever reason you would feel not only miserable but would likely not be as efficient as burning fat for fuel.

post in another thread i was in

Not every calorie eaten is absorbed, and not every calorie was born equal. There are ways of modifying how our hormones are released which can change the way in which we absorb said calories.

There are ways of ensuring that we are not in an optimal state for earthier storage of calories, or for burning of calories.

You can look all this data up, and make up your own mind. But things you may want to look up.

Calorie values for cooked vs raw food.
how a sumo wrestler manages their diet to maintain subcut fat, yet maintain very little visceral fat.
How hormones effect the storage of excess calories.
What the different fasting state's are and what the physiological processes are.
How much energy is required for the various biochemical pathways.

And anything else that you can think of.

I would add that I'm not saying its a false equation just that its far more intricate than many people assume. If you want to lose weight you can eat lower than your maintenance level and it will happen (keep in mind your body will always lower its maintenance level to try to reach homeostasis by slowing down metabolic processes). But is it fat or is it muscle? What makes up those calories is vital in whether you are losing fat or muscle or storing them, not just the macro percentage.

Your metabolic demand will change daily with your varying energy demands. How well you utilize your food depends on the food quality, and your hormones such as insulin epinephrine, nor-epinephrine, cortisol, glucagon ect.. ability to signal the best metabolic response

Also there are many types of energy metabolism that are affected by the quality, quantities, and frequency of food intake. are you burning that energy in the form of ketones, fat, or gluconeogenisis? Or are you at the point of protein turnover breaking down lean muscle? Are you storing your energy as glycogen or fat? Hitting your macros probably takes care of the vast majority of these things, but I dont think it handles it all.

And honestly most people in this thread are not the kind of people i am referring to. I dont think most people here eat sh it food all the time, but alot of people who are just starting out cause themselves alot of stress and confusion dealing with counting calories and macros, ect.. when really they just need to put down the fake food like products and eat real food. Thats why i posted this in losing fat and not in the nutrition section. I have been a trainer for 10 years now and while i have a client who likes to count calories, the rest of the general population doesnt. And when I did make them they would often be lackadaisical about it or feel guilty/ stressed if they didnt record it accurately. All im saying is dont feel like if you dont count calories you wont reach your goal. In the end we need be intuitive with ourselves, once we are balanced hormonally and can metabolize glucose with no issues

[MrM27]

^^^^ Who here has said anything about getting most of their food from McDonald's? That's the typical strawman argument.

Who around here is walking around with maxed out glycogen levels? How many grams of carbs would it take daily to do that?

[jwarrenfit]

^^^^ Who here has said anything about getting most of their food from McDonald's? That's the typical strawman argument.

Who around here is walking around with maxed out glycogen levels? How many grams of carbs would it take daily to do that?

like i said i know thats not the case i am talking from a strictly macro level. Im not sure about glycogen i have heard 300-350 daily to replinish glycogen but am not sure

[DannPM]

^^You can’t compare two extremes and pretend like there is no middle ground, where 90% of people fall. That’s just an argument setup to win itself.

You’ve got a lot of certifications for training but if you’re going to give clients nutrition advice you should really have the background for it, something like an ISSN certification (http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/CISSN.html)

Edit, MrM beat me to it!

^^^^ Who here has said anything about getting most of their food from McDonald's? That's the typical strawman argument.

Who around here is walking around with maxed out glycogen levels? How many grams of carbs would it take daily to do that?

[JaredPunch]

Paleo is an ideology and people here are rational enough to look down on ideologies.
And like all ideologies it's not based on anything concrete: no real proof of any universal inability to digest starches, growing evidence that it's not cooking meat that helped in developing our brain but cooked tubers with evidence that cooking is way older than believed, hunther-gatherer groups drinking milk and making cheese/fermented milk showing milk is part of the natural diet of health groups of people and focusing on the "arcane" non-evidence based diet paleo men rather than other healthy groups, we can study way better than paleo men, is just ideology based.

[Serpentarius]

eat whatever you want and stop worrying about what other people do.
Dont restrict yourself, none of us are special snowflakes getting paid to watch their calories, enjoy food, live, and die.

[jwarrenfit]

^^You can’t compare two extremes and pretend like there is no middle ground, where 90% of people fall. That’s just an argument setup to win itself.

You’ve got a lot of certifications for training but if you’re going to give clients nutrition advice you should really have the background for it, something like an ISSN certification (http://www.sportsnutritionsociety.org/CISSN.html)

Edit, MrM beat me to it!

Dan I'm confused as to how that's an unfair hypothetical when supposedly everything in terms of body comp in defined in terms of macros. If this is the case then the answer is your body should look the same right? But intuitively does that sound right at all? Obviously most people fall into a middle ground I never would deny that.

And while I did all the coursework for my minor in nutrition it didn't really do a lot in terms of real practical knowledge. That came from my own studies and work as a lab assistant, plus the fact that I have a client with PhD in nutrition sciences that I have been able to bounce my thoughts off of 3 times a week the last 4 years helps

Dmac do you have an opinion? I am just looking to discuss with yall not trying to be a dick

[MrM27]

like i said i know thats not the case i am talking from a strictly macro level. Im not sure about glycogen i have heard 300-350 daily to replinish glycogen but am not sure

You cannot simply argue extremes in order to try and prove a point. You are completely ignoring context and you are blurring the line between us as individuals that will be in a caloric deficit while training vs a general individual that doesn't do any of that. I think that is the biggest issue with you here. You are taking snippets of information that flow with your theories while at the same time leaving out the other functions that are involved. You also can't use the argument that if someone gets all their macros from McDonald's or pizza to try and prove your body composition theory. Again, it's extremes.

Now you talk about full glycogen stores spillover but are ignoring that we would be in a deficit and we are training so when would we really be at max capacity? It's not a solid argument.

The body can hold up to 500g of glycogen. 400 in muscle and 100 in the liver. If we somehow had fully depleted glycogen stores you're looking at 7g of carbs per lb of lbm. In someone with let's say 140 lbs of lbm you're looking at 980g of carbs to refill. Now most of us won't be getting down to fully depleted stages unless we are trying to. That's an extreme example and as you can see we don't live like that.

[dmacdonal9]

Dan I'm confused as to how that's an unfair hypothetical when supposedly everything in terms of body comp in defined in terms of macros. If this is the case then the answer is your body should look the same right? But intuitively does that sound right at all? Obviously most people fall into a middle ground I never would deny that.

And while I did all the coursework for my minor in nutrition it didn't really do a lot in terms of real practical knowledge. That came from my own studies and work as a lab assistant, plus the fact that I have a client with PhD in nutrition sciences that I have been able to bounce my thoughts off of 3 times a week the last 4 years helps

Dmac do you have an opinion? I am just looking to discuss with yall not trying to be a dick

The fact is, there is just no evidence for an appreciable difference in body composition based on food choices, if calories and macros are controlled for. Researchers have been looking for decades, and come up dry. I firmly believe that you can indeed eat McDonald's every day (IIFYM) plus a good multivitamin and get the same body composition as someone that eats "clean".

Will you feel terrible? Maybe. Will you increase your risk of chronic disease and shave years off your life? Yeah, probably. So it'd be a dumb idea, and no one here is advocating that.

There are lots of reasons to make good food choices though. Trans fats will mess you up for sure, so I don't eat vegetable shortening. There are additives and other chemicals in processed foods that I would not personally eat. I try to avoid BPAs. I won't eat charred meat from a BBQ, and I won't eat crispy bacon due to nitrosamine content. I'm watchful for rancid oils. I have a few other rules like that. But none of them are based on body composition goals.

I also believe that we derive a lot of long term health benefits from phytochemicals and phytonutrients in whole foods. There are synergistic effects from these compounds that we can't replicate in vitamins. But again, not related to body composition, unless you want to make a case for nutritional deficiencies hindering your training.

As you say, there are things you can do with food choices and nutrient timing to cause short term metabolic and hormonal fluctuations. In an acute timeframe this can cause observable changes in things like nutrient oxidation rates (fat storage, muscle protein beakdown, etc). But when you widen your timeframe focus, theses effects disappear. Its the same reason why many people believe that fasted cardio burns more fat, or the fat burning zone for LISS, or that heavy squats spike testosterone, or that fasting spikes GH. All true, but irrelevant outside of the acute timeframe.

[jshpark]

You are missing the forest for the trees bro. No one is denying the complexity of the body and its biological processes. However, you are overlooking a lot of scientific evidence that was already posted by several members conveying that most of the things we used to obsess about are basically of low significance in terms of body comp. You also can't deny that simply improving body comp will resolve a lot of health issues automatically. If you really want to look at health since that is the focus of many of your arguments, you can try getting an even larger picture besides diet and look at a person's behavior, psychology, environment, habits/history, genetics, and luck. How deep do you want to go? It all adds up and makes a difference.

Why not just stop eating and exercising because of the added oxidative stress that naturally occurs from metabolism. Sometimes, there might be a lot of benefits that outweigh the negatives.

You are also putting a lot of strawmans out there. No one is saying you will be able to exactly count your macros and get an exact number of fat loss or muscle gain. What you are looking for is consistency and trends toward a favorable direction and adjustments based on rates of progress. Still, energy is energy (regardless of its metabolic efficiency). No one is arguing against eating quality foods and that it could put you in a favorable position, but why the arbitrary restriction and labels? Also, like other posters said, comparing extremes is basically pointless toward this crowd and the benefit of dietary intervention for health depends on a lot of context, plainly, not extremes.

I also don't put much stock in credentials but that is another can of worms. You don't know the educational and scientific background of anyone here either so that doesn't hold much weight. I'm sure there are tons of laypeople that are much more informed than PhDs who might also be missing the forest for the trees.

[AncientYouth]

Anyone ever been to Marks Daily Apple website....Primal blueprint where the discerning Caveman can buy

Primal Fuel
Primal Calm
Primal Omegas
Primal Flora
Primal Vitamins
Primal water bottles

You can also get accredited Certifications in being primal!


All this sounds about as far away from natural and cave like as can be and ALL about making money!

yes eat healthy wholesome foods , the best quality you can afford where possible but don't turn it into a cult and obsession,

[Serpentarius]

BTW just for anyone interested in the truth. The REAL paleo/primal diet is one where you eat anything to survive....dont get caught up in modern living, we are animals who only do all this stuff because of technology.

[MrM27]

OP, where did you go? Any comments? Any responses?

[mavajo]

OP, where did you go? Any comments? Any responses?

He's embracing all aspects of the caveman lifestyle and has gone off the grid. No more internet.

[jwarrenfit]

Making a living? Lol

No interesting stuff guys so most people are in agreement that macros from mickey d's will give the same body comp as macros from whole natural food so long a multi is taken?

Just FYI this is the response I got when I mentioned this discussion to someone with 30 years of experience in anti-aging / weightloss with their PHD

"If someone believes that your body will look the same eating garbage food just because you hit your macros with a multivitamin they do not fully understand integrative cell signaling or the neurobiology of metabolism."

Take it for what it's worth

[n0useforaname]

Making a living? Lol

No interesting stuff guys so most people are in agreement that macros from mickey d's will give the same body comp as macros from whole natural food so long a multi is taken?

Just FYI this is the response I got when I mentioned this discussion to someone with 30 years of experience in anti-aging / weightloss with their PHD

"If someone believes that your body will look the same eating garbage food just because you hit your macros with a multivitamin they do not fully understand integrative cell signaling or the neurobiology of metabolism."

Take it for what it's worth

Again, who is saying to eat McDonalds all day/everyday with a multi? I've been on here for almost 3 years and have NEVER heard a single sole ever recommend that. Only thing preached here is "eat mostly whole and minimally processed foods while hitting macro/micro sufficiency while staying at your required caloric intake" and "no food is considered bad outside the context of ones own diet". If people are using common sense and sticking to the first quote.. then they are basically eating nutritious whole foods for the majority of their daily intake. But to have a burger from Wendy's or something a couple times a week for a nightly snack or meal... do you really think it will hinder a cut? Just because of the name? Yeah... if an obese and sedentary guy who had fast food all day long chooses a McD's burger at 10:00 at night.. probably isn't the best thing for him. But a guy who is 700 cals under his TDEE who already met macro/micro sufficiency with whole foods is out with friends and gets a burger.. who cares?

[jwarrenfit]

Again, who is saying to eat McDonalds all day/everyday with a multi? I've been on here for almost 3 years and have NEVER heard a single sole ever recommend that. Only thing preached here is "eat mostly whole and minimally processed foods while hitting macro/micro sufficiency while staying at your required caloric intake" and "no food is considered bad outside the context of ones own diet". If people are using common sense and sticking to the first quote.. then they are basically eating nutritious whole foods for the majority of their daily intake. But to have a burger from Wendy's or something a couple times a week for a nightly snack or meal... do you really think it will hinder a cut? Just because of the name? Yeah... if an obese and sedentary guy who had fast food all day long chooses a McD's burger at 10:00 at night.. probably isn't the best thing for him. But a guy who is 700 cals under his TDEE who already met macro/micro sufficiency with whole foods is out with friends and gets a burger.. who cares?

I agree but think you guys are missing the point. Most people on this site believe that our body comp is defined by our macros solely, as long as you hit your min protein and fats as i have been told time and time again in this forum. So food quality should have no effect on body comp? If you think your body would look different on the 2 diets then that means there must at least be some minute appreciable difference right?

I know noone here would advocate that kind of diet we are just having a hypothetical discussion

[n0useforaname]

I agree but think you guys are missing the point. Most people on this site believe that our body comp is defined by our macros solely, as long as you hit your min protein and fats as i have been told time and time again in this forum. So food quality should have no effect on body comp? If you think your body would look different on the 2 diets then that means there must at least be some minute appreciable difference right?

I know noone here would advocate that kind of diet we are just having a hypothetical discussion

Well... I do find it slightly hard to agree with you 100% because I spent 6 months eating what you would consider "super healthy" and hit 168 pounds and had veins/muscle striations, etc.... and felt like 1 million bucks. Then after going from 168 to about 194 over the course of 8 months I cut again.. this time NO cardio at all.. ate what you would consider "garbage".. nutella, eggo waffles, tons of deep fried fast food, took a multi, etc.. and hit 168ish again just by adjusting calories... and low and behold I compared pics and looked exactly the same.. my friends said they couldn't believe it since my diet and exercise were "meh". People in the weight room swore I was taking something, and I even was accused of steroids a couple times.. one of those was by my doctor And I still felt great, and after summer came went and did a 4 mile jog at the beach at 6 am and felt like a million bucks again. So I dunno if 6 month cuts are a good indicator, but I can tell you that myself, friends, and a doctor couldn't tell the difference.

Oh.. and I should also mention that I had blood tests done both times after my cut... they both came back super duper

[jwarrenfit]

Well... I do find it slightly hard to agree with you 100% because I spent 6 months eating what you would consider "super healthy" and hit 168 pounds and had veins/muscle striations, etc.... and felt like 1 million bucks. Then after going from 168 to about 194 over the course of 8 months I cut again.. this time NO cardio at all.. ate what you would consider "garbage".. nutella, eggo waffles, tons of deep fried fast food, took a multi, etc.. and hit 168ish again just by adjusting calories... and low and behold I compared pics and looked exactly the same.. my friends said they couldn't believe it since my diet and exercise were "meh". People in the weight room swore I was taking something, and I even was accused of steroids a couple times.. one of those was by my doctor And I still felt great, and after summer came went and did a 4 mile jog at the beach at 6 am and felt like a million bucks again. So I dunno if 6 month cuts are a good indicator, but I can tell you that myself, friends, and a doctor couldn't tell the difference.

Oh.. and I should also mention that I had blood tests done both times after my cut... they both came back super duper

nice good info I dont think most people would feel as good. Something to take into account is that individuals vary on their ability to metabolize food. Depends on race/ heritage as well but some people can literally metabolize garbage and look great i think

were you counting the first cut on the good food?

[Znik]

And I still felt great, and after summer came went and did a 4 mile jog at the beach at 6 am and felt like a million bucks again. So I dunno if 6 month cuts are a good indicator, but I can tell you that myself, friends, and a doctor couldn't tell the difference.

Can relate to that, never felt any difference between eating "clean/healthy" and "dirty/unhealthy"

[AncientYouth]

The human body can adapt to many different circumstances...and take nutrition where it can

How come some people go to prison eating the slop they serve up there and come out super fit and lean

Plenty of fat and out of shape people who claim to eat "clean" whatever that really means

A bit of commonsense is required eat the best you can but enjoy life and don't turn food into a life long science experiment

[MrM27]

Some strong back tracking ITT going on by the OP. Bringing up hypothetical examples and when they get a rebuttal nothing it returned. Yesterday it was full glycogen stores which no one walks around with and now today it's something else. It's hard to argue science with opinions.

[n0useforaname]

nice good info I dont think most people would feel as good. Something to take into account is that individuals vary on their ability to metabolize food. Depends on race/ heritage as well but some people can literally metabolize garbage and look great i think

were you counting the first cut on the good food?

Yeah, I counted cals during both cuts and used a food scale for basically everything. The second time I cut, I knew I was getting fat/lazy and wanted to lean up, yet didn't feel like doing all the "work".. and low and behold it worked out pretty well for me. I will say I did eat some veggies on my 2nd lazy cut, but they were covered in that processed nacho cheese you get at baseball games

And as to feeling good/etc.. I think that just being lean in general (no matter how you get there) will always make you feel better. I think the body itself just works better that way.

[DannPM]

This whole discussion has gotten turned around.

Why do people look down on paleo? Arbitrary food rules that exclude grains, legumes, and dairy based on a poor & bias interpretation of scientific studies to justify a preconceived theory. That’s why it has a bad reputation.

Paleo is far from the only way to eat using whole minimally processed foods, in fact, it’s the basis for most diets out there.

If you want to discuss body comp differences between a fast food diet and a whole foods diet, that’s a different topic entirely. There are obvious health benefits to eating olive oil vs trans fats, eating micronutrient rich foods vs getting nutrition exclusively from pills. Nobody is debating this.

If you’re hitting your macros, and your micros, and avoiding stuff like trans fats, your diet is fine. Obsessing over micro-details of things like sugar intake timing becomes irrelevant in any timeframe beyond a the immediate and is far from sustainable.

[dmacdonal9]

Making a living? Lol

No interesting stuff guys so most people are in agreement that macros from mickey d's will give the same body comp as macros from whole natural food so long a multi is taken?

Just FYI this is the response I got when I mentioned this discussion to someone with 30 years of experience in anti-aging / weightloss with their PHD

"If someone believes that your body will look the same eating garbage food just because you hit your macros with a multivitamin they do not fully understand integrative cell signaling or the neurobiology of metabolism."

Take it for what it's worth

But see, the issue here is that you are blurring the lines. When I talk about body composition, I mean muscle gain and fat loss. If you want to broaden body composition to include things like skin health, organ health, tumors, bone density, premature aging, and stuff like that, then yeah, of course food choices impact those things.

But you need to separate those things from fat loss and muscle gain.

You can't have a meaningful conversation about nutrition when you use vague terms like "garbage" food. You have to look specifically at what undesirable element you're talking about in that food. Are you worried about a particular additive known to cause cancer? Are you concerned about trans fat content? Are you worried about nitrosamine content? Are you allergic to gluten? Those things and the effects they have on the body can't all be covered by a single term.

[MrM27]

But see, the issue here is that you are blurring the lines. When I talk about body composition, I mean muscle gain and fat loss. If you want to broaden body composition to include things like skin health, organ health, tumors, bone density, premature aging, and stuff like that, then yeah, of course food choices impact those things.

But you need to separate those things from fat loss and muscle gain.

You can't have a meaningful conversation about nutrition when you use vague terms like "garbage" food. You have to look specifically at what undesirable element you're talking about in that food. Are you worried about a particular additive known to cause cancer? Are you concerned about trans fat content? Are you worried about nitrosamine content? Are you allergic to gluten? Those things and the effects they have on the body can't all be covered by a single term.

I completely agree there^^^^

We have to look at the overall picture. It's like when someone says "Sugar is bad because it spikes insulin and causes you to store fat", it's looking at 1 solitary function of the human body without taking into consideration that we store and burn fat all day long. At that point it's cherry picking science to benefit your stance. Many people do that and a lot of the time it's people that just recently starting trying to learn about nutrition, A&P, fitness etc. Over time the person needs to keep absorbing more information and put it all together so using the argument that "I've been doing this for 10 years and have a bunch of certificates" actually works against you because you've been around long enough to not look at all this with tunnel vision.

[jwarrenfit]

But see, the issue here is that you are blurring the lines. When I talk about body composition, I mean muscle gain and fat loss. If you want to broaden body composition to include things like skin health, organ health, tumors, bone density, premature aging, and stuff like that, then yeah, of course food choices impact those things.

But you need to separate those things from fat loss and muscle gain.

You can't have a meaningful conversation about nutrition when you use vague terms like "garbage" food. You have to look specifically at what undesirable element you're talking about in that food. Are you worried about a particular additive known to cause cancer? Are you concerned about trans fat content? Are you worried about nitrosamine content? Are you allergic to gluten? Those things and the effects they have on the body can't all be covered by a single term.

No i understand we were talking about strictly body comp ie fat loss/ muscle gain nothing else

[MrM27]

No i understand we were talking about strictly body comp ie fat loss/ muscle gain nothing else

So then if you are talking about strictly body composition what exactly is your argument then?

[Serpentarius]

How is this way of eating "sustainable"? Are you going to say "nope sorry i cant go out and have pizza with you guys because im a crossfitter who obsesses about what i eat". -.-
None of this will matter, seriously, not to be a dick but nobody will say "i look up to that dude, he ate clean and we will always remember him" when one has average genetics. Getting in shape and exercising was never intended to worry about "hormones" in your body or pathways of the McDonalds (which apparently counts for 100% of caloric intake) food you ate.