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

I've heard this diet recommended by a couple of people, and was unsure whether or not it is as good and healthy as it's adherents claim it to be.

Not being well versed in nutrition, or the dietary habits of our Paleolithic ancestors I thought I'd throw the subject out there for you guys.

My initial questions would be, is it healthy? Of course, and also is their idea of the dietary habits of Paleolithic peoples accurate?

Apologies if this has been covered already.

An omniverous diet of fresh fruit, meat, fish, & vegetables; hard to go wrong really. I'd even trust Gillian MacKeith on this one. And she'd be free to trawl through my bodily waste too. It's the least she deserves.

BTW, yes, has been discussed elsewhere - here for instance

Laurens wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet

I've heard this diet recommended by a couple of people, and was unsure whether or not it is as good and healthy as it's adherents claim it to be.

Not being well versed in nutrition, or the dietary habits of our Paleolithic ancestors I thought I'd throw the subject out there for you guys.

My initial questions would be, is it healthy? Of course, and also is their idea of the dietary habits of Paleolithic peoples accurate?

Apologies if this has been covered already.

How could it be anything other than healthy?

If you're interested, I offer foraging courses in Sussex.

http://www.wibberley.org/fungiforaging/index.htm

There are different versions of what is considered "Paleo" but in general, it's logical and healthy.

Arguments continue over what the balance of macronutrients were when humans evolved. This means what percentage of fat, carbs and protein? All of them say avoid simple sugars, processed carbs, and "frankenfood," which is very good advice.

You could consider it an evolution of Atkins since they all are relatively low carb, and what carbs they do add are more complex and high in fiber.

That does not mean go out and load up on modern fruits that are high in fructose. Today's supermarkets are full of sweet goodies year around that have become "candy from a tree." Paleo folks could not have found that much fructose.

Grains are out. Paleo says that grains were added late in the game, when agriculture started. This fed more people, but it doesn't mean that it is healthy.

Paleo also ignores the "food groups" dogma since there is no such thing as a "healthy whole grain."

Many people have eliminated grains, most fruit, milk, bread, and don't worry about healthy fat (fresh meat and fish) and have reported excellent results and no "rebound."

I've been doing the Paleo thing since January 1 (NY's resolution) and have dropped 30 pounds/14 kg. Fruits are a small part of my daily intake. I avoid HFCS like the plague since watching the 1.5 hour long video posted here by another member Sugar: The Bitter Truth.

I just skip the breads, sweets & chips. It's made a major difference for me.

Now if I could learn to skip the beer & scotch...

It's pretty hard to go wrong with preagricultural diets. They allow you to consume a wide variety of foods. It's up to you to manage portions and how much of everything you eat though. You need to eat lots of the good stuff and just enough of the stuff that can negatively impact your health when consumed in excess. When consumed in appropriate portions, meat, fish, vegetables, fruit, roots, and nuts are all great for you.

A girlfriend swears by it. She's certain it's cured her of recurrent yeast infections. I have no idea whether that's accurate.

I love legumes and eat them three or four times a week so I couldn't do it.

It is easy to not overeat because you just don't want to or need too. That is one of the additional benefits.

I don't think too many Paleo dieters are worrisome calorie counters.

It's interesting to see the positive comments so far. It's really just a re-do of low carb with more attention to natural foods. I'm impressed!

If the topic were "What about an organic, low carb diet" I suspect it would become a shitstorm, but it's about the same!

Eating organic is hardly an inherent part of the paleodiet. It's about using specific food stuffs as sources of specific nutrients. Produce without organic labels provides the same nutrients the stuff you pay an extra two bucks for.

People who consume the paleodiet but struggle with their weight will absolutely minimise their protein consumption. Just because it's the paleodiet doesn't mean you can't eat too much of the wrong stuff and become unwell or gain unwanted weight while on it.

And no, the paleodiet does not suppress appetite or cause people to lose interest in food. Just like with any other diet, you can be full, properly nourished and STILL want to eat more while on it. Very few people overeat because they're hungry. No diet is going to supress one's need to do so if they eat for reasons other than hunger.

The paleodiet isn't particularly low card either. It's just lower carb than diets which utilise carbs as a primary energy source. The truth is paleolithic people would have consumed a fair bit of carbs due to tuber availability. Tubers (excluding white potatoes which wouldn't have been available to Paleolithic people) just happen to contain carbs that are nutritionally preferable to simple carbs we find in processed foods.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Eating organic is hardly an inherent part of the paleodiet. It's about using specific food stuffs as sources of specific nutrients. Produce without organic labels provides the same nutrients the stuff you pay an extra two bucks for.

People who consume the paleodiet but struggle with their weight will absolutely minimise their protein consumption. Just because it's the paleodiet doesn't mean you can't eat too much of the wrong stuff and become unwell or gain unwanted weight while on it.

And no, the paleodiet does not suppress appetite or cause people to lose interest in food. Just like with any other diet, you can be full, properly nourished and STILL want to eat more while on it. Very few people overeat because they're hungry. No diet is going to supress one's need to do so if they eat for reasons other than hunger.

The paleodiet isn't particularly low card either. It's just lower carb than diets which utilise carbs as a primary energy source. The truth is paleolithic people would have consumed a fair bit of carbs due to tuber availability. Tubers (excluding white potatoes which wouldn't have been available to Paleolithic people) just happen to contain carbs that are nutritionally preferable to simple carbs we find in processed foods.

Where the heck are you getting this information?

I spend more time on a Paleo site than I have this site lately, so I think I know what people are saying and doing.

Paleo may not come right out and say "buy organic only" but it is in fact how people are doing it. Just go read the forums and see for yourself. There is much resistance to "frankenfoods." Grass fed beef is much preferred over grain fed. You are free to scoff and dismiss the organic crowd, but they are not listening to you anyway.

Paleo is in fact relatively low carb. People debate the balance, but it's still low carb. It's just not always "VLC" (very low carb).

Paleo dieters know that they are less hungry because fat helps you feel full, and carbs keep you feeling hungry. It's a common topic. It does not and can not solve eating disorders, and I don't know where that came from.

No one has a time machine to go back and verify what the Paleo balance of macronutrients were. On this one - "The truth is paleolithic people would have consumed a fair bit of carbs due to tuber availability." We don't know that to be true.

We do know that people are improving health, getting excellent blood test results back, reporting better energy, less hunger, less weight, and other things after going Paleo.

I recall reading an article concerning an early human population at the very bottom of the African continent that survived by utilising shellfish and a local variety of tuber that's quite unique to that region. One that's particularly rich in carbohydrates.

I'm having a bit of trouble locating an online version [think it was a New Scientist article and I'm aware of it's dubious reliability]. The closest I could find was a hit on Nature but it's behind a paywall
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7164/full/nature06204.html

I wish I could remember the name of the plant too, I just remember that it had nondescript long green leaves and found only in [the south of] South Africa.

I think there is a lot of room for discussion on what Paleo people did in fact eat, but I would suggest there is not going to be much of a single answer, and that's OK too.

If the Paleo crowd is convinced that carbs were minimal, and they eat accordingly and lose weight, improve health and have the blood test results to prove it, who cares? It worked.

The body is remarkable flexible on diet. We are naturally equipped to process fats, carbs and protein. Modern life has bumped up the carbs by adding sugars and processed foods that are higher on the glycemic index. The more you avoid those, the better-within reason of course.

Paleo followers that focus on losing weight restrict carbs more. Paleo followers that don't worry about it as much do complex carbs with their workouts.

The percentage of total calories from carbs in the population at large keeps going up, along with type 2 diabetes and obesity, and still people act like this is a big mystery and don't put 2 and 2 together.