"Eat Like A Predator, Not Like Prey": Paleo In Six Easy Steps, A Motivational Guide

[cinnepa]

chicken with hot sauce and a texas hamburger for lunch today - threw out the bun of course. haven't experianced that in a few years, nice. overall doing ok with it; really trying to cut those pastas, cereals, breads and doing good so far - and pounding the veggies/fruits.

[bodywhomper]

Paleo: no grains, no beans, no dairy
WP: limited grains, limited beans, limited dairy
Both: Eat real food

thanks.

gameface, i appreciate your assumptions about me and my dumb fat ass :P

[powdork]

i'm going to the gym. the machines there allow me to exceed a certain level w/o destroying my old joints. many of them have a limited range of motion, which allows me to strengthen the muscles around joints which also only have a limited range of motion.
plus, there's hot chicks

[BurnHard]

i'm going to the gym. the machines there allow me to exceed a certain level w/o destroying my old joints. many of them have a limited range of motion, which allows me to strengthen the muscles around joints which also only have a limited range of motion.
plus, there's hot chicks

This is purely IMHO based on things I've read here and there and personal experience... MACHINES = BAD, *exactly* for the reasons you mentioned:

You "exceed" a certain level by strengthening a specific 'large' muscle (i.e. bis, tris, chest, quads maybe) without strengthening any of the supporting muscles because the movement is isolated and mostly supported by the machine. You end up strengthening this one specific muscle beyond what your ligaments & supportive muscles can handle which in turn leads to damage to the joint, exactly the opposite of what you would expect/were hoping for. By limiting the range of motion you help shorten the muscle causing imbalances and chronic tension/compression which leads to further problems/inflammation/stiffness. IMHO, you're MUCH better off doing free weight, olympic lifts, and power lifts, starting off with light weights & learning good form, rather than working on machines.

Plus, hot chicks dig sweaty grunting men clean & jerking 225lbs

[iceman]

This is purely IMHO based on things I've read here and there and personal experience... MACHINES = BAD, *exactly* for the reasons you mentioned:

Jesus, what, the one argument in this thread wasn't enough for you?

[BurnHard]

Jesus, what, the one argument in this thread wasn't enough for you?

If you argue for arguments sake then one argument per thread might be enough, but I'm actually interested in the topic & welcome arguments/opposing ideas so

[iceman]

I'm just looking forward to this thread sinking out of sight is all.

[flyandski365]

I'm just looking forward to this thread sinking out of sight is all.

Bump.

[DasBlunt]

Any Paleo menus for those of us that like direction.

The photo of the dinner of eggs meat and peppers was a good start.

[Phill]

Any Paleo menus for those of us that like direction.

The photo of the dinner of eggs meat and peppers was a good start.

How hard is it? Just go out with your spear and cook anything you catch over your camp fire.

[hafilax]

I'm just looking forward to this thread sinking out of sight is all.

Reminds you too much of the days before you were frozen into the ice?

[hafilax]

Any Paleo menus for those of us that like direction.

The photo of the dinner of eggs meat and peppers was a good start.

Google. There are more Paleo recipe sites than can be counted.

[PNWbrit]

I'm just looking forward to this thread sinking out of sight is all.

Maybe spats can find something else to debunk on the internet?

We've gone through economics, criminology, virology and now death by baguette.

What's next?

[iceman]

Reminds you too much of the days before you were frozen into the ice?

The bad old days, I call them. I still can't believe those fuckers shot me with an arrow. I guess I'm a little over-sensitive about prehistory now.

[woodstocksez]

How hard is it? Just go out with your spear and cook anything you catch over your camp fire.

Small neighbor children are usually pretty slow, for example. Especially the fat ones, who are, happily, also the most healthy for you.

[hafilax]

Just head to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. I hear the meat is excellent.

[flyandski365]

Just head to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. I hear the meat is excellent.

Its supposed to be a cow...

[powdork]

This is purely IMHO based on things I've read here and there and personal experience... MACHINES = BAD, *exactly* for the reasons you mentioned:

You "exceed" a certain level by strengthening a specific 'large' muscle (i.e. bis, tris, chest, quads maybe) without strengthening any of the supporting muscles because the movement is isolated and mostly supported by the machine. You end up strengthening this one specific muscle beyond what your ligaments & supportive muscles can handle which in turn leads to damage to the joint, exactly the opposite of what you would expect/were hoping for. By limiting the range of motion you help shorten the muscle causing imbalances and chronic tension/compression which leads to further problems/inflammation/stiffness. IMHO, you're MUCH better off doing free weight, olympic lifts, and power lifts, starting off with light weights & learning good form, rather than working on machines.

Plus, hot chicks dig sweaty grunting men clean & jerking 225lbs

but see, that is where i know you are wrong as it applies to me. i have a bad shoulder. sometimes it's pretty much useless and feels like there's little bits floating around inside. sometimes it can lift hundreds of pounds in one direction, but not the weight of the arm attached to it in another. i've done free weights, and i've done machines. EVERY time i switched to free weights, I would end up having to take several weeks off to heal (often as a direct result of the use of the free weights). With the machines, I can continue to work the shoulder even when injured at least with some. This results in greater overall strength of the shoulder and less time hurting.
My right hip starts to ache badly after long repetitive exercise (think 10 mile hike or skin). I do like to make sure a 10 mile hike or skin is a piece of cake, athletically, however. How do I do it without exacerbating my hip? Combination of stairmaster, bike, and the thing that seems like skinning that i can't place a name to right now.
Lachinload once said to be able to stomp just about anything, you need to be able to do sets (squatting or leg press, not sure which) with double your skiing weight. The safest way to do that is the leg press machine.
Yes, one machine that is designed to work one muscle won't target the small muscles around it, but there are other machines for those. I had pretty much also given up on sit ups. Just because the floor is hard (even with a mat, i hated the friction on my lower back.) There are six different abdomen machines at the gym to choose from (not all are machines per se).

but the most important reason it doesn't apply to me is that i prolly get more exercise than 95% of the populace before hitting the gym.

Anyway, my real point is that those touting the benefits of this are superimposing their values over everything and portraying everything in a very black and white manner when everything is really gray. maybe if all the other variables were held constant, it is better to only use free weights outdoors in direct sunlight. the other variables are never constant. sometimes it's dark, for instance.
Very few people, when deciding how to work out, simply look at what the absolute healthiest, best, most efficient method will be. more important is that they like it (this also applies to food).

[Spats]

Any Paleo menus for those of us that like direction.

The photo of the dinner of eggs meat and peppers was a good start.

I link a big list at the end of the article in the OP:
http://theclothesmakethegirl.blogspo...o-recipes.html

I'll probably write a whole article about this, but here are a few pointers:
-Buy roasts. Cook roasts. Own large Takealongs to put half-eaten roasts in. That way you can slice off a bunch of meat whenever you need it, instead of having to cook it at every meal.

-Tender cuts of beef are expensive. Own a crock pot so you can make pot roasts. I take the pot out and put it in the oven because the temperature control is better.

-Scrambles are your friend. Potatoes go in first because they take longest to cook. (Cook with butter and beef tallow.) Chop veggies while potatoes are cooking, add veggies, then add hamburger and spices, then add eggs.

-Have lots of Takealongs for half-eaten veggies and leftovers.
-Have at least two big cutting boards, one for veggies, one for meat.

[Spats]

Paleo: no grains, no beans, no dairy
WP: limited grains, limited beans, limited dairy
Both: Eat real food

WAPF emphasizes that all grains and beans must be sprouted to increase their nutritional value and decrease toxins.

Furthermore, they're not so much "limited" on the dairy

His [Cordain's] take home is not "saturated fat is bad or good". His take home is less than 10% or more than 15% SFA intake as a percentage of total calories is discordant with our evolved human genome.

That is a trivially falsifiable claim: see below for my debunking.

Splitting hairs. 53% is the majority of the fat and he defines dominant as being strictly >50% in the sentence you conveniently left out. 47% is about half. You just rounded the opposite way since it suits your argument. He may be guilty of the same but it doesn't really make your case.

If you look at the data set, you'll note that all the figures are rounded to the nearest percentage point...which, when you're talking about proportions like 2%/8%/9%, mean that a single 1% variation due to rounding (let alone multiple variations) can change those proportions by 12% up to 50%, depending on which number you twiddle.

Therefore, my point stands. The conclusion he draws is so far inside the error term that it's meaningless... especially in relation to the basically identical composition of grain-fed cattle, which is what he is warning against.

Let's also remember that we're talking about fat measurements of wild caribou, which are unlikely to be accurate to within one percent. Here's one way they're measured: cut through a frozen carcass with a circular saw and measure the 'sawdust'.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3800916

If anything, Cordain probably is guilty of cherry picking the caribou as a lean meat example given that another name for Rabbit Starvation is Mal de Caribou (aka protein poisoning). Early explorers became sick from eating a diet of lean caribou and yes they ate the fat.

Early explorers didn't typically eat the brains, the marrow, etc. as the natives did, which is a major source of carcass fat. And they were often exploring during the leanest parts of the year (early summer), whereas the natives ate all year, preferentially harvesting during the fattest times. Meat preservation isn't an issue in the winter in places where there are caribou...

If you want to understand the importance of fat to the diet of hunters, and how much trouble they went to in order to get it, you need to read "Imagining Head Smashed In", which I review here (and which contains a link to a free PDF of the entire book!)
http://www.gnolls.org/1403/hunters-m...al-by-hunting/

It's a fascinating read, and really brings home the extent to which fat was valued and lean protein disdained not only by Native Americans, but by the early explorers in the region who lived off of bison. Given that most wild ruminant fat is 40% SFA or greater, positing a maximum of 15% of edible calories from saturated fat means less than 40% of calories from fat...or 60% from lean protein. At a daily intake of 3000 kcal for an active hunter, that's 1800 kcal of lean protein, or about 450g.

This is nonsensical, since the human body can only process perhaps 200-300g of protein per day. Therefore, Cordain's conclusion fails trivially for any hunting society.

As I said: he's done a lot of important research, but he's been stuck on the lipid hypothesis, and it's destroyed his credibility on these issues for me.

[rather ripped]

-Scrambles are your friend. Potatoes go in first because they take longest to cook.

We do not eat potatoes unless it's a cheat which is rarely. I have had trouble with high cholesterol and too many eggs. We do a lot with the crock pot. We mail order salmon from Alaska - expensive.

Sweet potatoes are even a bit of a cheat, but we eat them.

[Mofro261]

That is a trivially falsifiable claim: see below for my debunking.

.......
It's a fascinating read, and really brings home the extent to which fat was valued and lean protein disdained not only by Native Americans, but by the early explorers in the region who lived off of bison. Given that most wild ruminant fat is 40% SFA or greater, positing a maximum of 15% of edible calories from saturated fat means less than 40% of calories from fat...or 60% from lean protein. At a daily intake of 3000 kcal for an active hunter, that's 1800 kcal of lean protein, or about 450g.

This is nonsensical, since the human body can only process perhaps 200-300g of protein per day. Therefore, Cordain's conclusion fails trivially for any hunting society.

Pull the lump of fat out of your throat and stop being such a dumbass. You apparently either can't fathom what that statement means or are being intentionally obtuse.

Your "debunking" makes one huge error- it assumes that ancestral hunter/gatherer societies, ATE NOTHING BUT MEAT, and only had protein or fat as an energy source. The meat ONLY societies do not reflect the median values from which the statement is drawn. All of the data, in the scientific papers I offered up the pdfs to but you never bothered to read or ask for are looking at total diet composition, and account for carbohydrate consumption. You apparently missed or willfully ignored this from my previous post:

We found (range of medians in en%) intakes of moderate-to-high protein (25–29), moderate-to-high fat (30–39) and moderate carbohydrates (39–40). The fatty acid composition was SFA (11·4–12·0), MUFA (5·6–18·5) and PUFA (8·6–15·2)

Those are the medians, which are best reflective of the population and influence on genetics as a whole. Citing the extreme in the data- yes examples exists for societies where 70% of caloric intake is from fat and 90-100% from meat ,as debunking the statement shows how little you truly understand about the science, and are more concerned with trying to win an arguement than figuring out the truth in the data.

Go find out for yourself, based on 229 hunter gatherer societies. Published in 2006. http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles...er%202006a.pdf

As I said: he's done a lot of important research, but he's been stuck on the lipid hypothesis, and it's destroyed his credibility on these issues for me.

Here you go. Loren.Cordain@ColoState.edu
If you really feel you have the data to back up a compelling arguement, contact him directly.

edit for Halifax- I'm not going to bump this again.
Analysis of grain fed, grass fed and wild ruminants from Cordain's 2002 paper.


Grain fed beef has a much higher total fat content than grain fed, which is more in line with other wild ruminants, but contains lower PUFA.

[hafilax]

Thanks Mofro for putting figures to the questions I've had about Spat's argument that assumes that 100% of the HG calories came from meat. Wouldn't they only be hunters then and not hunter-gatherers?

The title of the section of Cordain's paper that Spats' blog post is trying to argue against is: Fatty Domestic Meats. I think that what Cordain is really recommending against is saturated fat in farmed animals and specifically targeted toward grain fed beef. Not only is the percentage of fat extreme but it is especially high in n-6 and low in n-3 when compared to game meat. Grass fed beef is more comparable to game meat. I would then interpret the advice to choose lean meat as choosing grass fed beef over fatty grain fed meat. Grain fed beef not only has more saturated fat in the muscle but the fat itself is not as good for you. By eating grass fed beef you are lowering your saturated fat consumption unless you add more fat from other sources.

I think that Cordain has tried to simplify the arguments down for the review article by leaving out some of the details to the big picture or at least only hinting at them here or there. Maybe the paragraph isn't as well written as it could be which is why Spats thinks that he's ripping it apart. It is still possible that Spats is right and that a diet high in saturated fat is healthier but I haven't seen conclusive evidence to support this hypothesis.

[bagtagley]

Man, I'm getting my ass kicked after lunch. The past three days, right after lunch, I shut the fuck down. Complete drop in energy, depressed, lethargic. All three were pretty big meals, but were also pretty diverse, so it's hard to pick a culprit. It may have just been timing, but I could swear that I felt fine until I finished up my lunch on Tuesday with an apple. I hope I'm just adjusting, because a couple more days like this, and I'm going back to pizza and sandwiches.

[hafilax]

Man, I'm getting my ass kicked after lunch. The past three days, right after lunch, I shut the fuck down. Complete drop in energy, depressed, lethargic. All three were pretty big meals, but were also pretty diverse, so it's hard to pick a culprit. It may have just been timing, but I could swear that I felt fine until I finished up my lunch on Tuesday with an apple. I hope I'm just adjusting, because a couple more days like this, and I'm going back to pizza and sandwiches.

If you previously had a pretty high carb diet you might be going through the "low carb flu". It can take up to 3 weeks to switch over to low carb energy systems. You might be able to soften the symptoms a bit by eating a lot of Paleo carbs like fruit and sweet potatoes. Most seem to say that it's worth sticking with if this is what you're going through. I didn't really feel it when I was eating strict Paleo (other than recovery from big workouts) so I can't really comment.