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

[Platinum Pete]

Pete, after all the vitriol I received at the mere mention of what I was doing in the last thread I figured it just wasn't worth it.

But, I think that if maybe I explain and show my progress and even change one persons perception of the idea, it will be worth the flaming. So today being exactly 6 weeks since I started I will write something up and if I don't get it finished tonight, I'll get it posted tomorrow.

You could always put it in the Music, Books, Movies orum - far less flaming over there and it is sort of a book review.

[concretejungle]

Who has the paleo for athletes book they're willing to loan me?

[MultiVerse]

And grain vs. non-grain carb consumption, total fat intake, saturated fat intake, cholesterol intake, full-fat vs. low-fat dairy.... Carb balance is far from the only or even biggest difference.

Was all that gain bodyfat? Major caloric excesses will lead to weight gain no matter what you eat. Have you tracked your calories for each diet on fitday to confirm that you were eating similar calories? If that gain was mostly lean body mass I don't see a problem at all. Shit, I weigh 160 w/ <10% bodyfat and I'm 5-6. I'm well muscled but far from a shirt-busting meathead

1) Yeah, I get that there are more than merely carb differences but there are also similarities, maybe not so much with Paleo proper but skimming the document showed it was more "enlightened" than I expected. It wasn't predominantly simple sugar, simple carbs but instead it had much in common with a lot of sports nutrition recommendations.

It wasn't so much a knock on paleo as it was concern over recommending higher glycemic foods for reasons that might be suspect. Emphasizing low glycemic foods has huge long term health benefits so if a diet suggests processed grains like white rice, or white flour over brown rice or whole grain then that's a red flag.


2) Mostly body fat, probably some muscle loss too. With the body fat it probably fits with the conclusion that I tend to eat more calories on a low carb diet; maybe because of caloric density, novelty, etc. The other side of the equation is that I use carbs mostly for recovery after a run, ride, or tour and giving up the carbs left my legs feeling dead so I took more days off or didn't put in as big of effort as I normally would have.

Yesterday, for example, I did two laps in mineral starting from the BCC side and today after posting in this thread I did a quick tour up Mt. Aire from the I-80 side with the key, for me, to heading out day-after-day being carbs after the effort, not necessarily before.

There's a cup of brown rice on the stove right now loaded with garlic, onions, turmeric and other antiinflammatory spices, some shrimp, and then with five minutes left I fill the saucepan to the lid with spinach. It's a great recovery meal.

[Spats]

Just to be clear, brown rice has a lower glycemic index than white rice. Reason enough, along with the additional nutritional value to choose it over white rice.

64 vs. 55 is not very significant. Fat is the primary driver of glycemic index, as I've already demonstrated: a baguette with a glycemic index of 95 declines 30 points, to 65, when butter and jam are added. The difference in GI between sugars ('starches', 'carbs') is insignificant compared to the decrease caused by adding fat...or the increase caused by intake of 'low-fat' foods, which I contend is a major factor behind the climbing rate of obesity.

Contrary to what you wrote earlier, brown rice is not unhealthy even though eating a lot of it can lead to mineral deficiencies.

Which means that eating a little of it leads to a little bit of mineral deficiency, masked by otherwise adequate intake?

There is no question or debate that fatty meat is a superior source of nutrition to all grains, even if you don't count anti-nutrients. The reason to eat sugar is that you want some quick energy for physical exertion. (So the more active you are, the more sugar you can eat.)

And in the end, I don't care much about brown vs. white rice. Arguing about the nutritive value of grains is like arguing whether Skittles or Gummi Bears are better for you. EAT FATTY MEAT.

While it is true that causation does not necessarily equal correlation the researchers at Harvard did attempt to statistically account for lifestyle differences, too. However imperfect that may be, the same can be said about some of the research you've posted in this thread.

True. However, keep in mind that while associational studies don't prove a positive, they're not bad at proving a negative -- i.e. if you can't find an association, it's unlikely for there to be causation. So it's absolutely valid for me to cite associational studies that say "saturated fat isn't harmful".

a basic random fact check shows that you are factually wrong about other things

Post 'em up, boyo. You can't talk that kind of smack unless you can back it up.

Case in point, referring to the "government-recommended high-sugar ('high-carb') diet" is not a terribly accurate assessment of the government guidelines. Specifcally, look at their foods and food components to reduce and foods and nutrients to increase because they often recommend the opposite of your contention.

Let's look at the US Government recommendations (page 83):

#1: 6-11 SERVINGS PER DAY OF "GRAINS". That's pure sugar. Carbohydrates are sugar, and as I've shown exhaustively, they have the same metabolic effects as sugar. That is a fact.
#2: 4-6 servings per day of "vegetables". Vegetables don't have meaningful calories unless you're talking about potatoes, which are all sugar anyway, so let's skip that.
#3: 4-6 servings per day of fruits. Fruits are 100% pure sugar.

Note that we still haven't eaten anything but sugar. The recommendations are for 45-65% of calories from sugar ('carbohydrate'). That is a high-sugar diet.

Recall that sugar ('carbohydrate') is a completely non-essential nutrient that the body has absolutely zero need for. You'll die without complete protein, and you'll die without the different types of fat, but you could live your entire post-weaning life without eating a single molecule of sugar. Yet sugar + toxins and antinutrients ("whole grains") is the foundation of the "food pyramid".

#4: 2-3 servings per day of fat-free or low-fat dairy. Another product full of sugar, guaranteed to make you fat, and guaranteed to bloat up all the non-whites who are mostly lactose intolerant.
#5: "6 or less" servings of lean meat, poultry, or fish. Finally some damn protein...but stripped of the essential fats that are our best energy source, and which actually cause us to feel full. Case in point: everyone puts cheese and mayonnaise on their fat-free skinless chicken breast.
#6: 4-5 servings per week of nuts, seeds, and legumes -- including peas and beans. OK, this isn't too far off.
#7: 2-3 servings per day of fats and oils. They recommend "soft margarine, vegetable oil, mayonnaise, salad dressing" -- in other words, TOXIC TRANS FATS and n-6 drenched seed oils. File under "how to age people prematurely and give them heart attacks".
#8: 5 servings or less per week of sweets and added sugars. This isn't too far off, either.

In contrast, here's my version of the paleo plan:
-Eat fatty meat, fatty fish, and eggs, cooked in butter, coconut oil, beef tallow, or their own included fat. Meat is a delivery vehicle for tasty, succulent fat.
-When you crave vegetables or fruits, eat them!
-Eat some sweet potatoes and root starches when you need glucose, depending on how active you are. Some rice won't kill you.
-Nuts, avocados, olive oil, and dairy (if you tolerate it well) are condiments.
-Stop worrying about servings, calories, or any of that other bullshit.

Eating up to five servings per week showed positive health benefits in the study. The take away is that most carbohydrate intake should come from whole grains rather than refined grains, a conclusion borne out by many other studies.

All observational studies, which show only that the sort of people who eat whole grains are more attentive to their health in general than the sort of people who don't. And do any of these studies compare whole grains with fatty grass-fed meat? No, they don't.

Once again, arguing over brown vs. white rice is like arguing whether Skittles or Gummi Bears are better for you. It's just sugar anyway, and in the context of a paleo diet, it doesn't matter much.

[Spats]

Am I eating too little at a time? Is there a specific reason that eating frequently is bad?

You're probably protein-satiated. Your body really wants to eat a certain amount of protein, and then you just say "Ugh, no more." But if you eat lean meats, you get to that level before you're really full.

So: eat fattier cuts of meat. You'll probably have to ask for untrimmed cuts at the butcher counter, because so many people are fat-phobic and demand their steaks be "trimmed". I get the 70/30 hamburger (which is more like 50/50) and buy untrimmed tri-tips, with the 1/2 to 3/4 inch layer of fat on the bottom. At first you'll look at it like "ew, fat", which will last about one meal. Pretty soon you'll be craving it, and wondering why everyone is so stupid as to throw away the best part!

Recall that Eskimos threw lean meat to their dogs, and Native Americans wouldn't eat lean bison at all...if they killed one by accident, they'd just cut the tongue out and leave the rest for the wolves.

[farmer]

I'd recommend taking some igneous petrology and/or mineralogy to rectify that.

I tend not to get most rock-licker humor. They say I take it for granite

[iceman]

Spats, just curious on the paleo biz - isn't it likely that we are evolved to eat relatively large amounts of lean meat occasionally rather than fatty meat contiually? The meat the humans of that era ate was game, and they had to hunt it. Game is lean and huntig is hard. But when you kill a Gnu, there's a lot of lean meat for a while and the none until you got a new Gnu. And in the interval between Gnus they would probably eat whatever they could find, be it fruit, nuts, berries, root vegetables, insects, fish, perhaps even grain (after all, wheat didn't just domesticate itself, somebody had to eat it first).

Certainly they would crave fat, but its availability had to have been sporadic at best. This, it seems to me, would be the true "Paleo" diet. I am far from a student of the paleo diet but it seems that much rests upon the claim that this (fatty meat, etc.) is the way we evolved to eat. But I think my scenario is far more likely than the "paleo" diet that we hear about. What sez ye?

edit: the fucking "n" key on my keyboard seems to be gradually failing, sorry. What a pain i the ass.

[MultiVerse]

Post 'em up, boyo. You can't talk that kind of smack unless you can back it up.

For starters, I've already debunked the notion that phytic acid (the "anti-nutrient") in brown rice is unhealthy when consumed in moderation. The claim that since a lot can be harmful than a little must be harmful too is a logical fallacy for a number of reasons.

Next, the claim that "consuming the government-recommended high-sugar ('high-carb') diet and are therefore borderline deficient in most nutrients" is hardly accurate. Setting aside the issue of carbs, the recommendations place a great deal of emphasis on seeking out calories from nutrient dense food. That is, eat more fruits and vegetables. Eat lean meat. Cut down on salt, sugar and saturated fats. Eat fish too. Drink water. Eat fewer calories. Move around. Eating a balanced diet that includes carbs does not automatically mean nutrient deficiency and it's those types of conclusions that I'm referring to.

Another example that runs counter to the assertion about the recommendations is "#7: 2-3 servings per day of fats and oils. They recommend "soft margarine, vegetable oil, mayonnaise, salad dressing" -- in other words, TOXIC TRANS FATS" is that the documents calls for reducing trans fats and calls for margarine that contains zero trans fats.

There's also the conclusion regarding wheat in the China study and heart disease. Correlation does not mean causation. In China there is something different about regions where people eat wheat that creates an increased risk of heart disease but this does not mean wheat is causing the problem. The strong correlation between wheat eating regions as a variable and heart disease is not the, "REAL point of the China Study" as you claim. Instead, you are making the same type of claim with the China study as you accuse the authors of the Harvard Study of making.

Yet another example of contravening information is the usefulness of carbs in post workout recovery, especially for endurance athletes. Carbs have application that go well beyond just use during exercise.

[Spats]

Spats, just curious on the paleo biz - isn't it likely that we are evolved to eat relatively large amounts of lean meat occasionally rather than fatty meat contiually? The meat the humans of that era ate was game, and they had to hunt it. Game is lean and huntig is hard. But when you kill a Gnu, there's a lot of lean meat for a while and the none until you got a new Gnu.

That's an excellent question, and I've spent quite a bit of time investigating it.

Let's take wild caribou as a representative game animal, since we've got statistics for it. I wrote this piece as a debunking of Cordain's assertion that we couldn't have got many calories from saturated fat:
http://www.gnolls.org/715/when-the-c...initely-paleo/

The important points are:
1) Modern humans throw away much of the fat on a cow: I get free "trimmings" from the butcher all the time.
2) In contrast, Paleolithic humans not only didn't trim their meat: they ate the brains, the visceral fat, the marrow fat, the kidney fat, and other fatty tissues we throw away. Native Americans even crushed and boiled bison bones to render the fat trapped in the bone itself!
3) Since fat has over twice the calorie density of protein, we can calculate that the average caribou contains over half its edible calories from fat. (And this doesn't count the fact that more are killed in the fall, when they're at their fattest.)

If you want to get a solid idea of just how much fat was valued by hunting cultures, read the book "Imagining Head-Smashed-In" (Jack Brink), which is the history of the biggest known buffalo jump in North America. (It's a fascinating book.) Brink devotes multiple chapters to explaining the importance of animal fat to Native American bison hunters, and the lengths they would go to for it: sometimes it seems like half of the book is about fat!

Cheapskates can download it for free here:
http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120137

And in the interval between Gnus they would probably eat whatever they could find, be it fruit, nuts, berries, root vegetables, insects, fish, perhaps even grain (after all, wheat didn't just domesticate itself, somebody had to eat it first).

Absolutely true. The human diet and behavioral repertoire expanded dramatically somewhere between 180,000 and 120,000 years ago (still in Africa...ancestral Homo sapiens didn't leave until ~80,000 years ago.) At that point people were definitely eating fish and shellfish, and gathering all sorts of nuts and berries and insects and who knows what.

But grains have no nutritive value (or negative value) unless they're cooked. The first unequivocal evidence for regular consumption of wild grains is ~22,000 years ago in or near modern-day Israel, leading to the first evidence for agriculture (including domestication of grains) in the Middle East ~11,000 years ago. And this practice didn't spread to Europe for at least another 5,000 years.

A final note: be careful about breathless news articles advertising "Humans ate grains 80,000 years ago!!!111!!1! (or whatever)" The actual studies are based on residues left on stone tools: typically grains OF STARCH (i.e. from tubers, consumption of which is not disputed), which news articles mistake for cereal grains.

[Spats]

*** IMPORTANT NOTES FOR ANYONE TRYING THIS STUFF ***

First: The original article is aimed at losing fat, staying awake between meals, and general well-being. No matter how well you're adapted, burning fats for energy won't get you the same peak output as burning glucose.

So if you need peak performance at a particular time, you'll need to eat sugar ('carbs') in some form. Something high in glucose and with high glycemic index is a good bet. Basically, the more you prioritize peak performance during physical activity over weight loss or maintenance, the more glucose you can/should eat in order to fuel it. (Mashed potatoes or white rice instead of 'energy bars'? Hell yes, cheapskate!)

Example: resort skiing is fine, but if you're going to be skinning in the BC all day or running a race, low-carb is not your hot tip for that day.


Second: EAT MORE ANIMAL FAT.

As I said to ZZZ, your body really wants to eat a certain amount of protein, and then you just say "Ugh, no more." But if you eat lean meats, you get to that level before you're really full. This is great for about two weeks if you're trying to lose weight, but bad in the long term. Fake low-fat 'paleo' is the #1 cause of people hating paleo diets and falling off the wagon: you'll feel constantly dissatisfied and crave fatty junk food (or bread, pasta, and other 'carbs').

However, your calories have to come from somewhere. If not protein, your only two other options are fat and sugar. So unless you're exercising hard right that minute, fat is your option. And it's delicious!

So ditch those boneless/skinless/tasteless chicken breasts, that nasty, tough round steak, and that dry 90/10 hamburger that tastes like cardboard, and get yourself some animal fat. Cheap-ass 70/30 hamburger. Untrimmed tri-tip with that 3/4" fat pad on the bottom. Salmon and mackerel. You'll probably have to ask your butcher for untrimmed roasts: do it. Once you're eating real, fatty meats, you won't crave junk food so much.

Note: It is nearly impossible to eat too much animal fat. Since fat improves protein utilization, you don't need nearly so much protein on a high-fat diet as you do on a low-fat diet.

[splat]

Hey, Spats, I haven't read the whole thread, but I was burning out pretty hard this season (unfortunately, until this week, working, not skiing) and my girlfriend got me eating a lot more meat. I am feeling better, sleeping better and have noticeably more energy. I'm so glad I have her around to kick me in the ass on things like this. I have hardly eaten meat for the last thirty years. When I went on my last meat binge, I was living on buffalo burgers while running the Battered Beaver in Kirkwood. I lost a lot of weight. I just spent the last eight years losing the wheat from my diet and eating more veggies (and a lot more chai tea). I don't know a thing about the paleo diet, but the increased meat consumption is working well for me.

[rather ripped]

... I don't know a thing about the paleo diet, but the increased meat consumption is working well for me.

According to Cordain, who uses the simple Paleo version, it's lean meat, fish and seafood along with nuts and berries, fruits and veg. To get the benefit of eating Paleo, fruits and veggies are important.

[rather ripped]

Strict Paleo has done absolutely nothing for me in aspects I can measure (energy, strength, sleep, stress) when compared to my regular diet and going back to my old diet hasn't shown any changes either. I did lose a little weight but that is counter to my goals.

It's definitely worth trying a Paleo challenge to find out for yourself but I don't think it is the universal solution it is claimed to be.

Halifax, how long was the Paleo challenge. A solid 60 days eating "clean" and you ought to see and feel results. An energy "crash" is common around 3 weeks, but push through it and I think you will notice improvement.

Our experience for slim guys during the Paleo challenge was increased muscle mass. Everyone was lifting a lot during the challenge. Rest/recovery is just as important as the hard work.

[Lurch]

I'd be curious what the cholesterol levels are for people who eat Paleo.

For my own diet I stay away from all of the fads. It is pretty close to the traditional food pyramid and it works well for me.

[Dantheman]

I had mine checked about a year ago. Total was ~150 with excellent HDL/LDL ratio. Trigs were way low. Mean weekly egg consumption is ~35.

[hafilax]

Halifax, how long was the Paleo challenge. A solid 60 days eating "clean" and you ought to see and feel results. An energy "crash" is common around 3 weeks, but push through it and I think you will notice improvement.

Our experience for slim guys during the Paleo challenge was increased muscle mass. Everyone was lifting a lot during the challenge. Rest/recovery is just as important as the hard work.

I quit the Challenge after about 3-1/2 weeks because I was losing too much weight and I was hungry all the time. My diet was already pretty close to the Paleo way of thinking and all that going strict did was discourage me from eating. It takes too much planning and if I didn't have strict Paleo foods with me all day the only options were don't eat or eat stuff that's not allowed. I'm talking something like a chicken donair which has pita and dairy in the sauces. In the grand scheme of things it's more Paleo than not but trying to keep strict I was trying to find other things to eat and it just wasn't working.

The only thing I did notice when quitting the challenge was that I didn't feel great after eating pizza and I think I had oatmeal for breakfast that day as well. I have the feeling that binging on grains and especially white flour and sugar is going to be noticed more.

Of the group that I've done it with most people have lost weight and some quite dramatically. I'm not convinced that this is entirely a good thing since most of them are already quite fit. Dramatic drops in weight sound more like not eating enough than 'leaning out' to me. At some point they have to start eating more or performance is going to suffer. One person has had huge improvements in her headaches, sleeping and body pain. I'm tempted to tell her to get tested for Celiac Disease but I don't know her that well and it's kind of a strange statement to make to someone. Some have seen and felt no change but enjoyed having a new focus on cooking. Nobody has crushed any PRs. About half of them caught the flu.

Given that I don't think that I have Celiac Disease, lactose intolerance or bean issues, I don't think that there is enough difference between strict Paleo and what I eat normally for me to see the big gains that others might see if they are making bigger changes or have extreme sensitivities. I'm convinced that for some, a part of it is simply the decision to try to be healthier and train harder. It's amazing how much more someone can lift if they're motivated. I don't put much weight behind testimonials because it isn't any kind of double blind study. If you go into Paleo assuming that it's going to improve your performance it may just be a self fulfilling prophecy.

The biggest change for me will be breakfast. I discovered that meat and eggs for breakfast is doable during the week. It used to just be a weekend thing. As a consequence I doubt I'll be buying much cereal and that will also mean less milk. I'll still eat granola with yogurt and oatmeal but less frequently. Where I'll stray most from strict Paleo is in sauces and general cooking. I'll brown my stew meat using flour, make gravy with corn starch or flour, eat ketchup, put bread crumbs and milk in my meat balls, put kidney beans in my chili etc. This is what I've been arguing with Spats about; small amounts of the forbidden foods. I think that there are minimal gains, if any, to be made from total elimination (again, unless someone is allergic or highly sensitive). I know that I am happier eating the way I do.

[zion zig zag]

I'd be curious what the cholesterol levels are for people who eat Paleo.

Mine was 166 total, 55 triglycerides, 69 hdl and 86 ldl. That was in September when I was still eating oatmeal but lots of eggs and meat.

[Johnny Deep]

Mean weekly egg consumption is ~35.

^^

Seriously?



Well it's obviously working for ya with numbers like that.

[altachic]

^^

Seriously?



Well it's obviously working for ya with numbers like that.

Seriously.

I walk out of Costco with 3 boxes of 18 eggs every week, just for us. I eat two each morning and Sam (our 12 month old) eats about 1 as well...plus what DTM eats.
Its does sound totally crazy to a lot of people who just don't understand that eggs really are insanely good for you and that you SHOULD be eating them, as long as your cholesterol is in check. I had mine checked before I got pregnant and it was totally fine.

As far as this thread goes...I've been amazed at what a transition I've made to eating primal over the last 6 months, and becoming more so the last 2 months.
I also don't love the word "strict" or "diet", as this is just a healthy lifestyle change (plus weight loss right now) for me that is LONG overdue and I'm really liking it. We still eat beans every now and again. If we go out to eat with family or a special occasion, we may eat rice or the rare pasta or a treat. I can really tell when I've eaten something like that, as it feels like a rock in my stomach-not good. We also still eat some dairy-all full fat. (especially for Sam)
I love carbs-only the carbs I love now on an everyday basis are NOT grains, sugar or processed food like products, but fruit, lots of veggies & nuts

[Rontele]

I have very good HDL and tri numbers from eating "modern paleo."

[Beastiality]

How do all of you feel about the factory farms and CAFO's (confined/concentrated area feeding operation) that produce all this meat and eggs? It would be one thing if you got your eggs from your own chickens or from a local free range chicken farmer, but those mass produced eggs at the mega mart are being manufactured by abusing animals and cramming them into confined spaces. Same with all the meat....do you get your meat from hunting or free range sources or from feed-lot sources? All those hormones they pump into the animals to make the eggs larger and cows larger are all being concentrated in you if you follow this diet. Please note I do relish eating meat and eggs, but I only get my meat (lamb from Belgrade and beef/eggs from Pony, MT) very locally.

[hafilax]

I bought 1/8 of a free range cow recently from a friend's farm.

[Beastiality]

I bought 1/8 of a free range cow recently from a friend's farm.

How long do you anticipate that will last you eating paleo style? Just curious...

[hafilax]

Lasts my GF and I about 6 months eating it about 3 meals per week on average. We buy lots of other meat and and eggs so we are far from the ideal but at least it's something. The quality is good too. About half of it is ground beef with no organ meat so I've been meaning to ask if the butcher puts it in with the ground.

[rather ripped]

I'd be curious what the cholesterol levels are for people who eat Paleo.

For my own diet I stay away from all of the fads. It is pretty close to the traditional food pyramid and it works well for me.

I have serious problems with high cholesterol. Paleo has helped manage it. My cardiologist was excited - really. Mine went from 299 to 222. I did not alter my Paleo diet except to limit eggs to 6 per week. I eat either egg whites or egg beaters instead. I eat large quantities of sauteed veggies with lunch and dinner. I also eat much larger portions than most normal people. For example, I will eat 2 serving sizes of salmon plus a heaping mound of veggies, always cooked.

The key to lower cholesterol is to get rid of grains. It's key to many aspects of good health and performance. I have been working hard on this part of Paleo. It helps all the way around. No gluten.

My triglicerides were way up there and are now at 25 or so.

I can't take statins so this is important.