10

votes

Are you disturbed by this trend on Paleohacks?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created June 22, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Is this a low carb forum? I'm quite concerned by the advice given to newbies regarding carbohydrates. Paleo, or what I prefer to call "hunter-gatherer diets" are NOT low carb... they are normally in the region of 30-40% carbs.

I'm really concerned because young people are coming on for example saying they eat 20g or 50g of carbs feeling crabby, or stalling weight loss etc and people tell them to eat more fat and these bad answers are voted up! That must mean lots of people are bloomin' carbophobes.

And what the heck is the story with fruit... one "expert" gingerly recommended "even 1 or 2 pieces is OK" Come ON people! Dr Lustig has you all mesmerized!!

Read Chris Kresser or Stephan Guyanet if you're are having a panic attack every time your are tempted by fruit. I overcame serious illness getting nearly ALL my calories from fruit and nuts and felt AMAZING, the best I had ever felt in my LIFE.

The carbophobe and fruitophobe combo is very serious imo, not funny, because kids as well as adults are getting crappy advice imo. What say you?

E32abdc9a483de43def522faf81ed4e9

(0)

on May 03, 2014
at 03:38 PM

For my own information, why would anyone "troll" on Paleo? I am naive but I'm just guessing that maybe someone who's raw food or vegan would try and "upset" or mislead Paleo /Primal eaters by using an adversarial post?

Medium avatar

(0)

on November 15, 2013
at 02:32 PM

Indeed, a natural diet would include lots of IF (that would trigger migration). In some situations, I don't see why our ancestors wouldn't be forced to LC eating; the Ice Age was pretty rough with the Europeans.

Medium avatar

(0)

on November 15, 2013
at 02:27 PM

AFAIK, so is Art De Vany. So am I, BTW. Many of us are HF(V)LC, but it doesn't mean "Right Paleo"; it's just a (good) way to go. A shade of Paleo, if you wish.

6044d623688f4fe69133bab95c3ae3b9

(10)

on November 14, 2013
at 09:39 PM

Nobody should be starving on Paleo... it's all about NOT counting calories... I admit having a child on a VLC diet might be difficult but there are millions of meals you can make that are paleo and I'm rarely ever hungry.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 30, 2012
at 01:01 PM

I have noticed that Robb Wolf's strategy is "assume metabolic problems." I think that is far too "sledge hammer." Generic plus variations is the way to go imo.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 30, 2012
at 12:40 PM

The point is Danny, that assuming therapeutic intervention is not required, our vitamin and mineral needs can be added to what we know about HG macro ratios to provide a pretty crisp generic picture. We can't get away from this need to generalize. The clearer we are, the easier it will be to do. Change is hard enough; confusion is a real obstacle.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 30, 2012
at 10:13 AM

Scurvy? lololololol

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 07:58 PM

"The aim was to determine the composition and range of dietary macronutrients and fatty acids under which the human genome evolved, and which would likely support modern day health and well-being."

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 07:22 PM

Full paper: http://thepaleodiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/EstimatedmacronutrientandfattyacidintakesfromanEastAfricanPaleolithicdiet1.pdf

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 07:19 PM

Estimated macronutrient and fatty acid intakes from an East African Paleolithic diet. "We investigated selective and non-selective savannah, savannah/aquatic and aquatic hunter-gatherer/scavenger foraging strategies. 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)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20860883

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:54 PM

There was a study recently where some diabetic Aborigines went back to the bush and did hunter-gathering again. Their diabetes went away.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:47 PM

Danny: "This may not be a perfect way to guide people but it's not any more dangerous than anything else." Well. the advice I've seen does not say "do generic and then n=1," it was just low-carb dogma. If it (7 billion) is not the perfect way to guide people, then perhaps we'd be wise to perfect the way we guide people, and not give them bad advice. I haven't "moved on" because you keep retorting, to which I feel moved to reply, and to keep reminding you that Paleo, is not low-carb.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:44 PM

Danny: "some have genuine experience of certain foods (eg. fruit) hampering their progress." I think we have to be careful about cause and effect.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:41 PM

Danny: "I evidently can't teach you that the mean of a set of data is not necessarily the safest option" Most hunter-gatherers eat roughly in line with that pointy bit in the middle Danny. What, then, in YOUR opinion is the safest option, given that generic advice is essential, even if that generic advice contain caveats, ideally?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:12 PM

Danny: "remedial" a new all time low for you, congrats! Yes, I would rather talk to your niece, as no doubt, even at the age of 2, she has learnt better manners.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:01 PM

Mscott: You may have a point if lots of organ meats are used, a more "whole animal" approach, I've not looked in-depth at that. I heard scurvy is a problem.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 05:53 PM

"When the diet yields a net acid load (such as low-carb fad diets that restrict consumption of fruits and vegetables), the acid must be buffered by the alkaline stores of base in the body. Calcium salts in the bones represent the largest store of alkaline base in the body and are depleted and eliminated in the urine when the diet produces a net acid load. http://thepaleodiet.com/nutritional-tools/acid-base-balance

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:09 AM

Hey Mike, I was reading this discussion and felt like saying: meat may be an "acid forming" food, but it doesn't appear to induce osteoporosis. And there are tons of water soluble vitamins in organ meats and seafood. I'm not the biggest fan of low carb diets, but those aren't very good arguements.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 27, 2012
at 10:17 AM

Stop talking a look around a bit more, and try talking with people. You'll find some agree with you, some are much more extreme in advocating limitless carbs, and some have genuine experience of certain foods (eg. fruit) hampering their progress. People ask for help here because they had trouble interpreting the 'generic advice' that's out there. And if you'd spent any time here at all you'd see that the most dominant theme is that there's 7 billion different paleo diets. This may not be a perfect way to guide people but it's not any more dangerous than anything else. So why not move on?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 27, 2012
at 10:11 AM

I know what a normal distribution is, I've been calling you on it for days. I can't teach a remedial statistics class here. Similarly I evidently can't teach you that the mean of a set of data is not necessarily the safest option, or even necessarily a physically realistic one. Perhaps next time I'll have my two year-old niece explain it to you. And my opinion is that you're way way way behind the times on your phobias, that the balance of advice given on this site is fairly good, and that for many they get the best results from a low-carb approach. Very few recommend it in the long term.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 07:27 PM

Normal distribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution "Paleo diets are not definitive" They vary because the ecology has varied. And yet we are only just out of africa. That's why I think the East African data has great value. We are still tropical beings. And so, Paleo diets CAN be defined roughly, and that is good enough. In fact they MUST be, to be of any use to the general public.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 07:18 PM

Oh and, you still seem to have a problem curtailing the personal abuse.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 07:11 PM

Oh and I didn't say define by macros alone, yet again you make assumptions, I never said that. Macros matter, EVERYTHING is a cause, and everything has its EFFECT.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 07:06 PM

And the best generic advice, is the most likely to produce the BEST outcomes for everyone. My problem is with people giving generic low-carb advice, carb phobia, fruit phobia etc. What exactly is your problem with that Danny cos you seem to be doing a lot of dancing around.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 07:04 PM

Generic advice is by nature, simple, as it should be. You think hunter-gatherers have any clue about "therapeutic variations." And yes, it's bound to happen eventually... the further you are from moderate and the more time you are away, the greater the chance of problems... in general. Just like if you put a million people on a strict USDA diet for a long time, x% will develop heart disease, or cancer or something else. Where people break may differ but the causes are the same. You cannot get away from the fact that generic advice is a must.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 26, 2012
at 06:37 PM

No, it's not bound to happen. That's like saying people are bound to develop diabetes/heart disease etc. if they eat a low-fat diet. In fact defining any diet by macro ratios can leave you open to massive nutritional deficiencies. It's the detail that is important, and is why there is so much advice available. And your insistence on the value of moderation is appallingly simplistic, and seemingly the best you can do. It's rarely a correct assumption, and relying on it is intellectually bankrupt. Paleo is not definitive.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 11:47 AM

The further we move away from moderate, and the longer we do that, the greater the health risk. Paleo is not low carb.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 11:35 AM

I am not saying those problem can ONLY happen on low-carb but I am saying that low-carb is BOUND to result in these problems, it is highly acid-forming and very low in water soluble vitamins, ETC. Hence my concern.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 26, 2012
at 10:43 AM

Why do you keep talking about Atkins? And none of those problems are about low-carb, they're about eating the wrong foods. Unless you intend to argue that people who don't eat low-carb never suffer deficiencies or eat a bad diet. You can have problems either way, that's why it's valuable to have people give advice who have experience of these problems. And for many people here, it has been apparently necessary to go low-carb. You may not believe it, but that really doesn't matter. And we've mentioned weight loss before, as the place a lot of people are coming from. Not that you listened

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 25, 2012
at 10:16 PM

And you've just changed your tune to "weight loss." That's the first you've mentioned of it. The question was about off pat low carb advice on a paleo forum, general carb phobia etc.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 25, 2012
at 10:13 PM

There are lots of potential red flags for low carb diets Danny, and it's simply not necessary... A TO Z "Akins" was actually 30^. Potential problems long-term include deficiency due to low water soluble vitamins, too much protein, increased likelihood of organ failure, osteoporosis from too much acid-forming foods, etc. It's just not necessary to eat low carb, even for weight loss and all of these problems can be avoided by eating at least 100g carbs. At 2000 calories that would be 20% only. That same 100g carb would be 27% of a 1500 calorie diet. A TO Z was 30% carb.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 08:59 PM

Weight-loss was what I was referring to. If you really want, find anything credible that suggests there's any danger in general application of trying the low-carb approach. In fact don't bother, I'm sure you'll find plenty of 'data' that's been misinterpreted already for you.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 25, 2012
at 08:42 PM

These are all weight loss/diabetes studies, NOT generic/best health applications. I already mentioned the A TO Z study and agreed it had the best blood markers etc but they ate 30% carb. These are therapeutic variations, which apply in specific cases, not for general application.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 07:13 PM

Geez you've got the whole internet and you can't find anything that doesn't support your view. There's a surprise. There's a whole list here http://www.dietdoctor.com/science. But I'm not going to sit around trading websites with you. This has been done to death both here and on other sites. You've no interest in forming a different opinion. Feel free to take that as an indication that your 'right'. It doesn't mean anything, I've never suggested you aren't free to offer whatever advice you want. But if you've not even read the basic paleo literature I'm not going to regurgitate it all.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 25, 2012
at 07:02 PM

Show me these endless studies that show low carb is superior. Disease reversal -- again show me your evidence, that is just a statement. blood markers were the best in the recent A TO Z study but the Akins group did not stick rigidly to the diet, their carb was 30%. Danny, this is not evidence you've given me, it's just statements, evidence means quoting your source so I can look at it. And Danny, I had a look at your advice... "Eat ad lib from selected foods" sound generic to me.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 25, 2012
at 06:55 PM

Sorry Joshua, didn't realize how it worked, do now.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 25, 2012
at 12:05 PM

Every time I log into PH, I get "You have 10 new comments" and I get excited. Then I click on my profile and see that it's just you guys e-Fighting.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 11:30 AM

There's endless studies that show low-carb is superior for weight-loss, none that show otherwise. There's anecdotal evidence of thousands more, there's the myriad diseases that have been reversed by the approach, there's the improvement in blood markers that apparently also happens in *every single case*. This is not dangerous advice. It may not be necessary for everyone but that's not the same thing at all. And it's about more than just reenacting history or the metabolic pathways, and it's very individual. I don't spout generic advice the way you do, it doesn't seem worth the time.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 11:16 AM

If the skewness AND kurtosis are as far from zero as they are in the graph then the distribution is not normal. Gauss would be rolling in his grave. Also, plant =/= carbs. A large proportion of those plants were fruits, specifically fatty fruits. If they were even plants at all. I'm well aware you can link to articles or blogs and think they make your case, as you must be aware that there are others that would disagree with you. This is not a new question, nonetheless we still don't know as much as you think you do. You don't even understand data that supports you, what hope is there?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 11:03 AM

That's so close to something almost sensible. I might even believe you came up with it but only because it undermines your previous ranting.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 11:01 AM

Seriously? You're still trying this?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 11:00 AM

It's an analogy but it isn't comparable? How much more ridiculous are you planning to get?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 25, 2012
at 09:48 AM

Sorry twinkletoes, didn't know you got email.

0905a0f8cd1e48f6d39fe625a65b6ef1

(2890)

on June 25, 2012
at 12:05 AM

Gang, I'm getting all of your comments in my email, so I would be delighted if you could move your conversation to beneath your own answer thread. Thank you!

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:21 PM

Show me YOUR data to support low carb as good paleo advice, or admit you are wrong :-)

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:20 PM

30-40% carb is safe, "neutral," 40% if you use East Africa as the surrogate for ancestral human diets, which I think has value.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:18 PM

http://www.mattmetzgar.com/matt_metzgar/2010/08/where-are-the-lowcarb-huntergatherers.html You will see on this post, the NORMAL DISTRIBUTION of plant subsistence in Cordain's 2000 paper.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:14 PM

http://www.paleo-diet.co/2010/09/paleolithic-macronutrient-ratios-and-profiles/

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:14 PM

i.e. NOT low carb

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:13 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20860883#

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:05 PM

Biology is cause/effect. Opinions exist when the biology is not fully understood. Science is what you do when you don't know what you're doing.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:04 PM

Once again, you fail to stick to the issue and respond with childish insults.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 10:30 PM

Yes it's illustrative analogy. Analogy is illustrative, that is it's purpose. Danny... if you think there's nothing wrong with pushing the low carb agenda onto newbies in a "paleohacks" forum, newbies we know nothing about, and I can't help you to see that that is a bad idea, then so be it.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 09:46 PM

Once again, a complaint about not sticking to the issue rather than actually responding to anything. Because you have nothing worthwhile to say. Seriously, are you twelve? Because if this is your first troll I'll leave you to it.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 09:45 PM

Oh come on, what kind of troll are you? Of course you're intending people to draw an analogy when you say that. You're now getting into an even more tiresome generic stance about the nature of community interaction.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 05:56 PM

Once again, a personal insulting rant instead of focus on the issue.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 05:55 PM

I didn't say it was comparable, yet again Danny you see things that aren't there. It was illustrative of the idea that it's healthy to challenge bad advice.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 04:21 PM

(a) it's not a normal distribution, (b) you are anything but wise, (c) your assessment of 'danger' is on the level of a 3 year-old, (d) IT'S NOT A NORMAL DISTRIBUTION, (e) spouting generic 'advice' based on a complete failure to read the data and misunderstanding of the biology along with almost total ignorance of the context is not particularly helpful - mindlessly repeating over and over that everyone else should do the same and are not entitled to a contrary opinion is insulting, petty, childish, pathetic and laughable.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 04:17 PM

Lolz. Not a scientist are you mike.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 04:16 PM

Yes, you tried and failed. And yet you keep persisting, not taking anything on board, not persuading anyone of anything other than your limited insight and arrogant views. You can't merely scold people to stop doing something. Indeed a cursory glance at the internet would indicate your behaviour would be more likely to have the opposite effect to that which you intended. If you want people to take note of your unoriginal, unsupported, outdated whining then try gaining some credibility first.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 04:12 PM

And your repeated insistence that the advice that people give here is comparable to telling kids to make bombs is still insulting and entirely irrational. You've tried challenging things, it hasn't worked. If it concerns you that much I'd think you'd try to learn how to better communicate.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 02:46 PM

Biology is not a matter of opinion

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 02:10 PM

Biology is not a matter of opinion.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 12:57 PM

That's not true John, HG macro ratios follow a normal distribution. We would be wise to aim for the middle, as the dangers increase as you get further away from the middle.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 12:25 PM

Challenging bad advice is very healthy. If there were some people who had the opinion that kids should learn how to make bombs, I would challenge that too.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 12:20 PM

"you simply have to rely on persuading people through force of argument" Exactly, which is the point of this post, to persuade people giving low carb, low fruit, generic advice on a paleo forum, to stop doing it. Seems reasonable to me.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 12:15 PM

It seems impossible to have a rational conversation with you Danny, with your playground tactics, and diversions.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:29 AM

I am. You can't stop people using the internet, and you can't censor the content they have access to. If you think the advice available here is so catastrophic then you are welcome to see if the government will pass some laws in your favour. Otherwise you simply have to rely on persuading people through force of argument, which you have proven to be abominably bad at.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:24 AM

No, you imply they're stupid. We know what you've said, you say it over and over and over and over.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 10:10 PM

Stick to the issue.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 10:02 PM

I didn't say they were stupid, again you assume too much. I said it is bad to give generic VLC/low carb advice to newbies on a paleo forum. Plus some other stuff, but you keep trying to make it about something else. People do give bad advice, and this is an example imo.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 11:55 AM

The way you use it is derogatory, and yes that's what I meant by you thinking that they are stupid.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 11:52 AM

Ah ok, so you think they're trying to help but are too stupid to do so and so persist in giving terrible advice. Or do you genuinely believe what you're talking about here is some shining new idea that they haven't heard of and if you but tell them about it they will see the light and change their sinful ways?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 11:35 AM

Danny, you see a lot of stuff that ain't there. You ASSUME, and make giant illogical leaps all the time. For e.g. You assume that I assume people are being willfully malevolent, and that is untrue, I do not assume that at all. The opposite is true, I think they are trying to help.

877ded1787562057ee2e1a4548b6050a

on June 23, 2012
at 11:30 AM

Look, you are all right.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 11:11 AM

Newbie is the normal term, it's not derogatory, and yes, newbies will take the bad advice if it has social-proof.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 02:05 AM

Hmmm, not so much then eh?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 02:04 AM

That's as may be, certainly no reason to shout at me though as it was at best ambiguous.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 02:03 AM

Yes meaning the asker, you keep referring to them as newbies in a derogatory fashion as if they're idiots who'll run off a cliff if you tell them it'll make them healthy.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 02:01 AM

It's a terrible idea in your opinion. Many people here disagree, much as you like to assume people are being willfully malevolent, and there are far bigger terrors in my life in any case.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:48 AM

Your only concern Danny, is making sure you don;t lose that superiority complex... Ciao! And thanks for being you. :-)

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:43 AM

It was a generic "you."

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:43 AM

Yes, you got me you little tinker... I meant "they."

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:42 AM

OMG you are incredibly annoying... You twist EVERYING. You said I had a low opinion of people, meaning the ASKER. So... NO I DON'T and YES I DO CARE ABOUT THEM, AND yes, it is about the BAD ADVICE. Grrr you are unreal.

F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:38 AM

@Mike: "I have genuine concerns." Horseshit.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:37 AM

It's not complicated Danny, now listen carefully and try to understand... giving generic low-carb advice to people we don't know is a TERRIBLE IDEA. GOT THAT?????? It's VERY VERY SIMPLE. And you wonder why I have to keep repeating.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:34 AM

Ah no worries mscott, thanks :-)

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:33 AM

Again? Well, we'll see if it takes this time.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:32 AM

It's a general trend I see Mike, and I'm convinced nothing would persuade you against your faith. When were you converted again?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:31 AM

No, your concern is entirely with how these 'newbies' (such as yourself) act on the advice given. Else you've entirely misrepresented yourself. Trying to separate them is just silly.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:29 AM

It's a basic flaw to assume that just because you can calculate an average that that is meaningful. On average, most newbie's posting here are hermaphrodites but I don't use that as a basis for giving advice. It's a whole lot more complicated than you seem willing to acknowledge, and sometimes something isn't better than nothing.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:27 AM

OMG this is not about the question asker, it's about the ADVICE. I'm calling it a day Danny.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:27 AM

And what I see is people offering sensible advice that from their own experience and a usual balance of views with fits with my understanding along with the occasional pushing of an anti-low-carb agenda that usually runs along the lines of 'just eat more carbs stupid'. I very much doubt you have changed anything on that front.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:25 AM

I think not Danny... Panache is definitely not a word I would have used. More like battering ram. You know some big words though I'll give you that :-) Anyway, enough said, far too much actually on this thread. I'm calling it a day.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:23 AM

Mike, sorry I was directing that at Sam.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:18 AM

I don't feel inferior Danny, you on the other hand, do feel superior. I am humble. If you could show me, give me something, that would in any way suggest you are correct, you would see me cave faster than you can say "generic low carb bad advice" :-)

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:09 AM

A good argument for being moderate is because that is what a natural human "average" diet is. What other criteria are you going to use en-masse? We've got to eat something. What has caloric restriction got to do with giving bad generic low carb advice?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:08 AM

as I will you, but much more effectively and with greater panache.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:08 AM

I'm just saying that you seem to mostly still be frustrated with me, and repeating yourself ad nauseam.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:07 AM

In your opinion. Others disagree with you. I know you don't like being made to feel inferior but you are new here. Have some humility.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:06 AM

You did specifically say 'you' not 'they'. Calm down and stop making a fool of yourself. I don't think it's a good idea to try and explain a whole lifestyle approach with a soundbite, but essentially I would focus on ad lib within certain food sources and push towards correcting eating habits and let the rest take care of itself.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:03 AM

oush that agenda >> Push that agenda withOUT reason.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:03 AM

You have an incredibly low opinion of other people. What harm do you imagine may be caused by that advice? At worst I can imagine them coming back a week later looking for more advice, at which point we can establish that they've tried eating more fat and consider another course of action. This isn't a big deal.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:02 AM

There were a number of specific situations and so I saw a trend. See I think when it all boils down, we would probably agree... if we looked at individual cases and best courses of action. But what I see is pat answers of generic low carb given to people who we know nothing about. And there appears also to be a fear of carbs and fruit no doubt spilling through from the low carb arena, and I am saying there is no reason to oush that agenda with reason -- such as we know all the details or have enough detail to recommend it. That's my concern.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:01 AM

That's because your perception of normal is skewed by modern society. It's not a good argument. Neither is being moderate or socially acceptable, not really, it's a cop-out. And I think for some at least it is easier to make a wholesale change then to try and just moderate their existing diet. And there's a lot of evidence for the benefits of caloric-restriction that suggests the body does 'want' it periodically.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:51 PM

I don't consider it minor when newbies are sent away eating 50g of carbs with the instruction to eat more fat, and that opinion is voted up.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:48 PM

without qualifiers, yes. But you made a big deal about talking about a trend, rather than specific situations you were concerned about. That exposed your bias against low-carb 'dogma' which appeared to be your only agenda

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:43 PM

Where have I made an unsupported statement? Twisting won't work Danny, I will always call you on it.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:41 PM

Generic low-carb is bad advice, If one is giving generic advice on a paleo site without giving insight or caveats, the BEST paleo middle ground is the safest.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:38 PM

If you're going to give a generic answer, then a low-carb generic answer is bad advice imo.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:37 PM

I think we prob agree on almost everything. There's a lot of misunderstanding going on. My issue is not that personalized advice and differing opinions are not good, but that some SPECIFIC situations I saw were potentially harmful... off pat "generic" LOW CARB dogma without even knowing the person. THAT I feel strongly about.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:34 PM

I meant it at the time when I was frustrated with you. I changed my mind OK, is that allowed?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:30 PM

I didn't say YOU said X carbs, I said often THEY are focused on X carbs. Look Danny, you can't have it both ways, you can't say macros aren't important AND instincts are corrupted. There has to be some guidance. Either you are in favor of ad lib paleo or guiding towards some carb/fat/prtein intake. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF???

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:26 PM

If there is disagreement, I'm am looking for 2 outcomes ideally... 1. I am wrong and you are right and I learn something. 2. I am right and you are wrong and you learn something. There's always the possibility that we are not in possession of all the facts we need to resolve it, but I don't think that is the case here. We know enough.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:24 PM

much like you do

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:22 PM

WOW, right, finally a logical reason. But I would disagree because it IS extreme by normal standards. Change is hard enough without imposing unnecessary demands and hardships. Also, evidence points to 30-40% as "moderate" AND it's more socially acceptable. The only sane reason to go lower carb is if people are in a metabolic mess. But to tar everyone with that brush I think is a bad, bad, move. A period of scarcity is short-lived hopefully. The body doesn't want it, but these VLC and LC are continued indefinitely. And let's not forget that all these caveats don't appear in a quick answer.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:21 PM

No, this site is not for spouting generic advice. There's lots of sites for that. This is for individuals to ask specific questions and interact with a community of people who may be able to help them. And, again, even talking about the BEST generic solution is meaningless, giving it doubly so.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:18 PM

ad lib can and does work. You may need a framework, and to worry about macros. That's not how everyone, or even most, have succeeded.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:17 PM

I don't think it's that different. The most common reasons why people trying low carb are struggling with energy are that they either have only just started, in which case they need more than a few days to allow their body to adapt and give the approach a fair shot or else they have simply cut the carbs and are massively undereating, in which case they need to eat more, and there's no reason not to try eating more fat. It's very easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and add carbs in, writing off the whole experience and potentially losing out on the benefits. More so if someone encourages you.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:14 PM

And for fat loss, ad lib won't work. We need a framework of some sort, including macros.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:13 PM

"People get fixated on macro ratios, and what does regurgitating average values contribute. There's a wide range that can work. Shifting the focus from the quality of the food consumed is counter-productive in most cases." Totally agree. But if someone is already VLC and lacking energy and is told "eat more fat." THAT is focus on macro ratios, indirectly. The person is already obsessed with Xg per day of carbs. If you say "eat paleo foods, ad lib" I'm with you, BUT THAT is very different to VLC or LC "bad advice."

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:09 PM

Actually, the more you repeat something the more desperate you sound. Particularly after you dramatically claimed you weren't going to respond any further.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:09 PM

So you keep saying without giving reason or evidence.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:08 PM

I'm not saying only xg carbs. Stop twisting things. And *in general* people's instincts are (a) corrupted and (b) flawed in any case in the modern supermarket. A lot of people have made a lot of money from exploiting this very fact for profit rather than health. Also, statistics fail.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:06 PM

You could actually say something about the issue. I am sticking to it, as best I can, because I view your logic as basic and your tactics as non-existent. It's a very simple and minor difference of opinion which you seem determined to make into a war. If you can't accept that other opinions are valid, can you at least accept that you can't simply dictate that others agree with you?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:05 PM

"Meaningless" -- how is giving the BEST paleo generic solution meaningless? I wish you'd stop with the amateur debate tactics.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:04 PM

Twisting again Danny, Generic advice is the best advice in a generic situation. And that;s the situation I'm talking about.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:03 PM

And you keep calling it the extreme, which I don't consider it to be because I can understand data as it's presented. Aside from personal experience and the accounts of many many others along with having read thousands of pages of books, blogs, papers etc., if I'm going to apply a simplified model I will assume most people looking for help are coming from an environment of overabundance, and the best corrective action to help establish a natural balance is to mimic eating patterns congruent with a period of food scarcity.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:02 PM

"And the point of my statement was that the distribution is skewed heavily towards low carb, it's not normal. I don't know how many times I can repeat this" There you go again with the pathetic tactics... you never ever said it was skewed, you said it wasn't a normal distribution, which it IS, not a PERFECT one, but they don't need to be perfect to be a normal distribution, it just need to be roughly bell-shaped, skewed or unskewed is fine.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:59 PM

Or they're confused etc. You can;t have it both ways.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:59 PM

"I refute the concept of universal optimal macro ratios." So do I, of course, it's obvious there was no one single diet. And yet, we, in civilization have supermarkets, and what we eat, ends up being a macro ratio. And that macro ratio MATTERS, especially AT THE EXTREMES. Also, you cannot say there is no optimal macro ratio and then say it should be VLC or LC. Your logic is inconsistent. If you don't believe in optimal macro ratios, then why not just let people eat instinctively from natural human foods. But no, you say "only xg carbs" and then people are fighting their instincts.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:58 PM

People get fixated on macro ratios, and what does regurgitating average values contribute. There's a wide range that can work. Shifting the focus from the quality of the food consumed is counter-productive in most cases.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:54 PM

Because you keep on with the BS tactics, and lack of logic, what else can I do but restate you stick to the issue?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:53 PM

Again Danny you make totally unsupported statements along with insult. WHY THEN would you start at the extreme?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:51 PM

"I think it is at best useless and at worst harmful. Ok?" Why?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:51 PM

We moved on from silly fears about carbs and fruit months ago, if not years ago. Trying to establish evidence for a general case is a fool's game, which you seem to love playing. I again refute your 'evidence', your premise, your argument and your conclusion.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:49 PM

"Is this your first day on the internet?" Playground bully tactics. V. poor show. "Restating it doesn't make it any more true." Nor less.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:49 PM

Yes, so let's elect you sole arbiter of TRUTH on the internet and it'll all be fine. Continue your campaign, I think you're almost there. And in the mean time continue (neglecting) to give generic nonspecific and meaningless advice to people.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:47 PM

I refute the concept of universal optimal macro ratios. I in fact reject macro ratios as a basis for a diet at all. And the point of my statement was that the distribution is skewed heavily towards low carb, it's not normal. I don't know how many times I can repeat this.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:45 PM

Hmm, again no content and simply a demand to stick to the issue. Must be a junior troll-bot to repeat that so soon.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:45 PM

"Taking a contentious 'mean' value has little to recommend it" I disagree, because it's good evidence that TALLIES with other lines of evidence. If you take this data to be useless, then by what measure do you calculate approximate optimal macro ratios for humans?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:44 PM

No, no they don't, not at all, and yes, yes you do, if it even is an extreme. Your thinking on this is so rudimentary it's almost comical. Do you really think no-one has thought about this, looked at this, discussed this before you came along?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:44 PM

"Low carb is a prudent approach for most people, with no real risk." Evidence? No HGs subsist on 100% carbs, or even anywhere near. A normal distribution doesn't start at 0 and end at 100. I never said any HG ate 100% so what's the point if this statement?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:43 PM

I'm not twisting things, I'm holding two contradictory views in my head, mine and yours. Clever isn't it? Not everyone agrees with your assessment of the evidence, nor your proposed solution. I believe your concerns have been noted, but I'm not going to recklessly follow your opinion because I think it is at best useless and at worst harmful. Ok?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:40 PM

There you go again with your insults and weak attempts to discredit. Without any logical reason, you simply STATE that you are somehow superior. And that my friend is one of the lowest tactics of all... pull rank. Stick to the issue and drop all the BS.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:36 PM

Twisting again Danny... it was MY argument that we know nothing about them. If we now agree on that then great. And if that is true, then we would be wise to suggest starting with what ALL current evidence points to. All this sitting on the fence with macro ratios is unhelpful because we have to eat something. Yes, my post was evocative for good reason... I feel strongly about it, because giving advice is a very serious thing.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:34 PM

Restating it doesn't make it any more true. Is this your first day on the internet?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:32 PM

The one advocating 20-30% for a small female? Bearing in mind that that percentage would drop for the average member of the population? Sure, let's go with him. Your argument has essentially boiled down to 'moderation in everything', making a very basic mistake in thinking that it's that straight-forward. Besides which I've already told you that there isn't a normal distribution. No HGs subsist on 100% carbs, or even anywhere near. Many subsist on 0-20% carbs. Low carb is a prudent approach for most people, with no real risk. Taking a contentious 'mean' value has little to recommend it

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:30 PM

Yeah typically a range of CONFUSING, often totally contradictory options are given. Some of those options I consider very bad advice. Where does that leave a newbie? Confused and lost.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:27 PM

Again, spend a bit more time here, then try forming an opinion on what the best 'norm' assumption is for people asking for specific advice. It seems extreme to you, as you have a very limited perspective. The answers given however are by definition representative of the experiences of the community, which is the best guide to what 'paleo' is that we have. And it fits absolutely fine with all the evidence and science. You don't know nearly as much as you think you do. *That's* dangerous.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:26 PM

You don't start at the extreme. All lines of evidence point to moderate carbs of 30-40% as normal healthy intakes for normal healthy persons.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:24 PM

See how much more reasonable that sounds than your initial rant which was clearly intended to antagonise people? So you want to give everyone pat advice based on your misconceptions of who uses this site and very rough averages without knowing anything about them. Fine, do so. I don't think your advice is going to be particularly helpful to them, and if you ever get around to actually offering it instead of complaining about other people then I may comment to that effect.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:23 PM

Carb neutral 30-40, Paleo 20-40. Don't split hairs. This is about what is good advice for regular people and this silly fear of carbs and fear of fruit. The evidence is for moderate carbs as stated.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:21 PM

No it's what they do when they're tired of going around in circles and getting nowhere, and when they're tired of the issue being sidetracked by bad logic, and pettiness.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:19 PM

There is no good reason to start at the extreme, it's not Paleo. The best we can say is to define the an average HG macro ratio that makes sense given all the available evidence, including science and biochem and start there. That is logical. For metabolically deranged people, the evidence is that starting with lower carb is probably a good idea, but you can't assume that, unless there is evidence that it is the norm.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:15 PM

My premise is that you don't start at the extreme, and that advising newbies to start there or encourage it without knowing anything about them is bad advice.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:05 PM

Mate it's a no-brainer.. you don't begin at the extreme. If you want the biochem, I think Paul J is the most eloquent on the subject and the most insightful, and one of the most understanding of all the issues.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:50 PM

And you still have given no convincing argument for the starting point not being low carb in any case. Do you understand that? It is not definitive, and some people disagree with you. Is that clear enough for you?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:48 PM

Try answering some questions for these folk before presuming to know what's going on. I've asked for one single counter-example to show that your premise has any validity. I'm not even asking you to support your claim of a trend. And assuming people asking questions here are uniformly healthy and without weight issues is a long way off base fyi. Most of those people aren't looking for new diets, aren't coming here for help implementing them, and if they do it's more general and they are redirected to general introductions to paleo. Advice here is almost always more specific.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:40 PM

The quote wasn't random, it was answering your previous objection. Unless otherwise stated, we have to assume no health issues and that they're regular folk. I've never ever seen anyone ask for more details that weren't clearly missing. I mean, if someone asks a question, you don't ask them to fill out a health questionnaire before answering. You assume "regular" unless otherwise stated. And so we also must assume that healthy people are alike. You have to start somewhere. And that should NOT be low carb. Is THAT clear enough for you Danny? Do you understand the POINT?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:39 PM

That's what it looks like to people that don't understand logic. The issue is entirely in your head, you have not even persuaded anyone that it exists, let alone that it needs to be addressed. You hold to your damascene truth and don't actually take on board what other people tell you about the level of uncertainty you ought to be embracing. And you spend more time complaining about other people not agreeing with you than giving them a reason to.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:36 PM

I am refuting that such a trend exists. Seems everyone else who's posted here (and been here long enough to identify a trend) agrees with me. If you can't even satisfactorily establish your premise then no wonder this isn't going anywhere.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:35 PM

The issue is clearly stated at the top of the page. All you do is rant and be rude and pull hair and bite. And you have no logic, your logic is all over the place.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:33 PM

I've already answered that Danny. This a about the trend.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:29 PM

^^^^^^ This is what people do when they've lost the argument. For future reference.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:28 PM

I'm not even talking to you any more Danny because your the kind of guy who just wants to win whatever the tactic, including just wearing people down. This is my last word to you: Giving VLC advice to people you know nothing about is bad advice, and yeah, I think people should stop doing it. And there's a ton of evidence behind a moderate carb, paleo intake of 30-40% for regular people.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:25 PM

Eating a lot of fruit is NOT the same as not eating for a long time. Danny, you're logic is just crazy to me. These are different things. Doug Graham has been eating 97% of calories from fruit for 30 years and he's still with us. That's evidence. And there's lots of other evidence to not fear fruit.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:25 PM

Any time you like.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:25 PM

You do know that telling people to stick to the issue doesn't actually constitute engaging with the issue right? Throwing in a random 'quote' ad a non-sequiter doesn't really count either.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:22 PM

What argument? There is no argument. You dismiss everything I say, accussing me of 'twisting' things. My point is that you are doing the exact same thing, and you are completely incapable of even identifying an issue rationally let alone engaging with it. You're years behind the times with your 'truths'. Come back when you have something to add.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:19 PM

You are not the first to try to define paleo, but nor are you the first to have succeeded. The advice is not 'off-pat' in general. It is not bad advice. You have given no credible reasons for doing things differently, you seem to simply expect people to agree with your point of view and change their behaviour. And please do find an example of a question where low carb advice has been given authoritatively without any caveat or contradiction from other members.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:18 PM

"healthy people are all the same, sick people are all different." So yeah... assuming they're healthy, start with the best we know about Paleo. And your petty twisting, rudeness, and playground tactics are getting tiresome, please stick to the issue, if you wish to discuss it. Thanks.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:14 PM

Yeah, that's what people do when the argument is lost, first they are rude and divert, and finally they don't even engage the issue and just do playground stuff like laugh and point.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:11 PM

@Twinketoes. I totally see that, it's open and anyone can say anything and I wouldn't change that, but what I would do, is appeal to those who ARE giving this off pat VLC advice to think about not doing it, for all the reasons I have given. It would even be different if the advice was "well this worked for me." But this stuff is stated authoritatively, as fact, and voted up, and that concerns me, because it's just bad advice. N=1 yes, but where do you start? You have to start somewhere. I'm saying start with Paleo. It is after all, a Paleo site.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:07 PM

So you've finally read your links? Ok, so any advice to a newbie is bad advice as we don't know anything about them. Clearly you haven't noticed that the first comment is almost always for more details in that case, but leaving that for the moment, you don't think presented a somewhat biased view in only indicting LC advice as bad rather than any advice? And I absolutely refute that your implication in your first comment here is not a recommendation to eat more carbs. Also, your knowledge is so far beneath my knowledge I am unconcerned by your capitalisation. FYI.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:00 PM

Even Paul Jaminet now admits that his 20% is optimized for longevity and that for athleticism and fertility, high carbs is normally chosen instinctively -- 40-50%. So 30-40% really is "carb neutral" or "moderate."

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:58 PM

And therefore, if that is the BEST of our knowledge, then we should be recommending that as a start, and not VLC. Moderate would be my choice for a starter... 30-40%

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:56 PM

And I will say that there is PLENTY of evidence to suugest that 20-40% carbs IS, to the BEST of our current knowledge, PALEO!

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:55 PM

But I will say... I never ever said people should eat more carbs, I said we should NOT give off pat VLC or LC advice to newbies without knowing anything about them. Because it's BAD ADVICE. Please don;t twist what I actually say.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:53 PM

@PrimalDanny: there is so much wrong with that logic, I won't even start.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:52 PM

@Mike- I don't consider you a troll, and I hope you are not too horrified. Is it more or less horrifying than watching "The Ring"?The internet is not well-regulated, and the moderators on paleohacks are volunteers that can't check up on everyone's diet recommendations. If people ask about serious medical questions, or if an answer if flagged by a paleohacks member for giving outright dangerous advice, the moderators consider deleting it. Several members chose to close this thread. I'm not saying you are a bad person, I'm just saying this question got closed for various reasons.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:52 PM

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:50 PM

@PrimalDanny... you twist things... Can we just focus on getting to the truth instead of you picking petty arguments. What is wrong with saying 30-40% This is clearly a percentage of calories that would maintain a normal person's weight, under normal activity levels. For athletes or weight loss, or illness, we can talk. Loren's data is only one line of evidence, and I disagree, it's not just speculation, there are people still to study and it gives evidence. But biochemistry also feeds in evidence. The whole picture is emerging, hanging off the idea that we are probably best adapted to paleo.

0905a0f8cd1e48f6d39fe625a65b6ef1

(2890)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:49 PM

@Mike - your Paleo isn't my Paleo. Doesn't make me wrong. We all have different experiences with nutrition. This is not a site where advice is vetted before post. Anyone - literally anyone on the entire planet - can post an answer to any person's inquiry. Read with care and a bit of reserved judgement. I don't advise anyone on VLC or ZC or HDC (heavy duty carbs), because I feel it is such an individual thing. But this is a site where anyone can say anything. Proceed with care. But don't be a goober and tell me that I must have an illness because I run best on VLC. N=1 and all that jazz.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:45 PM

You read that somewhere, you didn't think. Hey, a guy fasted for over a year and turned out great. That's just an extreme example that shows no-one needs to fear not eating. I think a lot of people got scared because they understand the basics of statistical significance.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:43 PM

It's not the default advice, a range of opinions are presented for most questions, and it's not typically bad advice. HTH

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:42 PM

If your intent is to engage, then try actually indicating why you think the advice here is bad.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:41 PM

I'm concerned about any number of influences young people might be exposed to. I'm extremely concerned about any advice you may give. If it's that much of a concern I'm sure you can block your children from accessing *dangerous* sites like PH.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:40 PM

@Kamal: I am horrified that you do not consider off pat VLC advice to newbies who we know nothing about is not a "real question" or worth of "discussion." Horrified. This is a real and serious situation, people will take this advice. I understand you might see me as a troll, but really? Have I ever provoked? Or do I just keep bringing the issue to the front? I consider this to be very important and I feel strongly that you should not have intervened. I have no bad feeling towards anyone.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:40 PM

because you've talked of nothing else, nothing of nutritional value, you've merely implied that people should eat more carbs, hth

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:39 PM

30-40% of a 2000-calorie diet. Do we have to go back again to how non-applicable that is? And it doesn't scale. So taking the 'standard' recommendation for men (2500 calories) it's now 24%-32%. And if they're active, that quickly drops below 20%, and this is for being neutral stresswise, and doesn't include ketogenic diets which would skew the data further. But that would be to actually engage with the subject of glucose requirements. None of this however relates to real data of the diet of our ancestors, it's speculation at best and very general at that. Also, correlation !=> causation

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:34 PM

@PrimalDanny, Not at all, I merely wished to engage the issue of whether off pat VLC/LC advice is wise. My concern is for people who take that advice because "many experts agree" and then get into deeper waters. I am concerned about that. I have seen the way this advice is given, stated authoritively, and voted up. If that were MY son or daughter, yes I'm concerned about the advice from "experts" handed out here.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:28 PM

OH BS, How could I IMPLY "empty."?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:27 PM

@PrimalDanny... 30-40% NEUTRAL ties VERY NICELY with Cordains data! If you don't have faith in that correlation, what do you have faith in?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:26 PM

It was what you implied, and *I* called *you* on it. :-)

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:25 PM

@PrimalDanny: OMG you call Cordains data flawed and point to this... this is speculation, at best. I also gave you another PHD link that I DO think makes a great deal of sense, where Pail calls 30-40% "Carb neutral" http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/02/higher-carb-dieting-pros-and-cons/

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:25 PM

'Bad' advice gets voted up because the majority of the community with relevant experience think it's good advice? But you, being the fearless iconoclast you are, would like to deem yourself the arbiter of advice quality for the whole internet and you think this is the way to go about it? Good luck with that.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:24 PM

@Mike- Pretty much what PrimalDanny said. I've had some of my own questions closed in the past, and my immediate reaction was "FU moderators!". But in the end, things probably end up net better. Do feel free to discuss carb-related hacks though, and potentially even this one if you feel strongly enough to reopen and can get others to join in for reopening.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:23 PM

No discussion... OK, wow.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:23 PM

You did say 20-40% for HG. However, I don't have a lot of faith in your opinion on the subject. You like PHD right? http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/02/hunter-gatherer-macronutrient-ratios-new-data/

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:21 PM

@Kelly, my experience with fruit was just an extreme example that shows that fruit is nothing to fear. I think a lot of people got scared because of Lustig and the ripples of that are still going.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:17 PM

@PrimalDanny: Ahem... You accused me of recommending empty carbs and I called you on it, i didn't say anything of the sort.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:14 PM

@PrimalDanny, yeah this site is awesome feature wise, best I've ever seen. However, If there is a low-carb bias here, then the voting system wouldn't really help with my concern would it? In fact, it would make this worse because people make decisions on social-proof and that is one of my points; bad advice gets "voted up."

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:09 PM

No, no it doesn't.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:09 PM

@PrimalDanny: "Ok, so in your view most modern hunter-gatherers are VLC." Nooooooooooooo OMG, did I not say 20-40% for HG? Then by MY definitions of VLC, LC etc, they would be LC to moderate carb.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:08 PM

No more answers can be added once it's closed. As Kamal indicates, this isn't really intended to be a discussion forum. It is for offering advice or answers to specific questions.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:05 PM

@Kamal: What does closed even mean? Does it mean we can't post to this thread anymore?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:02 PM

I'm presenting my evidence here, in this thread; for NOT making VLC the default advice because that is bad advice.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:01 PM

Agreed John. I think the truth is inbetween. What's REAL interesting to me is that Paul Jaminet calls 30-40% carb "carb neutral" and this exactly squares with the hunter-gatherer data. http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/02/higher-carb-dieting-pros-and-cons/ http://www.answers.com/topic/stone-age-nutrition-the-original-human-diet (table 1) http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/682.full.pdf

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:58 PM

@Joshua- A well-beaten dead horse is paleo according to some gurus, but not to others. Hopefully someone does a meta-analysis on this topic soon!

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:56 PM

@Mscott... do I really need to name names? Or can we agree there's plenty of off pat very low carb advice being given to newbies?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:55 PM

@Jeff... I never suggested censorship... I am concerned about bad low carb advice. And that is an important issue.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:55 PM

You'd like to think so, little troll that you are, but the reality is that you're simply not saying anything about anything. I'm just paraphrasing.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:53 PM

Here are other issues that elicit conversation but don't necessarily need new threads: "Is ketosis paleo?", "Should we judge someone's advice by their looks?", "Is coconut paleo even if our ancestors weren't exposed to it?", "Why do some people demonize dairy?", etc...

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:53 PM

You may not have noticed, being new and all, but we have a voting system. It's really democratic and everything, people can indicate whether they think any particular answer to a question is good or not. They can even comment to expand upon the answer or (at a push) edit the answer to correct obvious errors. Get this, people can even submit their OWN answer with as much detail as they like and people can make their own decisions about what they read.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:53 PM

No... I asked a question, and everyone got hot. Not my fault. I have genuine concerns.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:51 PM

@Mike- Not censorship, moderation. I like eating carbs and agree with some of your points, but there are several existing threads on this issue. Also, "are you disturbed by..." is not quite the type of question that is typically considered a specific sort of hack. It does definitely elicit discussion, I'll give you that. You can either vote to reopen or change the question a bit to address a specific issue or two with carbs.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:51 PM

@August. Where is my faulty logic, perhaps you will enlighten me?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:50 PM

"Cordian and other researchers are suggesting the 'below 150g' thing, you are suggesting something else." Nope I'm suggesting the same: "Paleo" Modernity is an issue, but there;s PLENTY we know, we know enough to draw general trends, types of foods and approximate macronutrient ratios. There's plenty to nail down for sure, but the big stuff, we know.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:49 PM

It's been covered at length, many times. I can't help it if you only see what you want to see. Like your 'normal' distribution. It's not in any graph you linked to.

F5a0ddffcf9ef5beca864050f090a790

(15515)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:46 PM

Not true, Bill. Finding carbs in Siberia - easy peasy. Salmonberry, loganberry, huckleberry, cloud berry, wild cranberry, mushrooms, bulbs, wild edible plants - eat away. Tundra provides enough carbs for herds of reindeer and native people.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:46 PM

@PrimalDanny: WHAT???????? Who said anything about eating empty carbs? You're losing the plot :-)

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:43 PM

"Yeah, we don't tell the Perfect Health Diet guys to get lost." True, but I'm not really asking anyone to get lost, I'm just concerned about bad advice. And perhaps if we engage the issue of bad advice, it might become good advice.

1c67bc28f4e44bbb8770b86df0463df3

(6719)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:42 PM

I want to see someone find carbs in Canada from November through April, or the UK, or Upper US, or 50+% of the world. Not going to happen. Our ancestors ate meat. Or they died.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:40 PM

And why is this an issue? Why do you keep bringing up medical issues? Do people constantly ask about hypothyroidism before choosing the high carb diets they're currently on? Have you really not seen the length and depth of discussion about the various considerations? These questions get asked over and over. Hang around a while and you'd see an actual trend, rather than a mere confirmation of your pet subject. And many, many, many people have found low-carb to be the key to energy issues and weight loss. That is their experience, and how they interpret paleo.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:39 PM

@Kamal... isn't that censorship? If people are engaging the issue, perhaps it needs to be engaged. If it is "old" then why are people wanting to talk about it? Please keep open.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:37 PM

You were rude first in dismissing my comment. I was not clutching at straws. Suggesting that most people coming here are on a 2000 calorie diet is clutching at straws. Ok, so in your view most modern hunter-gatherers are VLC. That just shows even more how confused you are. You've not come up with anything insightful or original. Nor anything remotely challenging. Sorry to disappoint you.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:36 PM

@PrimalDanny, what flaws? And the graph I saw was a normal distribution, I don't know what you are seeing.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:34 PM

There have been some good answers to this question so far. Your unsupported accusations are not one. -1.

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23

(11058)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:33 PM

You bet I forced my real food diet on my kids. I buy the groceries and prepare the meals. There are no grains, the only sugar is honey, and we have lots of fresh veggies and meats. No one is starving and the only ones losing weight are the ones with weight to lose. I am VLC, but my kids are not.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:32 PM

@PrimalDanny, just because I called you on your 450g carb thing, no need to resort to rudeness. The issue is giving LC advice off pat, on a Paleo forum to regular newbies who 1. haven't expressed an interest in LC, and 2. Haven't expressed any health issues and 3. Want regular advice about Paleo issues such and energy and weight loss.

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:32 PM

Yeah, we don't tell the Perfect Health Diet guys to get lost. They eat rice, which is clearly outside the 'no grains' part of Paleo. But you want to tell low carbers, who can eat paleo easily to get lost? I hope you stop typing long enough to learn something here.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:30 PM

Kamal, is well-beaten dead horse Paleo?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:29 PM

@PrimalDanny. I love the way when I ask a civil challenging question, everyone gets their knickers in a twist instead of just engaging the issue. That was rude Danny... do you have a point or are you just gonna be rude?

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:28 PM

Sorry Twinketoes! Doh!

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:27 PM

Ah, I do see you are talking about our contemporaries. You are displaying extremely faulty logic. Listen to Joshua, and try to remember this diet is within the framework of evolutionary theory, not based on whatever random group you come across.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:27 PM

@Joshua it's relative isn't it, but I would call VLC 19% or less, LC 20%-30%, moderate carb 30%-40% High carb 41% plus. Paul Jaminet has an awesome post about this... http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/02/higher-carb-dieting-pros-and-cons/ I highly recommend this article.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:25 PM

Oops, "fact", not "face". A face that elicited many responses would be quite a face indeed. Anywho, don't shoot me, but I might close this thread. In which case, feel free to vote to reopen if you feel strongly that this conversation is worthwhile and teaches you something unique, or for any other reason really.

6ba6dc54fccbb9e01a07595137cecfa2

(92)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:23 PM

This is a forum for free exchange of ideas.To suggest censorship beyond the moderators is silly. Low carb does not mean starvation from a calorie stand point.0+0= pointless drama.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:21 PM

Hey everyone-- this issue has been beaten to death in the past year or two on paleohacks. Is there a special reason why this should continue (other than the face that it elicited many responses, which these kinds of threads always do)? For example, if there is a specific question that has not been addressed before.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:15 PM

So we're talking about obese people who are struggling for energy, and you are dead set against advising them to consume more energy but want them to eat nutritionally empty carbs for some reason? Just who do you work for again?

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:15 PM

@Mike, being a newcomer to a site, and telling someone else to GTFO because they don't agree with you is a dick move, not a fresh experience.

0905a0f8cd1e48f6d39fe625a65b6ef1

(2890)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:14 PM

I'm a she, baby!

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:13 PM

2000 cals is the standard reference. 3700 is the average consumption. And yes, if you've been overeating for years then undereating is not a crazy approach to take. Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't mean you need to tell us all how stupid you are.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:13 PM

Poor twinkletoes is going to have 30 responses to his answer, all of which are a back-and-forth not entirely relevant to his answer.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:12 PM

What have you determined as a definitive definition between vlc, low-carb, moderate carb, and high carb Mike? Just curious...

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:11 PM

Oh I thought you had something new. But even ignoring from the methodological flaws, the data is still a long long way from a normal distribution.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:10 PM

@Kilton, no I wouldn't like to quote people properly because this isn't about singling out individuals, it's about a trend.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:05 PM

@PrimalDanny. If someone is trying to lose weight, the fuel you wanna burn is contained in the body fat, you don't wanna be eating it. Energy production is not about calories, it's about health too, and health means eating like a human, eating human foods. E.g. Dr Terry Wahl's video about MS is very enlightening... the body is a synergy of incredible complexity. To say "I'm tired so I need fuel, and the best fuel is fat" is far from getting to the truth of how the body works.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:59 PM

OH PLEASE PrimalDanny, you are clutching at straws, 2000 cals is the standard reference, and anyway, I said the point isn't valid... just because govt advice is wrong, we don't have to advise the opposite extreme!! Holy cow.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:56 PM

By the way PrimalDanny, I highly recommend that article by Eaton. Wonderful I think.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:54 PM

@PrimalDanny: http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/682.full.pdf You can also check out S Boyd Eaton's East African data because he says it's a good surrogate, being the cradle of humanity n all. See Table 1 on this page... http://www.answers.com/topic/stone-age-nutrition-the-original-human-diet

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:48 PM

The average american is not on a 2000 calorie diet, far from it. So for the average newbie coming to paleohacks, lowering carb intake is a valid message. What disaster do you think awaits people who don't eat lots of carbs?

8e3782b68e033763485472f414f507a5

(2433)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:46 PM

A Google search for "even 1 or 2 pieces is OK" on this site resulted in nothing (besides your post, that is). Can you try to at least quote people properly when you're complaining about their answers?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:45 PM

Please link to your research Mike, all I can find suggests that the mean carbohydrate consumption was below 20% and the distribution distinctly skewed, possibly bi-modal even. It would be great to see what you've discovered.

F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:45 PM

No, trolling on PaleoHacks means you have no life.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:39 PM

@PrimalDanny: 450g? That's 90% carbs on a 2000 calorie diet. Who the hell is recommending that? I take you point though which isn't really relevant. What is relevant is starting with a basic Paleo template for a newbie unless medical issues suggest otherwise and before htiing people over the head with the low carb stuff. Read Paul Jaminet on minimum carbs levels. And that is MINIMUM. So YES I think low carb in these situations is VERY BAD ADVICE.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:34 PM

@PrimalDanny: Yes I think modern HG distribution is applicable and enlightening. And yes, I've checked the distribution.

F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:33 PM

Well, Mike and Mambo, I think there are a lot of people here who's experience contradicts yours, and who have lost weight through carbohydrate reduction. And both Robb Wolf and Mark Sisson state that your carboydrate intake should be geared to your weight loss needs and activity level. So no, it's not for everyone. Nothing is. But as it does go along with experience of many of the members here as well as the advice of some very learned people means it is more than a "fad" and perhaps you should allow for individual differences.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:33 PM

yes, there's twice as much energy in fat, why wouldn't you eat more if you're low on energy and malnourished?

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:31 PM

That doesn't make sense. Cordian and other researchers are suggesting the 'below 150g' thing, you are suggesting something else. Are you talking about hunter-gatherers now, who are not our ancestors, but our contemporaries? Their diet is undeniably changed by modernity- their ability to move is greatly restricted, for instance- an impediment to a more nomadic meat eating lifestyle.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:29 PM

Being concerned about low carb advice given to young people means I have no life?

F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:28 PM

Mambo, I don't know where you get your information but unless you are a Type 1 diabetic, "glucose defiency" isn't a problem for anyone. In fact, I don't even know where you got that term - the closest thing would be hypoglycemia. And a healthy person doesn't get hypoglycemia because they can make their own glucose.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:23 PM

No Kelly the questioners did not say that were trying to do low carb, but if they did, you're right, I would question their reason for trying it. There is this trend "out-there" that "no carbs" is the answer to weight loss. It isn't.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:18 PM

We do know, we can observe what remains of hunter-gatherers.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:18 PM

But 50g arguably fits a natural scenario better than a lifetime of 450g in my opinion.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:17 PM

@Joshua, the fact that I'm a new member is what carries weight. It's my FRESH experience of Paleohacks or should I call it "Low Carb Hacks" :-)

782d92f4127823bdfb2ddfcbcf961d0e

(5231)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:17 PM

I agree 100%...

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:16 PM

@ trjones... If you are annoyed, why even engage the thread. If you don't wanna talk about it, don't.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:15 PM

@PrimalDanny... telling them to eat more is good advice, but when their carb intake is tiny and they have no energy, telling them to eat more fat???

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:14 PM

You think modern HGs provides an applicable and sufficient dataset? And you've checked the distribution?

5e92edc5a180787a60a252a8232006e9

(345)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:13 PM

Again, ur looking through your own lens. You might interpret that as a low carb flu but it just might be glucose deficiency. The problems of glucose deficiency are serious and dangerous. Just because you didn't experience them doesn't mean others don't. Stop looking through the end of the telescope. Low carb is not for everyone.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:13 PM

@PrimalDanny, sure it's low carb relative to govt advice. But OK let's say 20-40% for Paleo... this is a broad range. But it AINT 50g, or 20g.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:05 PM

@PrimalDanny... Not PALEO era, modern HG era. It ain't my fault this diet has a silly name (see my other Q :-)

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:02 PM

I'm not suggesting anyone eat JUST fruit and nuts... that's what I did back then. And it felt good, and I healed, beginning with a water only fast for 11 days. Not suggesting anyone do that either.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:01 PM

I'm not suggesting anyone eat fruit and nuts... that's what I did back then. And it felt good, and I healed, beginning with a water only fast for 11 days. Not suggesting anyone do that either.

Medium avatar

(10583)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:58 PM

Paleohacks is a lot less VLC obsessed now than it was a year ago.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:58 PM

In your opinion. In my opinion, relative to SAD, the natural human diet is very much low carb. If you want an example of bad advice, look to government recommendations for the past 40 years.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:56 PM

Even if we use modern Hunter-Gatherers as an example, we still won't nail down a specific macronutrient level. Kitavans and starch, Innuit and fats, etc... Paleo is, inherently "lower carb" than a processed food diet. That being said, your summary is pretty much what I tell people when they ask "what is paleo?" I tell them it's a diet devoid of grains, refined sugars, processed foods, processed oils, and chemically-enhanced foods. I don't mention carbs. Before I get hate from WAPF or PHD folks - I still consider those to be ancestral, just not "Paleo" in the authored sense.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:55 PM

I am using my words... I am suggesting that people be careful about recommending low carb on a Paleo forum to regular folk who don't even mention illness that would point to a lower carb solution. Paleo will attract people looking for a natural HUMAN DIET. THAT IS NOT LOW CARB (unless you are an Eskimo)

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:53 PM

In what way is telling people who are undereating to eat more bad advice?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:52 PM

You know that carb availability and consumption in the paleolithic era had a normal distribution? Awesome, bring on the data.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:49 PM

No Joshua... I'm bitching because low carb does not equal Paleo and newbies are being given bad advice. Yes there are Paleo macronutrients. You will find and the FAR END of the bell curve, the INUIT, at the FAR END. And who the hell knows what genetic adaptations they have that would not apply to joe Schmoe. Yes, the Paleo macronutrients are a fairly broad range with the top of the bell curve IN THE MIDDLE.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:45 PM

Thanks PrimalDanny :-) I looked up what iconoclast means, so I also learned a new word... happy days :-)

3351f6c8ec1ea64435e419f380ca6468

(1255)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:43 PM

Could you post a link to a couple of examples of parents with these questions? I haven't looked that closely, but don't recall ever seeing one.

0905a0f8cd1e48f6d39fe625a65b6ef1

(2890)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:43 PM

Also. I am not ill. And I eat zero carb. So shoot me, man.

0905a0f8cd1e48f6d39fe625a65b6ef1

(2890)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:40 PM

Thing is, Mike, there's no Paleo Police or Paleo State or anything like that - so someone's "bad" advice, meaning it would be bad for you, might be awesome for someone else. There are no set rules. This whole movement is too new and too yet unexplored to codify a set of Dos and Don'ts. You have a voice - use it - speak up if you think someone is giving bad advice. Use your votes, your words.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:38 PM

1. If someone isn't thriving on low carb, they shouldn't eat low carb. And I don't know anyone advocating "kids" eat low carb, which is something you failed to mention in your original post. 2. If someone isn't losing weight on moderate carb, perhaps they should adjust either their macros or their intake or activity levels. 3. Many folks who came to this forum have taken Paleo as the "base" for their own diets. Many folks here don't even consider their diets "paleo" anymore, although they may remain "ancestral" in one way or another.

4ec0fe4b4aab327f7efa2dfb06b032ff

(5145)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:38 PM

Mike, why don't you get off your high horse and stop telling people on this site what to do? Everyone here has a voice, it's the whole nature of the site. You can use yours to tell people about what works for you, like the rest of us do, but don't use it to try to shut people up or drive people away just because you don't agree on their level of carb consumption.

153c4e4a22734ded15bf4eb35b448e85

(762)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:36 PM

This whole should I feed my kid just doritos and coke, or just meat and veggies is ridiculous, it's the same false dichotomy used by vegans, oh I feed my kid just pure vegan food, not that nasty dirty animal secretion called milk, or a chickens periods etc. There are options between the false black and white which is so loved by food purists who have found the "only right diet".

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:35 PM

"This banter between low-carb and high-carb sucks" -- what about PALEO CARB. These things have been figured out.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:35 PM

Or it's not easy to do right perhaps.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:35 PM

Kelly: Member 7 months. Mike: Member 23 days. I'm just sayin'

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:33 PM

Joshua... telling kids who have no energy, are undereating and are eating 50g carb per day to eat more fat is BAD ADVICE. If we are PALEO, then we are presumably using PALEO as a guide to what is a natural human diet.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:33 PM

bravo, you fearless iconoclast!

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:31 PM

Say what? My kid thrives on paleo, it was never forced on him, I just refuse to have crap food in my house. Are you suggesting that people who find their health through paleo continue to feed their kids shit "just because"? Sure, my kid isn't low carb - but he enjoys his whole foods and his life is better because of it.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:30 PM

I wish I could unlike it a hundred times :-)

7f8bc7ce5c34aae50408d31812c839b0

(2698)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:30 PM

I agree with Higgs, PHD is a well reasoned starting point for people.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:29 PM

This is a PALEO site... go to a low carb site if that is your bag.

F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:28 PM

I wish I could like this a hundred times.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:28 PM

... that's different.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:28 PM

"Mike, there is NO "Paleo." There is only YOU, your body, your mind, the intersection of your actions and your environment and your genetics, and the curlycue whimsy of fate. Find what works for you and enjoy your life." That's kinda beautifully poetic and nice, and it would be wonderful if the advice was "start here, with these averages" and then "what you just said." But as I say, I'm worried that people will TAKE the bad advice, either get stuck, or get more sick, or give Paleo a bad name... I mean I could go on. Now if someone has SPECIFIC illnesses where low carb is called for..

4ec0fe4b4aab327f7efa2dfb06b032ff

(5145)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:25 PM

Bad advice isn't the same thing as advice you don't agree with.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:23 PM

Mike - there are Paleo macronutrients? Shit I've been wrong this whole time! This is a discussion about lifestyle, which includes people that VLC, people that eat starches on an ancestral diet, people that have PCOS. Seriously, are you bitching because Paleohacks isn't what YOU want it to be?

35b2cb4d450e5288895c255dfdfff35d

(5828)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:23 PM

+1 for "Potato Wars" and for a great answer overall!

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:19 PM

Yeah sure Gurlzluvsteak, but that ain't what's happening. Regular people asking regular questions are given the low carb mantra. And THAT imo, is very disturbing to me. It's BAD ADVICE. For generalities, then average PALEO macronutrients should be recommended. This is a PALEO formum, not a PCOS or a VLC forum!!

892d177f50b16f118152219229870e4e

(776)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:17 PM

I would say PHD and Chris Kresser's site are much better choices for someone new to Paleo.

Ddfdaa75ac9f47e01fc71162dd0d38dc

on June 22, 2012
at 05:13 PM

To go low-carb or not depends on one's goals and metabolism. It's not automatically bad advice to give. It depends on what the OP's stated goals are. If the OP has PCOS, low-carb is a fair start. Diet must be individualized, that's all. :)

892d177f50b16f118152219229870e4e

(776)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:10 PM

I found it to be much worse regarding carb/fruit recommendations about a year ago.

  • C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

    asked by

    (412)
  • Views
    83.6K
  • Last Activity
    814D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

17 Answers

29
0905a0f8cd1e48f6d39fe625a65b6ef1

(2890)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:15 PM

I've been reading Paleohacks since pretty much Day Uno, and in the early days, you could make a case that it skewed low carb. Not these days, however. After the Potato Wars, many Paleo peeps adopted safe starches (they ain't safe for me, but whatever...), fruit beyond berries, and stopped counting macronutrients.

Mike, there is NO "Paleo." There is only YOU, your body, your mind, the intersection of your actions and your environment and your genetics, and the curlycue whimsy of fate. Find what works for you and enjoy your life.

Anyone who hangs out here enough begins to realize that they have to stop following everyone's advice and find their own inner guru.

Doesn't mean you can't enjoy the conversations, though!

signed, a carnivore who doesn't do carbs but doesn't give a frack what anyone else eats

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:28 PM

Sorry Twinketoes! Doh!

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:28 PM

... that's different.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:18 PM

But 50g arguably fits a natural scenario better than a lifetime of 450g in my opinion.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:12 PM

What have you determined as a definitive definition between vlc, low-carb, moderate carb, and high carb Mike? Just curious...

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:27 PM

@PrimalDanny... 30-40% NEUTRAL ties VERY NICELY with Cordains data! If you don't have faith in that correlation, what do you have faith in?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:32 PM

@PrimalDanny, just because I called you on your 450g carb thing, no need to resort to rudeness. The issue is giving LC advice off pat, on a Paleo forum to regular newbies who 1. haven't expressed an interest in LC, and 2. Haven't expressed any health issues and 3. Want regular advice about Paleo issues such and energy and weight loss.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:35 PM

The issue is clearly stated at the top of the page. All you do is rant and be rude and pull hair and bite. And you have no logic, your logic is all over the place.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:40 PM

And why is this an issue? Why do you keep bringing up medical issues? Do people constantly ask about hypothyroidism before choosing the high carb diets they're currently on? Have you really not seen the length and depth of discussion about the various considerations? These questions get asked over and over. Hang around a while and you'd see an actual trend, rather than a mere confirmation of your pet subject. And many, many, many people have found low-carb to be the key to energy issues and weight loss. That is their experience, and how they interpret paleo.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:14 PM

Yeah, that's what people do when the argument is lost, first they are rude and divert, and finally they don't even engage the issue and just do playground stuff like laugh and point.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:13 PM

@PrimalDanny, sure it's low carb relative to govt advice. But OK let's say 20-40% for Paleo... this is a broad range. But it AINT 50g, or 20g.

35b2cb4d450e5288895c255dfdfff35d

(5828)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:23 PM

+1 for "Potato Wars" and for a great answer overall!

0905a0f8cd1e48f6d39fe625a65b6ef1

(2890)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:40 PM

Thing is, Mike, there's no Paleo Police or Paleo State or anything like that - so someone's "bad" advice, meaning it would be bad for you, might be awesome for someone else. There are no set rules. This whole movement is too new and too yet unexplored to codify a set of Dos and Don'ts. You have a voice - use it - speak up if you think someone is giving bad advice. Use your votes, your words.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:29 PM

@PrimalDanny. I love the way when I ask a civil challenging question, everyone gets their knickers in a twist instead of just engaging the issue. That was rude Danny... do you have a point or are you just gonna be rude?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:50 PM

@PrimalDanny... you twist things... Can we just focus on getting to the truth instead of you picking petty arguments. What is wrong with saying 30-40% This is clearly a percentage of calories that would maintain a normal person's weight, under normal activity levels. For athletes or weight loss, or illness, we can talk. Loren's data is only one line of evidence, and I disagree, it's not just speculation, there are people still to study and it gives evidence. But biochemistry also feeds in evidence. The whole picture is emerging, hanging off the idea that we are probably best adapted to paleo.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:13 PM

2000 cals is the standard reference. 3700 is the average consumption. And yes, if you've been overeating for years then undereating is not a crazy approach to take. Just because you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't mean you need to tell us all how stupid you are.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:23 PM

You did say 20-40% for HG. However, I don't have a lot of faith in your opinion on the subject. You like PHD right? http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/02/hunter-gatherer-macronutrient-ratios-new-data/

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:39 PM

30-40% of a 2000-calorie diet. Do we have to go back again to how non-applicable that is? And it doesn't scale. So taking the 'standard' recommendation for men (2500 calories) it's now 24%-32%. And if they're active, that quickly drops below 20%, and this is for being neutral stresswise, and doesn't include ketogenic diets which would skew the data further. But that would be to actually engage with the subject of glucose requirements. None of this however relates to real data of the diet of our ancestors, it's speculation at best and very general at that. Also, correlation !=> causation

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 11:35 AM

Danny, you see a lot of stuff that ain't there. You ASSUME, and make giant illogical leaps all the time. For e.g. You assume that I assume people are being willfully malevolent, and that is untrue, I do not assume that at all. The opposite is true, I think they are trying to help.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:37 PM

You were rude first in dismissing my comment. I was not clutching at straws. Suggesting that most people coming here are on a 2000 calorie diet is clutching at straws. Ok, so in your view most modern hunter-gatherers are VLC. That just shows even more how confused you are. You've not come up with anything insightful or original. Nor anything remotely challenging. Sorry to disappoint you.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:39 PM

That's what it looks like to people that don't understand logic. The issue is entirely in your head, you have not even persuaded anyone that it exists, let alone that it needs to be addressed. You hold to your damascene truth and don't actually take on board what other people tell you about the level of uncertainty you ought to be embracing. And you spend more time complaining about other people not agreeing with you than giving them a reason to.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:22 PM

WOW, right, finally a logical reason. But I would disagree because it IS extreme by normal standards. Change is hard enough without imposing unnecessary demands and hardships. Also, evidence points to 30-40% as "moderate" AND it's more socially acceptable. The only sane reason to go lower carb is if people are in a metabolic mess. But to tar everyone with that brush I think is a bad, bad, move. A period of scarcity is short-lived hopefully. The body doesn't want it, but these VLC and LC are continued indefinitely. And let's not forget that all these caveats don't appear in a quick answer.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:28 PM

"Mike, there is NO "Paleo." There is only YOU, your body, your mind, the intersection of your actions and your environment and your genetics, and the curlycue whimsy of fate. Find what works for you and enjoy your life." That's kinda beautifully poetic and nice, and it would be wonderful if the advice was "start here, with these averages" and then "what you just said." But as I say, I'm worried that people will TAKE the bad advice, either get stuck, or get more sick, or give Paleo a bad name... I mean I could go on. Now if someone has SPECIFIC illnesses where low carb is called for..

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:13 PM

Poor twinkletoes is going to have 30 responses to his answer, all of which are a back-and-forth not entirely relevant to his answer.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:03 PM

And you keep calling it the extreme, which I don't consider it to be because I can understand data as it's presented. Aside from personal experience and the accounts of many many others along with having read thousands of pages of books, blogs, papers etc., if I'm going to apply a simplified model I will assume most people looking for help are coming from an environment of overabundance, and the best corrective action to help establish a natural balance is to mimic eating patterns congruent with a period of food scarcity.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:27 PM

@Joshua it's relative isn't it, but I would call VLC 19% or less, LC 20%-30%, moderate carb 30%-40% High carb 41% plus. Paul Jaminet has an awesome post about this... http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/02/higher-carb-dieting-pros-and-cons/ I highly recommend this article.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:39 PM

@PrimalDanny: 450g? That's 90% carbs on a 2000 calorie diet. Who the hell is recommending that? I take you point though which isn't really relevant. What is relevant is starting with a basic Paleo template for a newbie unless medical issues suggest otherwise and before htiing people over the head with the low carb stuff. Read Paul Jaminet on minimum carbs levels. And that is MINIMUM. So YES I think low carb in these situations is VERY BAD ADVICE.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:44 PM

No, no they don't, not at all, and yes, yes you do, if it even is an extreme. Your thinking on this is so rudimentary it's almost comical. Do you really think no-one has thought about this, looked at this, discussed this before you came along?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:29 AM

It's a basic flaw to assume that just because you can calculate an average that that is meaningful. On average, most newbie's posting here are hermaphrodites but I don't use that as a basis for giving advice. It's a whole lot more complicated than you seem willing to acknowledge, and sometimes something isn't better than nothing.

0905a0f8cd1e48f6d39fe625a65b6ef1

(2890)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:43 PM

Also. I am not ill. And I eat zero carb. So shoot me, man.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:55 PM

I am using my words... I am suggesting that people be careful about recommending low carb on a Paleo forum to regular folk who don't even mention illness that would point to a lower carb solution. Paleo will attract people looking for a natural HUMAN DIET. THAT IS NOT LOW CARB (unless you are an Eskimo)

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:01 AM

That's because your perception of normal is skewed by modern society. It's not a good argument. Neither is being moderate or socially acceptable, not really, it's a cop-out. And I think for some at least it is easier to make a wholesale change then to try and just moderate their existing diet. And there's a lot of evidence for the benefits of caloric-restriction that suggests the body does 'want' it periodically.

0905a0f8cd1e48f6d39fe625a65b6ef1

(2890)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:14 PM

I'm a she, baby!

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 02:01 AM

It's a terrible idea in your opinion. Many people here disagree, much as you like to assume people are being willfully malevolent, and there are far bigger terrors in my life in any case.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:59 PM

OH PLEASE PrimalDanny, you are clutching at straws, 2000 cals is the standard reference, and anyway, I said the point isn't valid... just because govt advice is wrong, we don't have to advise the opposite extreme!! Holy cow.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:25 PM

@PrimalDanny: OMG you call Cordains data flawed and point to this... this is speculation, at best. I also gave you another PHD link that I DO think makes a great deal of sense, where Pail calls 30-40% "Carb neutral" http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/02/higher-carb-dieting-pros-and-cons/

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:37 AM

It's not complicated Danny, now listen carefully and try to understand... giving generic low-carb advice to people we don't know is a TERRIBLE IDEA. GOT THAT?????? It's VERY VERY SIMPLE. And you wonder why I have to keep repeating.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 12:25 PM

Challenging bad advice is very healthy. If there were some people who had the opinion that kids should learn how to make bombs, I would challenge that too.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:58 PM

In your opinion. In my opinion, relative to SAD, the natural human diet is very much low carb. If you want an example of bad advice, look to government recommendations for the past 40 years.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:53 PM

Again Danny you make totally unsupported statements along with insult. WHY THEN would you start at the extreme?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:26 PM

You don't start at the extreme. All lines of evidence point to moderate carbs of 30-40% as normal healthy intakes for normal healthy persons.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:48 PM

The average american is not on a 2000 calorie diet, far from it. So for the average newbie coming to paleohacks, lowering carb intake is a valid message. What disaster do you think awaits people who don't eat lots of carbs?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 11:52 AM

Ah ok, so you think they're trying to help but are too stupid to do so and so persist in giving terrible advice. Or do you genuinely believe what you're talking about here is some shining new idea that they haven't heard of and if you but tell them about it they will see the light and change their sinful ways?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:09 AM

A good argument for being moderate is because that is what a natural human "average" diet is. What other criteria are you going to use en-masse? We've got to eat something. What has caloric restriction got to do with giving bad generic low carb advice?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 05:55 PM

I didn't say it was comparable, yet again Danny you see things that aren't there. It was illustrative of the idea that it's healthy to challenge bad advice.

0905a0f8cd1e48f6d39fe625a65b6ef1

(2890)

on June 25, 2012
at 12:05 AM

Gang, I'm getting all of your comments in my email, so I would be delighted if you could move your conversation to beneath your own answer thread. Thank you!

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:09 PM

@PrimalDanny: "Ok, so in your view most modern hunter-gatherers are VLC." Nooooooooooooo OMG, did I not say 20-40% for HG? Then by MY definitions of VLC, LC etc, they would be LC to moderate carb.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:52 PM

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:22 PM

What argument? There is no argument. You dismiss everything I say, accussing me of 'twisting' things. My point is that you are doing the exact same thing, and you are completely incapable of even identifying an issue rationally let alone engaging with it. You're years behind the times with your 'truths'. Come back when you have something to add.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 12:15 PM

It seems impossible to have a rational conversation with you Danny, with your playground tactics, and diversions.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:24 AM

No, you imply they're stupid. We know what you've said, you say it over and over and over and over.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 11:00 AM

It's an analogy but it isn't comparable? How much more ridiculous are you planning to get?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 10:02 PM

I didn't say they were stupid, again you assume too much. I said it is bad to give generic VLC/low carb advice to newbies on a paleo forum. Plus some other stuff, but you keep trying to make it about something else. People do give bad advice, and this is an example imo.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 04:12 PM

And your repeated insistence that the advice that people give here is comparable to telling kids to make bombs is still insulting and entirely irrational. You've tried challenging things, it hasn't worked. If it concerns you that much I'd think you'd try to learn how to better communicate.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 09:45 PM

Oh come on, what kind of troll are you? Of course you're intending people to draw an analogy when you say that. You're now getting into an even more tiresome generic stance about the nature of community interaction.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 10:30 PM

Yes it's illustrative analogy. Analogy is illustrative, that is it's purpose. Danny... if you think there's nothing wrong with pushing the low carb agenda onto newbies in a "paleohacks" forum, newbies we know nothing about, and I can't help you to see that that is a bad idea, then so be it.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 25, 2012
at 09:48 AM

Sorry twinkletoes, didn't know you got email.

21
246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:20 PM

Really?

Seriously. This banter between low-carb and high-carb sucks. Some people do great on low carb, some people do great on high carb.

Putting this thread up just adds more reason for division over all of us "eat real food" people. Thus, it contributes to the problem. Yes, your post is a problem.

And I posted this as an answer - although it really should be a comment... simply because I welcome the downvotes I receive for it. All this venom over flipping macronutrients? Really?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:53 PM

In what way is telling people who are undereating to eat more bad advice?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:35 PM

"This banter between low-carb and high-carb sucks" -- what about PALEO CARB. These things have been figured out.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:27 AM

OMG this is not about the question asker, it's about the ADVICE. I'm calling it a day Danny.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:18 PM

"healthy people are all the same, sick people are all different." So yeah... assuming they're healthy, start with the best we know about Paleo. And your petty twisting, rudeness, and playground tactics are getting tiresome, please stick to the issue, if you wish to discuss it. Thanks.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:25 PM

You do know that telling people to stick to the issue doesn't actually constitute engaging with the issue right? Throwing in a random 'quote' ad a non-sequiter doesn't really count either.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:31 AM

No, your concern is entirely with how these 'newbies' (such as yourself) act on the advice given. Else you've entirely misrepresented yourself. Trying to separate them is just silly.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:55 PM

You'd like to think so, little troll that you are, but the reality is that you're simply not saying anything about anything. I'm just paraphrasing.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:42 AM

OMG you are incredibly annoying... You twist EVERYING. You said I had a low opinion of people, meaning the ASKER. So... NO I DON'T and YES I DO CARE ABOUT THEM, AND yes, it is about the BAD ADVICE. Grrr you are unreal.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:15 PM

@PrimalDanny... telling them to eat more is good advice, but when their carb intake is tiny and they have no energy, telling them to eat more fat???

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:17 PM

@PrimalDanny: Ahem... You accused me of recommending empty carbs and I called you on it, i didn't say anything of the sort.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:45 PM

Hmm, again no content and simply a demand to stick to the issue. Must be a junior troll-bot to repeat that so soon.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:38 PM

1. If someone isn't thriving on low carb, they shouldn't eat low carb. And I don't know anyone advocating "kids" eat low carb, which is something you failed to mention in your original post. 2. If someone isn't losing weight on moderate carb, perhaps they should adjust either their macros or their intake or activity levels. 3. Many folks who came to this forum have taken Paleo as the "base" for their own diets. Many folks here don't even consider their diets "paleo" anymore, although they may remain "ancestral" in one way or another.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:50 PM

And you still have given no convincing argument for the starting point not being low carb in any case. Do you understand that? It is not definitive, and some people disagree with you. Is that clear enough for you?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:06 PM

You could actually say something about the issue. I am sticking to it, as best I can, because I view your logic as basic and your tactics as non-existent. It's a very simple and minor difference of opinion which you seem determined to make into a war. If you can't accept that other opinions are valid, can you at least accept that you can't simply dictate that others agree with you?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:26 PM

If there is disagreement, I'm am looking for 2 outcomes ideally... 1. I am wrong and you are right and I learn something. 2. I am right and you are wrong and you learn something. There's always the possibility that we are not in possession of all the facts we need to resolve it, but I don't think that is the case here. We know enough.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:46 PM

@PrimalDanny: WHAT???????? Who said anything about eating empty carbs? You're losing the plot :-)

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:07 PM

So you've finally read your links? Ok, so any advice to a newbie is bad advice as we don't know anything about them. Clearly you haven't noticed that the first comment is almost always for more details in that case, but leaving that for the moment, you don't think presented a somewhat biased view in only indicting LC advice as bad rather than any advice? And I absolutely refute that your implication in your first comment here is not a recommendation to eat more carbs. Also, your knowledge is so far beneath my knowledge I am unconcerned by your capitalisation. FYI.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:48 PM

Try answering some questions for these folk before presuming to know what's going on. I've asked for one single counter-example to show that your premise has any validity. I'm not even asking you to support your claim of a trend. And assuming people asking questions here are uniformly healthy and without weight issues is a long way off base fyi. Most of those people aren't looking for new diets, aren't coming here for help implementing them, and if they do it's more general and they are redirected to general introductions to paleo. Advice here is almost always more specific.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 02:03 AM

Yes meaning the asker, you keep referring to them as newbies in a derogatory fashion as if they're idiots who'll run off a cliff if you tell them it'll make them healthy.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:28 PM

OH BS, How could I IMPLY "empty."?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:58 PM

And therefore, if that is the BEST of our knowledge, then we should be recommending that as a start, and not VLC. Moderate would be my choice for a starter... 30-40%

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:15 PM

So we're talking about obese people who are struggling for energy, and you are dead set against advising them to consume more energy but want them to eat nutritionally empty carbs for some reason? Just who do you work for again?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:40 PM

There you go again with your insults and weak attempts to discredit. Without any logical reason, you simply STATE that you are somehow superior. And that my friend is one of the lowest tactics of all... pull rank. Stick to the issue and drop all the BS.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:33 PM

Joshua... telling kids who have no energy, are undereating and are eating 50g carb per day to eat more fat is BAD ADVICE. If we are PALEO, then we are presumably using PALEO as a guide to what is a natural human diet.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:40 PM

because you've talked of nothing else, nothing of nutritional value, you've merely implied that people should eat more carbs, hth

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:55 PM

But I will say... I never ever said people should eat more carbs, I said we should NOT give off pat VLC or LC advice to newbies without knowing anything about them. Because it's BAD ADVICE. Please don;t twist what I actually say.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:33 PM

yes, there's twice as much energy in fat, why wouldn't you eat more if you're low on energy and malnourished?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 11:55 AM

The way you use it is derogatory, and yes that's what I meant by you thinking that they are stupid.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:26 PM

It was what you implied, and *I* called *you* on it. :-)

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:40 PM

The quote wasn't random, it was answering your previous objection. Unless otherwise stated, we have to assume no health issues and that they're regular folk. I've never ever seen anyone ask for more details that weren't clearly missing. I mean, if someone asks a question, you don't ask them to fill out a health questionnaire before answering. You assume "regular" unless otherwise stated. And so we also must assume that healthy people are alike. You have to start somewhere. And that should NOT be low carb. Is THAT clear enough for you Danny? Do you understand the POINT?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:19 PM

There is no good reason to start at the extreme, it's not Paleo. The best we can say is to define the an average HG macro ratio that makes sense given all the available evidence, including science and biochem and start there. That is logical. For metabolically deranged people, the evidence is that starting with lower carb is probably a good idea, but you can't assume that, unless there is evidence that it is the norm.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 04:16 PM

Yes, you tried and failed. And yet you keep persisting, not taking anything on board, not persuading anyone of anything other than your limited insight and arrogant views. You can't merely scold people to stop doing something. Indeed a cursory glance at the internet would indicate your behaviour would be more likely to have the opposite effect to that which you intended. If you want people to take note of your unoriginal, unsupported, outdated whining then try gaining some credibility first.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:05 PM

@PrimalDanny. If someone is trying to lose weight, the fuel you wanna burn is contained in the body fat, you don't wanna be eating it. Energy production is not about calories, it's about health too, and health means eating like a human, eating human foods. E.g. Dr Terry Wahl's video about MS is very enlightening... the body is a synergy of incredible complexity. To say "I'm tired so I need fuel, and the best fuel is fat" is far from getting to the truth of how the body works.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:53 PM

@PrimalDanny: there is so much wrong with that logic, I won't even start.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:54 PM

Because you keep on with the BS tactics, and lack of logic, what else can I do but restate you stick to the issue?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 10:10 PM

Stick to the issue.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 11:11 AM

Newbie is the normal term, it's not derogatory, and yes, newbies will take the bad advice if it has social-proof.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:00 PM

Even Paul Jaminet now admits that his 20% is optimized for longevity and that for athleticism and fertility, high carbs is normally chosen instinctively -- 40-50%. So 30-40% really is "carb neutral" or "moderate."

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:27 PM

Again, spend a bit more time here, then try forming an opinion on what the best 'norm' assumption is for people asking for specific advice. It seems extreme to you, as you have a very limited perspective. The answers given however are by definition representative of the experiences of the community, which is the best guide to what 'paleo' is that we have. And it fits absolutely fine with all the evidence and science. You don't know nearly as much as you think you do. *That's* dangerous.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:03 AM

You have an incredibly low opinion of other people. What harm do you imagine may be caused by that advice? At worst I can imagine them coming back a week later looking for more advice, at which point we can establish that they've tried eating more fat and consider another course of action. This isn't a big deal.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:56 PM

And I will say that there is PLENTY of evidence to suugest that 20-40% carbs IS, to the BEST of our current knowledge, PALEO!

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 25, 2012
at 12:05 PM

Every time I log into PH, I get "You have 10 new comments" and I get excited. Then I click on my profile and see that it's just you guys e-Fighting.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:51 PM

I don't consider it minor when newbies are sent away eating 50g of carbs with the instruction to eat more fat, and that opinion is voted up.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 09:46 PM

Once again, a complaint about not sticking to the issue rather than actually responding to anything. Because you have nothing worthwhile to say. Seriously, are you twelve? Because if this is your first troll I'll leave you to it.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:29 AM

I am. You can't stop people using the internet, and you can't censor the content they have access to. If you think the advice available here is so catastrophic then you are welcome to see if the government will pass some laws in your favour. Otherwise you simply have to rely on persuading people through force of argument, which you have proven to be abominably bad at.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:04 PM

Once again, you fail to stick to the issue and respond with childish insults.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 05:56 PM

Once again, a personal insulting rant instead of focus on the issue.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 12:20 PM

"you simply have to rely on persuading people through force of argument" Exactly, which is the point of this post, to persuade people giving low carb, low fruit, generic advice on a paleo forum, to stop doing it. Seems reasonable to me.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 11:01 AM

Seriously? You're still trying this?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 25, 2012
at 06:55 PM

Sorry Joshua, didn't realize how it worked, do now.

20
4ec0fe4b4aab327f7efa2dfb06b032ff

(5145)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:19 PM

I'm way more annoyed about the constant complaining from (relatively) higher carb folks about the supposed low carb bias.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:35 PM

Kelly: Member 7 months. Mike: Member 23 days. I'm just sayin'

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:30 PM

I wish I could unlike it a hundred times :-)

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:29 PM

This is a PALEO site... go to a low carb site if that is your bag.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:25 PM

Any time you like.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:16 PM

@ trjones... If you are annoyed, why even engage the thread. If you don't wanna talk about it, don't.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:43 PM

"Yeah, we don't tell the Perfect Health Diet guys to get lost." True, but I'm not really asking anyone to get lost, I'm just concerned about bad advice. And perhaps if we engage the issue of bad advice, it might become good advice.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:42 PM

If your intent is to engage, then try actually indicating why you think the advice here is bad.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:17 PM

@Joshua, the fact that I'm a new member is what carries weight. It's my FRESH experience of Paleohacks or should I call it "Low Carb Hacks" :-)

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:30 PM

I didn't say YOU said X carbs, I said often THEY are focused on X carbs. Look Danny, you can't have it both ways, you can't say macros aren't important AND instincts are corrupted. There has to be some guidance. Either you are in favor of ad lib paleo or guiding towards some carb/fat/prtein intake. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF???

4ec0fe4b4aab327f7efa2dfb06b032ff

(5145)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:38 PM

Mike, why don't you get off your high horse and stop telling people on this site what to do? Everyone here has a voice, it's the whole nature of the site. You can use yours to tell people about what works for you, like the rest of us do, but don't use it to try to shut people up or drive people away just because you don't agree on their level of carb consumption.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:47 PM

I refute the concept of universal optimal macro ratios. I in fact reject macro ratios as a basis for a diet at all. And the point of my statement was that the distribution is skewed heavily towards low carb, it's not normal. I don't know how many times I can repeat this.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:43 AM

Yes, you got me you little tinker... I meant "they."

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:15 PM

@Mike, being a newcomer to a site, and telling someone else to GTFO because they don't agree with you is a dick move, not a fresh experience.

F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:28 PM

I wish I could like this a hundred times.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:59 PM

"I refute the concept of universal optimal macro ratios." So do I, of course, it's obvious there was no one single diet. And yet, we, in civilization have supermarkets, and what we eat, ends up being a macro ratio. And that macro ratio MATTERS, especially AT THE EXTREMES. Also, you cannot say there is no optimal macro ratio and then say it should be VLC or LC. Your logic is inconsistent. If you don't believe in optimal macro ratios, then why not just let people eat instinctively from natural human foods. But no, you say "only xg carbs" and then people are fighting their instincts.

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:32 PM

Yeah, we don't tell the Perfect Health Diet guys to get lost. They eat rice, which is clearly outside the 'no grains' part of Paleo. But you want to tell low carbers, who can eat paleo easily to get lost? I hope you stop typing long enough to learn something here.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:06 AM

You did specifically say 'you' not 'they'. Calm down and stop making a fool of yourself. I don't think it's a good idea to try and explain a whole lifestyle approach with a soundbite, but essentially I would focus on ad lib within certain food sources and push towards correcting eating habits and let the rest take care of itself.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:59 PM

Or they're confused etc. You can;t have it both ways.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:53 PM

You may not have noticed, being new and all, but we have a voting system. It's really democratic and everything, people can indicate whether they think any particular answer to a question is good or not. They can even comment to expand upon the answer or (at a push) edit the answer to correct obvious errors. Get this, people can even submit their OWN answer with as much detail as they like and people can make their own decisions about what they read.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:14 PM

@PrimalDanny, yeah this site is awesome feature wise, best I've ever seen. However, If there is a low-carb bias here, then the voting system wouldn't really help with my concern would it? In fact, it would make this worse because people make decisions on social-proof and that is one of my points; bad advice gets "voted up."

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:41 PM

I'm concerned about any number of influences young people might be exposed to. I'm extremely concerned about any advice you may give. If it's that much of a concern I'm sure you can block your children from accessing *dangerous* sites like PH.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:05 PM

Mate it's a no-brainer.. you don't begin at the extreme. If you want the biochem, I think Paul J is the most eloquent on the subject and the most insightful, and one of the most understanding of all the issues.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:43 AM

It was a generic "you."

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:32 PM

The one advocating 20-30% for a small female? Bearing in mind that that percentage would drop for the average member of the population? Sure, let's go with him. Your argument has essentially boiled down to 'moderation in everything', making a very basic mistake in thinking that it's that straight-forward. Besides which I've already told you that there isn't a normal distribution. No HGs subsist on 100% carbs, or even anywhere near. Many subsist on 0-20% carbs. Low carb is a prudent approach for most people, with no real risk. Taking a contentious 'mean' value has little to recommend it

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:02 PM

"And the point of my statement was that the distribution is skewed heavily towards low carb, it's not normal. I don't know how many times I can repeat this" There you go again with the pathetic tactics... you never ever said it was skewed, you said it wasn't a normal distribution, which it IS, not a PERFECT one, but they don't need to be perfect to be a normal distribution, it just need to be roughly bell-shaped, skewed or unskewed is fine.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:25 PM

'Bad' advice gets voted up because the majority of the community with relevant experience think it's good advice? But you, being the fearless iconoclast you are, would like to deem yourself the arbiter of advice quality for the whole internet and you think this is the way to go about it? Good luck with that.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:34 PM

@PrimalDanny, Not at all, I merely wished to engage the issue of whether off pat VLC/LC advice is wise. My concern is for people who take that advice because "many experts agree" and then get into deeper waters. I am concerned about that. I have seen the way this advice is given, stated authoritively, and voted up. If that were MY son or daughter, yes I'm concerned about the advice from "experts" handed out here.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:44 PM

"Low carb is a prudent approach for most people, with no real risk." Evidence? No HGs subsist on 100% carbs, or even anywhere near. A normal distribution doesn't start at 0 and end at 100. I never said any HG ate 100% so what's the point if this statement?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 02:04 AM

That's as may be, certainly no reason to shout at me though as it was at best ambiguous.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:08 PM

I'm not saying only xg carbs. Stop twisting things. And *in general* people's instincts are (a) corrupted and (b) flawed in any case in the modern supermarket. A lot of people have made a lot of money from exploiting this very fact for profit rather than health. Also, statistics fail.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:45 PM

"Taking a contentious 'mean' value has little to recommend it" I disagree, because it's good evidence that TALLIES with other lines of evidence. If you take this data to be useless, then by what measure do you calculate approximate optimal macro ratios for humans?

10
7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:21 PM

This isn't a trend. This is normal. You don't have any idea what the carb levels in the paleolithic were. We are guessing. We've got some good, researched, educated guesses that it was less than 150g, but it is a guess. When people (newbies) say they need to lose weight, many of us- who have already lost weight- know that reasonable levels of carb restriction will help them with the goal. You are free to chime in with your own advice.
People can figure out pretty quickly what works and what doesn't for them, so focus on presenting your best argument rather than fussing about the fact that there are people who are advising things you don't agree with.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:18 PM

We do know, we can observe what remains of hunter-gatherers.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:51 PM

@August. Where is my faulty logic, perhaps you will enlighten me?

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:31 PM

That doesn't make sense. Cordian and other researchers are suggesting the 'below 150g' thing, you are suggesting something else. Are you talking about hunter-gatherers now, who are not our ancestors, but our contemporaries? Their diet is undeniably changed by modernity- their ability to move is greatly restricted, for instance- an impediment to a more nomadic meat eating lifestyle.

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:27 PM

Ah, I do see you are talking about our contemporaries. You are displaying extremely faulty logic. Listen to Joshua, and try to remember this diet is within the framework of evolutionary theory, not based on whatever random group you come across.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:50 PM

"Cordian and other researchers are suggesting the 'below 150g' thing, you are suggesting something else." Nope I'm suggesting the same: "Paleo" Modernity is an issue, but there;s PLENTY we know, we know enough to draw general trends, types of foods and approximate macronutrient ratios. There's plenty to nail down for sure, but the big stuff, we know.

7
Ca1150430b1904659742ce2cad621c7d

(12540)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:32 PM

The solution for all of these issues about which is "better" or "right" is all a huge N=1 situation. The only way to find the answer for any given individual is to experiment on your own body and see what works and what doesn't.

The problem, I think, is that instead of thinking and experiencing, everyone wants someone els to give them a "Magic Solution" that is going to work every time, for every person.

It's been my experience that PH is a valuable open forum - and it IS such for me because I read the information and use it as a TOOL to help me figure out how things are working in my own body -- not as a BIBLE from which I can't deviate.

5
D7cc4049bef85d1979efbd853dc07c8e

(4029)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:12 PM

Disturbed? No. There's no gatekeeper of "Paleo". Present your evidence and let's discuss civilly.

Pardon the pun, it evolves, unlike nearly every other lifestyle movements.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:43 PM

It's not the default advice, a range of opinions are presented for most questions, and it's not typically bad advice. HTH

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:41 PM

Generic low-carb is bad advice, If one is giving generic advice on a paleo site without giving insight or caveats, the BEST paleo middle ground is the safest.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:07 AM

In your opinion. Others disagree with you. I know you don't like being made to feel inferior but you are new here. Have some humility.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:30 PM

Yeah typically a range of CONFUSING, often totally contradictory options are given. Some of those options I consider very bad advice. Where does that leave a newbie? Confused and lost.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:18 AM

I don't feel inferior Danny, you on the other hand, do feel superior. I am humble. If you could show me, give me something, that would in any way suggest you are correct, you would see me cave faster than you can say "generic low carb bad advice" :-)

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:02 PM

I'm presenting my evidence here, in this thread; for NOT making VLC the default advice because that is bad advice.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:49 PM

Yes, so let's elect you sole arbiter of TRUTH on the internet and it'll all be fine. Continue your campaign, I think you're almost there. And in the mean time continue (neglecting) to give generic nonspecific and meaningless advice to people.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:32 AM

It's a general trend I see Mike, and I'm convinced nothing would persuade you against your faith. When were you converted again?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:04 PM

Twisting again Danny, Generic advice is the best advice in a generic situation. And that;s the situation I'm talking about.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:05 PM

"Meaningless" -- how is giving the BEST paleo generic solution meaningless? I wish you'd stop with the amateur debate tactics.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:21 PM

No, this site is not for spouting generic advice. There's lots of sites for that. This is for individuals to ask specific questions and interact with a community of people who may be able to help them. And, again, even talking about the BEST generic solution is meaningless, giving it doubly so.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 04:17 PM

Lolz. Not a scientist are you mike.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:05 PM

Biology is cause/effect. Opinions exist when the biology is not fully understood. Science is what you do when you don't know what you're doing.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 11:03 AM

That's so close to something almost sensible. I might even believe you came up with it but only because it undermines your previous ranting.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 02:46 PM

Biology is not a matter of opinion

4
782d92f4127823bdfb2ddfcbcf961d0e

on June 22, 2012
at 05:51 PM

I used to think Paleo was low carb but reading many of these threads has opened my eyes to the wide variety of diets practiced here. The only things I know for sure about Paleo are: no highly processed "foods", no gluten, no industrial oils, no GMO's (if one can help it), and no HFCS and white sugar (and agave--gee, I keep thinking of more things!). I'm sure someone will have an exception to something on this list!

Everyone will have different goals and different tolerances so it's really unrealistic to think Paleo will be one-size-fits-all. I feel fortunate to have found this site where there are so many differences of opinion and usually with some science to back it up. However, any opinions given here have to be weighed against what is best for you, or as they say, YMMV.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:56 PM

Even if we use modern Hunter-Gatherers as an example, we still won't nail down a specific macronutrient level. Kitavans and starch, Innuit and fats, etc... Paleo is, inherently "lower carb" than a processed food diet. That being said, your summary is pretty much what I tell people when they ask "what is paleo?" I tell them it's a diet devoid of grains, refined sugars, processed foods, processed oils, and chemically-enhanced foods. I don't mention carbs. Before I get hate from WAPF or PHD folks - I still consider those to be ancestral, just not "Paleo" in the authored sense.

782d92f4127823bdfb2ddfcbcf961d0e

(5231)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:17 PM

I agree 100%...

4
F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:34 PM

If you have ever tried true low-carbing (and no 150 g is not it) then you would understand that someone shifting from a high-carb SAD diet will go through a fairly significant adjustment period where you feel like crap. (You also feel like crap when you quit smoking, so don't bother telling me that's an indication that you're doing something that's inherently "bad") Giving them some helpful tips to work through that process and get to the other side where they will start to feel really good is NOT bad advice. It is known as being helful.

Telling someone who has decided to try low-carbing but is having some difficulty that they are doing it all wrong and need to do what works for you is bad advice. People need to find their own way.

Most obese people are not going to thrive on fruit and nuts. I'm glad it worked for you, but you need to chill.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:01 PM

I'm not suggesting anyone eat fruit and nuts... that's what I did back then. And it felt good, and I healed, beginning with a water only fast for 11 days. Not suggesting anyone do that either.

F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:28 PM

Mambo, I don't know where you get your information but unless you are a Type 1 diabetic, "glucose defiency" isn't a problem for anyone. In fact, I don't even know where you got that term - the closest thing would be hypoglycemia. And a healthy person doesn't get hypoglycemia because they can make their own glucose.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:21 PM

No it's what they do when they're tired of going around in circles and getting nowhere, and when they're tired of the issue being sidetracked by bad logic, and pettiness.

5e92edc5a180787a60a252a8232006e9

(345)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:13 PM

Again, ur looking through your own lens. You might interpret that as a low carb flu but it just might be glucose deficiency. The problems of glucose deficiency are serious and dangerous. Just because you didn't experience them doesn't mean others don't. Stop looking through the end of the telescope. Low carb is not for everyone.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:02 PM

I'm not suggesting anyone eat JUST fruit and nuts... that's what I did back then. And it felt good, and I healed, beginning with a water only fast for 11 days. Not suggesting anyone do that either.

F0e558010a2ecb31fa37b7c491596b8e

(3850)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:33 PM

Well, Mike and Mambo, I think there are a lot of people here who's experience contradicts yours, and who have lost weight through carbohydrate reduction. And both Robb Wolf and Mark Sisson state that your carboydrate intake should be geared to your weight loss needs and activity level. So no, it's not for everyone. Nothing is. But as it does go along with experience of many of the members here as well as the advice of some very learned people means it is more than a "fad" and perhaps you should allow for individual differences.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:49 PM

"Is this your first day on the internet?" Playground bully tactics. V. poor show. "Restating it doesn't make it any more true." Nor less.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:08 AM

I'm just saying that you seem to mostly still be frustrated with me, and repeating yourself ad nauseam.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:34 PM

I meant it at the time when I was frustrated with you. I changed my mind OK, is that allowed?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:21 PM

@Kelly, my experience with fruit was just an extreme example that shows that fruit is nothing to fear. I think a lot of people got scared because of Lustig and the ripples of that are still going.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:45 PM

You read that somewhere, you didn't think. Hey, a guy fasted for over a year and turned out great. That's just an extreme example that shows no-one needs to fear not eating. I think a lot of people got scared because they understand the basics of statistical significance.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:28 PM

I'm not even talking to you any more Danny because your the kind of guy who just wants to win whatever the tactic, including just wearing people down. This is my last word to you: Giving VLC advice to people you know nothing about is bad advice, and yeah, I think people should stop doing it. And there's a ton of evidence behind a moderate carb, paleo intake of 30-40% for regular people.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:09 PM

Actually, the more you repeat something the more desperate you sound. Particularly after you dramatically claimed you weren't going to respond any further.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:25 PM

Eating a lot of fruit is NOT the same as not eating for a long time. Danny, you're logic is just crazy to me. These are different things. Doug Graham has been eating 97% of calories from fruit for 30 years and he's still with us. That's evidence. And there's lots of other evidence to not fear fruit.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:23 PM

No Kelly the questioners did not say that were trying to do low carb, but if they did, you're right, I would question their reason for trying it. There is this trend "out-there" that "no carbs" is the answer to weight loss. It isn't.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 09:29 PM

^^^^^^ This is what people do when they've lost the argument. For future reference.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:34 PM

Restating it doesn't make it any more true. Is this your first day on the internet?

4
153c4e4a22734ded15bf4eb35b448e85

(762)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:24 PM

I am more concerned with the parents here who starve their kids feeding them paleo, and then come asking for advice when their kids are hungry, there has been so many examples of this here.

The advice they get is crappy as well sometimes, luckily some people have been vocal about not starving your kids by feeding them LC etc.

It's never a good idea to think that you have found the ultimate human diet, and then force your kids on it too, vegans do this too, and they get so much shit for it, but when someone starves their kid on LC paleo it's somehow all different because paleo is "right".

153c4e4a22734ded15bf4eb35b448e85

(762)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:36 PM

This whole should I feed my kid just doritos and coke, or just meat and veggies is ridiculous, it's the same false dichotomy used by vegans, oh I feed my kid just pure vegan food, not that nasty dirty animal secretion called milk, or a chickens periods etc. There are options between the false black and white which is so loved by food purists who have found the "only right diet".

3351f6c8ec1ea64435e419f380ca6468

(1255)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:43 PM

Could you post a link to a couple of examples of parents with these questions? I haven't looked that closely, but don't recall ever seeing one.

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23

(11058)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:33 PM

You bet I forced my real food diet on my kids. I buy the groceries and prepare the meals. There are no grains, the only sugar is honey, and we have lots of fresh veggies and meats. No one is starving and the only ones losing weight are the ones with weight to lose. I am VLC, but my kids are not.

246ebf68e35743f62e5e187891b9cba0

(21415)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:31 PM

Say what? My kid thrives on paleo, it was never forced on him, I just refuse to have crap food in my house. Are you suggesting that people who find their health through paleo continue to feed their kids shit "just because"? Sure, my kid isn't low carb - but he enjoys his whole foods and his life is better because of it.

6044d623688f4fe69133bab95c3ae3b9

(10)

on November 14, 2013
at 09:39 PM

Nobody should be starving on Paleo... it's all about NOT counting calories... I admit having a child on a VLC diet might be difficult but there are millions of meals you can make that are paleo and I'm rarely ever hungry.

4
1407bd6152d9fdbc239250385159fea1

on June 22, 2012
at 05:06 PM

Low carb has it's utility, but I don't think that's where generally healthy people should start.

Read: carbsanity.blogspot.com

892d177f50b16f118152219229870e4e

(776)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:17 PM

I would say PHD and Chris Kresser's site are much better choices for someone new to Paleo.

7f8bc7ce5c34aae50408d31812c839b0

(2698)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:30 PM

I agree with Higgs, PHD is a well reasoned starting point for people.

3
C326acd0ae246a39c5685f2ba72e3136

on June 22, 2012
at 06:56 PM

I agree!! Fruit is such a great source of energy. Same with sweet potatoes, beets, squash and people are so afraid of this..

3
F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:12 PM

I know that PH has gone in a lot of extremes, if you think low-carb is bad, when I first started it was all about no-carbs or vlc. So I'm at least happy that some people have changed their game in recommending diets.

I still think though, that paleo is an individually optimized diet with a broad set of principles. Telling people you "have to do low-carb" without presenting all the options is kind of mean, in my opinion.

2
F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:00 PM

I think "EatLessMoveMoore" is now trolling as "Mike".

Get a life, man.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:29 PM

Being concerned about low carb advice given to young people means I have no life?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:55 PM

@Jeff... I never suggested censorship... I am concerned about bad low carb advice. And that is an important issue.

F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on June 22, 2012
at 06:45 PM

No, trolling on PaleoHacks means you have no life.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:34 PM

There have been some good answers to this question so far. Your unsupported accusations are not one. -1.

6ba6dc54fccbb9e01a07595137cecfa2

(92)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:23 PM

This is a forum for free exchange of ideas.To suggest censorship beyond the moderators is silly. Low carb does not mean starvation from a calorie stand point.0+0= pointless drama.

F0a3e3f17d9a740810ac37ff2353a9f3

(3804)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:38 AM

@Mike: "I have genuine concerns." Horseshit.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:53 PM

No... I asked a question, and everyone got hot. Not my fault. I have genuine concerns.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 07:56 PM

@Mscott... do I really need to name names? Or can we agree there's plenty of off pat very low carb advice being given to newbies?

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:23 AM

Mike, sorry I was directing that at Sam.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:34 AM

Ah no worries mscott, thanks :-)

E32abdc9a483de43def522faf81ed4e9

(0)

on May 03, 2014
at 03:38 PM

For my own information, why would anyone "troll" on Paleo? I am naive but I'm just guessing that maybe someone who's raw food or vegan would try and "upset" or mislead Paleo /Primal eaters by using an adversarial post?

2
3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

(2919)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:24 PM

I see nothing wrong with low-carb for either general living purposes or for weight loss.

I don't, however, agree with NO Carb.

2
1bbcd2122d9c75b07440f22ef57d6448

(2934)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:12 PM

I've seen a decent number of people on here recommending higher-carb plans. Like Potato Avenger says, some people have use for low carb, but there are a great deal of people who function better with them.

Personally, it took some doing to get over the carb hump???I read from Mark Sisson and countless people on here that >150g was the only way to lose weight. I tried this, while training 10+ hours a week and competing weekly (rowing), and it was absolutely terrible. This certainly doesn't mean that low-carb is bad, it's just not for everyone.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 05:35 PM

Or it's not easy to do right perhaps.

1
877ded1787562057ee2e1a4548b6050a

on June 22, 2012
at 06:58 PM

Either carbs are good for you or bad for you. There is no in between. Join one side or the other, and face the consequences.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:51 PM

We moved on from silly fears about carbs and fruit months ago, if not years ago. Trying to establish evidence for a general case is a fool's game, which you seem to love playing. I again refute your 'evidence', your premise, your argument and your conclusion.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 10:23 PM

Carb neutral 30-40, Paleo 20-40. Don't split hairs. This is about what is good advice for regular people and this silly fear of carbs and fear of fruit. The evidence is for moderate carbs as stated.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:43 PM

Where have I made an unsupported statement? Twisting won't work Danny, I will always call you on it.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 02:05 AM

Hmmm, not so much then eh?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:24 PM

much like you do

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 11:09 PM

So you keep saying without giving reason or evidence.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:33 AM

Again? Well, we'll see if it takes this time.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:13 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20860883#

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:48 AM

Your only concern Danny, is making sure you don;t lose that superiority complex... Ciao! And thanks for being you. :-)

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:14 PM

i.e. NOT low carb

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:01 PM

Agreed John. I think the truth is inbetween. What's REAL interesting to me is that Paul Jaminet calls 30-40% carb "carb neutral" and this exactly squares with the hunter-gatherer data. http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2012/02/higher-carb-dieting-pros-and-cons/ http://www.answers.com/topic/stone-age-nutrition-the-original-human-diet (table 1) http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/682.full.pdf

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 22, 2012
at 08:09 PM

No, no it doesn't.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:25 AM

I think not Danny... Panache is definitely not a word I would have used. More like battering ram. You know some big words though I'll give you that :-) Anyway, enough said, far too much actually on this thread. I'm calling it a day.

877ded1787562057ee2e1a4548b6050a

on June 23, 2012
at 11:30 AM

Look, you are all right.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 24, 2012
at 04:21 PM

(a) it's not a normal distribution, (b) you are anything but wise, (c) your assessment of 'danger' is on the level of a 3 year-old, (d) IT'S NOT A NORMAL DISTRIBUTION, (e) spouting generic 'advice' based on a complete failure to read the data and misunderstanding of the biology along with almost total ignorance of the context is not particularly helpful - mindlessly repeating over and over that everyone else should do the same and are not entitled to a contrary opinion is insulting, petty, childish, pathetic and laughable.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 23, 2012
at 12:08 AM

as I will you, but much more effectively and with greater panache.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:14 PM

http://www.paleo-diet.co/2010/09/paleolithic-macronutrient-ratios-and-profiles/

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:21 PM

Show me YOUR data to support low carb as good paleo advice, or admit you are wrong :-)

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 02:10 PM

Biology is not a matter of opinion.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:18 PM

http://www.mattmetzgar.com/matt_metzgar/2010/08/where-are-the-lowcarb-huntergatherers.html You will see on this post, the NORMAL DISTRIBUTION of plant subsistence in Cordain's 2000 paper.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 25, 2012
at 10:16 PM

And you've just changed your tune to "weight loss." That's the first you've mentioned of it. The question was about off pat low carb advice on a paleo forum, general carb phobia etc.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 11:47 AM

The further we move away from moderate, and the longer we do that, the greater the health risk. Paleo is not low carb.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 12:57 PM

That's not true John, HG macro ratios follow a normal distribution. We would be wise to aim for the middle, as the dangers increase as you get further away from the middle.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 07:13 PM

Geez you've got the whole internet and you can't find anything that doesn't support your view. There's a surprise. There's a whole list here http://www.dietdoctor.com/science. But I'm not going to sit around trading websites with you. This has been done to death both here and on other sites. You've no interest in forming a different opinion. Feel free to take that as an indication that your 'right'. It doesn't mean anything, I've never suggested you aren't free to offer whatever advice you want. But if you've not even read the basic paleo literature I'm not going to regurgitate it all.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 24, 2012
at 11:20 PM

30-40% carb is safe, "neutral," 40% if you use East Africa as the surrogate for ancestral human diets, which I think has value.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 08:59 PM

Weight-loss was what I was referring to. If you really want, find anything credible that suggests there's any danger in general application of trying the low-carb approach. In fact don't bother, I'm sure you'll find plenty of 'data' that's been misinterpreted already for you.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 25, 2012
at 07:02 PM

Show me these endless studies that show low carb is superior. Disease reversal -- again show me your evidence, that is just a statement. blood markers were the best in the recent A TO Z study but the Akins group did not stick rigidly to the diet, their carb was 30%. Danny, this is not evidence you've given me, it's just statements, evidence means quoting your source so I can look at it. And Danny, I had a look at your advice... "Eat ad lib from selected foods" sound generic to me.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 25, 2012
at 08:42 PM

These are all weight loss/diabetes studies, NOT generic/best health applications. I already mentioned the A TO Z study and agreed it had the best blood markers etc but they ate 30% carb. These are therapeutic variations, which apply in specific cases, not for general application.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 27, 2012
at 10:17 AM

Stop talking a look around a bit more, and try talking with people. You'll find some agree with you, some are much more extreme in advocating limitless carbs, and some have genuine experience of certain foods (eg. fruit) hampering their progress. People ask for help here because they had trouble interpreting the 'generic advice' that's out there. And if you'd spent any time here at all you'd see that the most dominant theme is that there's 7 billion different paleo diets. This may not be a perfect way to guide people but it's not any more dangerous than anything else. So why not move on?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 11:16 AM

If the skewness AND kurtosis are as far from zero as they are in the graph then the distribution is not normal. Gauss would be rolling in his grave. Also, plant =/= carbs. A large proportion of those plants were fruits, specifically fatty fruits. If they were even plants at all. I'm well aware you can link to articles or blogs and think they make your case, as you must be aware that there are others that would disagree with you. This is not a new question, nonetheless we still don't know as much as you think you do. You don't even understand data that supports you, what hope is there?

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 25, 2012
at 11:30 AM

There's endless studies that show low-carb is superior for weight-loss, none that show otherwise. There's anecdotal evidence of thousands more, there's the myriad diseases that have been reversed by the approach, there's the improvement in blood markers that apparently also happens in *every single case*. This is not dangerous advice. It may not be necessary for everyone but that's not the same thing at all. And it's about more than just reenacting history or the metabolic pathways, and it's very individual. I don't spout generic advice the way you do, it doesn't seem worth the time.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 07:04 PM

Generic advice is by nature, simple, as it should be. You think hunter-gatherers have any clue about "therapeutic variations." And yes, it's bound to happen eventually... the further you are from moderate and the more time you are away, the greater the chance of problems... in general. Just like if you put a million people on a strict USDA diet for a long time, x% will develop heart disease, or cancer or something else. Where people break may differ but the causes are the same. You cannot get away from the fact that generic advice is a must.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 26, 2012
at 10:43 AM

Why do you keep talking about Atkins? And none of those problems are about low-carb, they're about eating the wrong foods. Unless you intend to argue that people who don't eat low-carb never suffer deficiencies or eat a bad diet. You can have problems either way, that's why it's valuable to have people give advice who have experience of these problems. And for many people here, it has been apparently necessary to go low-carb. You may not believe it, but that really doesn't matter. And we've mentioned weight loss before, as the place a lot of people are coming from. Not that you listened

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 07:27 PM

Normal distribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution "Paleo diets are not definitive" They vary because the ecology has varied. And yet we are only just out of africa. That's why I think the East African data has great value. We are still tropical beings. And so, Paleo diets CAN be defined roughly, and that is good enough. In fact they MUST be, to be of any use to the general public.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 25, 2012
at 10:13 PM

There are lots of potential red flags for low carb diets Danny, and it's simply not necessary... A TO Z "Akins" was actually 30^. Potential problems long-term include deficiency due to low water soluble vitamins, too much protein, increased likelihood of organ failure, osteoporosis from too much acid-forming foods, etc. It's just not necessary to eat low carb, even for weight loss and all of these problems can be avoided by eating at least 100g carbs. At 2000 calories that would be 20% only. That same 100g carb would be 27% of a 1500 calorie diet. A TO Z was 30% carb.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 07:11 PM

Oh and I didn't say define by macros alone, yet again you make assumptions, I never said that. Macros matter, EVERYTHING is a cause, and everything has its EFFECT.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 11:35 AM

I am not saying those problem can ONLY happen on low-carb but I am saying that low-carb is BOUND to result in these problems, it is highly acid-forming and very low in water soluble vitamins, ETC. Hence my concern.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 07:06 PM

And the best generic advice, is the most likely to produce the BEST outcomes for everyone. My problem is with people giving generic low-carb advice, carb phobia, fruit phobia etc. What exactly is your problem with that Danny cos you seem to be doing a lot of dancing around.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:01 PM

Mscott: You may have a point if lots of organ meats are used, a more "whole animal" approach, I've not looked in-depth at that. I heard scurvy is a problem.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 26, 2012
at 06:37 PM

No, it's not bound to happen. That's like saying people are bound to develop diabetes/heart disease etc. if they eat a low-fat diet. In fact defining any diet by macro ratios can leave you open to massive nutritional deficiencies. It's the detail that is important, and is why there is so much advice available. And your insistence on the value of moderation is appallingly simplistic, and seemingly the best you can do. It's rarely a correct assumption, and relying on it is intellectually bankrupt. Paleo is not definitive.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 26, 2012
at 07:18 PM

Oh and, you still seem to have a problem curtailing the personal abuse.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 27, 2012
at 10:11 AM

I know what a normal distribution is, I've been calling you on it for days. I can't teach a remedial statistics class here. Similarly I evidently can't teach you that the mean of a set of data is not necessarily the safest option, or even necessarily a physically realistic one. Perhaps next time I'll have my two year-old niece explain it to you. And my opinion is that you're way way way behind the times on your phobias, that the balance of advice given on this site is fairly good, and that for many they get the best results from a low-carb approach. Very few recommend it in the long term.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:54 PM

There was a study recently where some diabetic Aborigines went back to the bush and did hunter-gathering again. Their diabetes went away.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:09 AM

Hey Mike, I was reading this discussion and felt like saying: meat may be an "acid forming" food, but it doesn't appear to induce osteoporosis. And there are tons of water soluble vitamins in organ meats and seafood. I'm not the biggest fan of low carb diets, but those aren't very good arguements.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:12 PM

Danny: "remedial" a new all time low for you, congrats! Yes, I would rather talk to your niece, as no doubt, even at the age of 2, she has learnt better manners.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:44 PM

Danny: "some have genuine experience of certain foods (eg. fruit) hampering their progress." I think we have to be careful about cause and effect.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:47 PM

Danny: "This may not be a perfect way to guide people but it's not any more dangerous than anything else." Well. the advice I've seen does not say "do generic and then n=1," it was just low-carb dogma. If it (7 billion) is not the perfect way to guide people, then perhaps we'd be wise to perfect the way we guide people, and not give them bad advice. I haven't "moved on" because you keep retorting, to which I feel moved to reply, and to keep reminding you that Paleo, is not low-carb.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 07:58 PM

"The aim was to determine the composition and range of dietary macronutrients and fatty acids under which the human genome evolved, and which would likely support modern day health and well-being."

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 05:53 PM

"When the diet yields a net acid load (such as low-carb fad diets that restrict consumption of fruits and vegetables), the acid must be buffered by the alkaline stores of base in the body. Calcium salts in the bones represent the largest store of alkaline base in the body and are depleted and eliminated in the urine when the diet produces a net acid load. http://thepaleodiet.com/nutritional-tools/acid-base-balance

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 07:19 PM

Estimated macronutrient and fatty acid intakes from an East African Paleolithic diet. "We investigated selective and non-selective savannah, savannah/aquatic and aquatic hunter-gatherer/scavenger foraging strategies. 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)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20860883

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 30, 2012
at 12:40 PM

The point is Danny, that assuming therapeutic intervention is not required, our vitamin and mineral needs can be added to what we know about HG macro ratios to provide a pretty crisp generic picture. We can't get away from this need to generalize. The clearer we are, the easier it will be to do. Change is hard enough; confusion is a real obstacle.

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 06:41 PM

Danny: "I evidently can't teach you that the mean of a set of data is not necessarily the safest option" Most hunter-gatherers eat roughly in line with that pointy bit in the middle Danny. What, then, in YOUR opinion is the safest option, given that generic advice is essential, even if that generic advice contain caveats, ideally?

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 28, 2012
at 07:22 PM

Full paper: http://thepaleodiet.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/EstimatedmacronutrientandfattyacidintakesfromanEastAfricanPaleolithicdiet1.pdf

C3f9730405f7885f9ccaad364404c433

(412)

on June 30, 2012
at 01:01 PM

I have noticed that Robb Wolf's strategy is "assume metabolic problems." I think that is far too "sledge hammer." Generic plus variations is the way to go imo.

Ccacf7567273244733bc991af4ac42ed

(5198)

on June 30, 2012
at 10:13 AM

Scurvy? lololololol

0
F92f0b6a3fe3d45a489e020076904f2f

on November 15, 2013
at 05:41 AM

Lustig would hardly say eat only two pieces of fruit a day...

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!