0

votes

What happened to this site?

Commented on June 13, 2014
Created June 05, 2014 at 10:28 PM

[Original] This used to be a great site. Now, every day my RSS feed is clogged with hundreds of spam posts on Paleohacks. I've had enough. You really need to fix this, because things are going downhill fast.

[Edit] Please direct all suggestions on how to improve the PaleoHacks website to [OFFICIAL] Restoring PaleoHacks Features . All concerns will be addressed.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 13, 2014
at 01:25 AM

food logs are not paleo. they didn't even have paper, much less fitday.com

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on June 12, 2014
at 07:18 PM

You cut carbs, which was a cut in calories. You are not eating more than you were.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on June 12, 2014
at 07:18 PM

You can totally believe all self-reported numbers, especially from people who don't measure and log their food!

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 06:05 PM

Also I should add that in three of those studies, the Paleo participants claimed that they were eating more calories than before.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 06:04 PM

for those who are not used to energy conversions. 5.8MJ = 1386 kCal | 7.6MJ = 1816 kCal

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 06:00 PM

ragardless of the fact that I have provided you with numerous studies to refute your claims, my challenge persists. So me one study where caloric intake was measured to be above caloric expenditure and the group loss a statistically meaningful amount of weight, and I will no longer suggest counting calories as a valid weight loss tool

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 05:58 PM

and again, "paleolithic dieters ate fewer total calories than the comparison group"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19604407

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 05:57 PM

Another one, this one is controlled for caloric deficit (don't look now, but they don't loose weight)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Retrieve&li...

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 05:55 PM

Another one, "Greater voluntary reduction in caloric intake (total intake paleo= 1,344 kcal; Med= 1,795)"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Retrieve&li...

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 05:54 PM

Another one, "'Paleo' participants decreased their caloric intake from 2,478 to 1,584 kcal"

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v62/n5/abs/1602...

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 05:53 PM

Another one, "The Paleolithic group were as satiated as the Mediterranean group but consumed less energy per day (5.8 MJ/day vs. 7.6 MJ/day, Paleolithic vs. Mediterranean, p = 0.04)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21118562

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 05:51 PM

you won't find any because they do not exist. Every single clinical study of the "Paleo Diet" has shown that most people will lower their caloric intake (with or without counting calories) while following the paleo diet. Those that do, lose weight. Those that do not, do not lose weight.

To quote the research scientist, "Despite receiving no instruction to reduce calorie intake, the Paleolithic group only ate 1,388 calories per day, compared to 1,823 calories per day for the Mediterranean group"

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 05:47 PM

please show me one scientific study that shows people can eat at a caloric surplus and lose weight. I will never discuss calorie counting again if you can show me that a caloric surplus is the key to losing weight. Just one, you have tons, I'm just asking for one legit study.

7f29798356288404931574a004171069

(0)

on June 12, 2014
at 05:09 PM

how I said before (and you Ignored) there're tons of people with the same results, and yes, there are tons of studies about it. but some people only read what is convenient to themselves :)

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 02:30 PM

this would be good to move to this conversation: http://paleohacks.com/questions/526362/official-me...

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 02:14 PM

now who is the sweet talker?

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on June 12, 2014
at 02:12 PM

So far you have an epidemiological study with a sample size of 1. Perhaps some scientific literature/larger epidemiological studies/ clinical trials/ meta analysis which agree with your statement would turn more heads than the ramblings and rantings of a new member with relatively little credibility.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 02:09 PM

Good for you. And I am very glad that you are seeing weight loss. But there has not been a single, scientifically documented, case where a hypercaloric state has caused weight loss.

For you it's either:

1. Poor measurements techniques for total calories

2. Poor understanding of the calories out concept

3. Offset by other factors

In fact it has been throughly researched that HFLC in hypercaloric state is worse that LFHC

* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8792099

* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22324306

7f29798356288404931574a004171069

(0)

on June 12, 2014
at 02:03 PM

There are a huge number of cases where people lose weight just cutting carbs. Since I stopped eating cabs I lost a good amount of fat, and I swear you, I am eating A LOT of fat, everyday. Much more calories than before.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 01:59 PM

Calories do matter. The problem with calories in/ calories out is that we do not have the means to properly measure calories out. But we do know that Potatoes (for example) take more calories to digest than comparable caloric serving sugar. Thus the potato, while the same calories in, also has higher calories out -- thus less total calories for energy. Additionally, potatoes are highly satiating, whereas sugar is not. Thus fewer total daily calories.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 01:58 PM

In every clinical study of the Paleo diet, the majority of subjects on the paleo diet reduced their caloric loads without counting calories. Those that did, lost weight. Those that did not, did not lose weight.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 01:56 PM

calorie counting is one of the most studied dietary practices. It is also regarded as the single most effective mechanism for losing weight. There is no ambiguity there. There has not been a single study where calorie counting lost to a non-calorie counting practice. Traditional Paleo (without calorie counting) works through removing hyperpalatable foods and replacing it with low calorie high satiating foods.

7f29798356288404931574a004171069

(0)

on June 12, 2014
at 01:27 PM

In general. It's not about some variable concepts like consuming dairy or potatoes, it's about totally absurd advices, like counting calories and things like this. It's certainly confusing who comes to learn about paleo.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 01:19 PM

is that here or within the paleo community in general? If you look at gurus, Wolff, Kresser, Sisson, Guyenet, Eades, etc -- none are "100% Paleo" any more. The problem with Paleo (as opposed to Atkins or Weight Watchers) is that there is not an authoritative source. Thus disagreemtns abound.

5b9a25a1a676397a25579dfad59e1d7b

(2318)

on June 12, 2014
at 11:42 AM

I see that -- awesome :)

B7b503a8fe916f7e67b20afc4137e9f6

on June 06, 2014
at 05:05 PM

@Linds we're getting that setup. :)

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on June 06, 2014
at 03:25 PM

If you check out http://paleohacks.com/questions/526362/official-meta-restoring-paleohacks-features-meta-o.html, Header 2 #3 and Header 2 #7 have minimum point requirements for posting links and mandatory email validation. These are two methods we think should cut down on spam. Please post an answer here as well if you have any spam cutting recommendations. I'll add it to the list as long as it is feasible!

6498694060d879a7960b35913539b75f

(1307)

on June 06, 2014
at 03:12 PM

Inclusive is nice, but I don't think necessary. I think there needs to be a period of moderation for newbies before their posts go straight through. Most newbie questions can be answered by them searching and reading previous posts anyway.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 06, 2014
at 09:49 AM

It really is a shame. Spammers don't realize that by polluting the blogs they drive away traffic. Paleohacks isn't the only blog being damaged by this spew of rubbish.

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on June 06, 2014
at 04:15 AM

Please address all constructive feedback to the active thread of [OFFICIAL] Restoring PaleoHacks Features.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on June 06, 2014
at 02:56 AM

"We have a really constructive thread in the meta section titled Restoring PaleoHacks Features."

It's just a bit of a shame that the Meta section is not easy/obvious to find, esp if your client is a smartphone (or similar).

(in case anyone is wondering what Meta section is...you can get there by clicking on 'Help'. Help=Meta...right?).

@stephen-4 another one for your list perhaps...have questions posted in the help/meta section (space) show up under the 'all questions' section (Default space). This is how it use to work before the site change (if i recall correctly).

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on June 06, 2014
at 02:12 AM

I definitely want to see a better PH just like you do, as a web developer I'm doing my small part to compile a formal list. I would be happy to email you a final copy of it. If you'd like to put some input in there, just send me an email as mentioned in the above thread or post an answer! As a member with 1513 points I'd hate to see you leave, I'm sure everyone here values your feedback even if people really don't +1 as much as they should, lol.

Cb9a270955e2c277a02c4a4b5dad10b5

(10989)

on June 06, 2014
at 02:10 AM

Hey PaleoDel, I closed your question and I'm just a long time subscriber like you. I'm not a mod, I just have 10k+ points. The only reason I closed this is because it definitely seems argumentative. We have a really constructive thread in the meta section titled Restoring PaleoHacks Features. In there I've been compiling a list of all the features that people would like to see on PH. I think you can unsubscribe to a lot of the posts you've been getting and one of the features we're wanting to add is email validation and minimum points to post links.

6498694060d879a7960b35913539b75f

(1307)

on June 06, 2014
at 01:56 AM

Post has been edited to remove argumentative language.

  • 6498694060d879a7960b35913539b75f

    asked by

    (1307)
  • Views
    1.9K
  • Last Activity
    1497D AGO
Frontpage book

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

4 Answers

0
Medium avatar

on June 12, 2014
at 02:21 PM

capcha, but please make it simple, I am a human and I have to keep changing the picture until I get a readable one with several types of capcha's

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 02:30 PM

this would be good to move to this conversation: http://paleohacks.com/questions/526362/official-me...

0
7f29798356288404931574a004171069

on June 12, 2014
at 12:53 PM

The main problem here, actually, is the degeneration of the paleo concepts. Most of the advices given here are totally out of the paleo premises. I don't know what happened, but it's definitely NOT a paleo environment anymore.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 12, 2014
at 01:19 PM

is that here or within the paleo community in general? If you look at gurus, Wolff, Kresser, Sisson, Guyenet, Eades, etc -- none are "100% Paleo" any more. The problem with Paleo (as opposed to Atkins or Weight Watchers) is that there is not an authoritative source. Thus disagreemtns abound.

7f29798356288404931574a004171069

(0)

on June 12, 2014
at 01:27 PM

In general. It's not about some variable concepts like consuming dairy or potatoes, it's about totally absurd advices, like counting calories and things like this. It's certainly confusing who comes to learn about paleo.

7f29798356288404931574a004171069

(0)

on June 12, 2014
at 02:03 PM

There are a huge number of cases where people lose weight just cutting carbs. Since I stopped eating cabs I lost a good amount of fat, and I swear you, I am eating A LOT of fat, everyday. Much more calories than before.

0
5b9a25a1a676397a25579dfad59e1d7b

(2318)

on June 06, 2014
at 04:28 PM

Perhaps this has already been done (or maybe its a bad idea), but what about an email verification required after you sign up and/or (gasp) a captcha before you can post?

B7b503a8fe916f7e67b20afc4137e9f6

on June 06, 2014
at 05:05 PM

@Linds we're getting that setup. :)

0
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on June 06, 2014
at 12:53 PM

@PaleoDel,

We are working at managing the spam on the site, however as Paleohacks is currently configured we cannot prevent Spammers from posting questions. We try to delete them as quickly as possible (and I hope regular users of the site have noticed), but they will still show up in the RSS feed.

We have had several suggestions of potential solutions that @Stephen 4 is working with @DavidSinick to be more proactive, but this site has always been designed to be inclusive -- and when that happens asshats will take advantage.

6498694060d879a7960b35913539b75f

(1307)

on June 06, 2014
at 03:12 PM

Inclusive is nice, but I don't think necessary. I think there needs to be a period of moderation for newbies before their posts go straight through. Most newbie questions can be answered by them searching and reading previous posts anyway.

Answer Question


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