22

votes

Paleo isn't low carb anymore... but it kind of was.

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created July 23, 2011 at 2:41 AM

I'm not a paleo long timer by any means. But I've been around for a little while and kept a close ear to the ground for my entire stint in the paleo realm. A common complaint among power users here is that paleo isn't low carb. Granted. The paleo paradigm does not necessitate low carb for a lot of reasons. But around a year ago, the story was pretty different. Just about everyone in the paleo world was suggesting the low carb diet for almost everyone. The diet then was more try 30 days of grains, legumes, dairy free while restricting your carb intake. People were freakin' scared of potatoes. People could eat some fruit and maybe, maybe a post workout yam. If you weren't constantly dipping into ketosis and peeing onto a keto stick, you were weird. The norm was low carb.

I'm not exactly sure what happened. My guess is that a lot of people were suffering from performance issues and stellar post by Stephan Guynet, Kurt Harris, Paul Jaminet and Chris MasterHacks slowly started tilting the balance towards a carb agonistic paradigm. All that matters is that a more reasonable position won out. Even to this day, Mark Sisson is running scared of anything more than 150g of carbohydrates. He calls anything over 150g of carbs a recipe for "insidious weight gain." TS Wiley thinks that we're all going to die painful, painful deaths for dozens of reasons but carbs in the winter tops her list. Nora Gedgaudas is also huge on the LC bandwagon. The fear of carbs is still in the background.

Low carb will probably always be recommend in paleo diet books as it's helpful for weightloss in the metabolically deranged. For a lot a people, paleo is all about weight loss and so the paleo figure heads who recommend low carb will probably get better results and thus be more popular. This low carb issue is going to be around haunting us for a while.

Am I crazy or is this really how the low-carb history of paleo went? Were carbs always welcome in the paleo scene?

F77c6462cf6596fe6dabeeb5931821ab

(365)

on August 26, 2011
at 01:09 AM

I didn't pick up any of the sarcasm either =(

669790861549f3c6d54d88a65296ed19

(452)

on August 17, 2011
at 01:05 PM

Well the carb content might be calculated high but keep in mind it's probably calculated with low/moderate proteine and lowfat. I think if you'll eat paleofoods recommended by the calculator while still eating moderate/lots of preoteine&fat&fatty cuts you'll gain a lot!

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 31, 2011
at 03:04 PM

Well put, Mark. My request has been ignored so I seem to be still around. The context of the phantom paleo fruit would seem to me to be an important aspect in discovering what "real paleo" is, but I guess many researchers and proponents are capable of leaving "real science" behind when it comes to guarding pet theories.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 30, 2011
at 11:02 PM

Well put, Mark. My request has been ignored so I seem to be still around. The context of the phantom paleo fruit would seem to me to be an important aspect in discovering what "real paleo" is, but I guess many researchers and proponents are capable of leaving "real science" behind when it comes to guarding pet theories.

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 28, 2011
at 05:08 PM

Hey Patrik, haven't thought much about it lately, but I will post a question when I think I can help advance the discussion. In the meantime look out for some real life paleo/real food marriages. ;-) And I'm curious what will come out of the AHS along that line

6fa48935d439390e223b9a053a62c981

(1676)

on July 27, 2011
at 02:28 PM

I think it's sad that this paleohacker has decided to leave, but I can understand why he feels unwelcome. This could have been an interesting discussion but degenerated into something less when Melissa called him "completely ignorant." Not satisfied, she then stated "I'd surmise you are quite a bit older than I am anyway and there has been more research done since then. –," which is clearly an unbidden insult. This is specifically what started this whole exchange. Why can't we just state our mutually exclusive positions and agree to disagree??

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 06:06 PM

And one last comment - my call for civility was met with yet more hostility, and this from a moderator. My original post in the thread was landed on with both feet in a rather ad hominem and puerile manner. The FAQ states "We can disagree like adults. Be respectful" but I see that's a one-way street. This is a very polarizing and intolerant forum and I think I'm done here. Please delete my acount.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 05:58 PM

Children of the Ice Age by Steven Stanley was where I first learned of the woodland shrinkage. How it is relevant is exactly how I explained it in my post-turned-edit. Reread if you need to.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 05:58 PM

"The separate species and subspecies developed from a single type of gorilla during the Ice Age, when their forest habitats shrank and became isolated from each other." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 05:57 PM

Melissa, it was gorilla, gorilla then and it's gorilla, gorilla now, except for the divergent subspecies. Would you say that about sharks. You seem to jump to conclusions very fast.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 05:31 PM

Melissa, the context into which the Minger paper was placed and your usage of the word "also" made it an adjunct premise. The message was clear then even if you're attempting a distinction now.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 05:28 PM

Melissa, in one comment you proclaim to be a google scholar and in another you want citations provided. I'm getting whiplash.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 05:13 PM

@A.J. Aguirre: You don't have to be deeply sorry for anything. (Tongue-in-cheek, I know) You might want the read a long edit that deals with this that was added to another answer of mine. It was originally posted as a separate answer but Melissa decided she didn't want questions "cluttered up" with answers, so she moved to place where it wouldn't get much notice.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on July 26, 2011
at 06:30 AM

So, Michael, I am digging your predictions -- what is next?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on July 25, 2011
at 10:16 PM

Eat opportunistically (there's some smoked pork butt calling my name tonight) and put your underused paleo appendages to work. Connect activity with eating. This works for me to stay healthy at age 58, though at 54 I was diabetic wreckage.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 25, 2011
at 09:23 PM

and no one ever said Minger's post was evidence of high carbs in the paleolithic, it was evidence against the idea that wild fruit is tiny, low-sugar, and unpalatable. We don't need that post to bolster arguments about carbs in the paleolithic, you can go on Google scholar and type in starch grain analysis, legumes +paleolithic, starch +paleolithic, roots +paleolithic, paleolithic grinding stones, or other keywords and get hundreds of scientific papers on the subject.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 25, 2011
at 09:19 PM

Also please provide citations for the idea that there are few roots and tubers in grasslands or that gorillas of 2.5 million years ago are relevant (hint, whatever ape was around back then it was not a modern gorilla).

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 25, 2011
at 09:16 PM

lol YOU are telling others to have a little humility? Thought you had the definitive paleo diet? Please edit your original answers and refrain from cluttering up this post with new posts.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 25, 2011
at 04:59 PM

It's metabolically very different than a 12 oz soda. Glucose vs. sucrose. That's what that crazy sugar is death guy runs around yelling about. Fructose is the "bad one" and that hasn't been proven yet. That said, what defines paleo is not "low carb."

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 25, 2011
at 06:06 AM

wonderful melissa*<3<3

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on July 25, 2011
at 01:07 AM

(continued from ^^^) IMHO, to overall, high chronic carb level intake for *many* individuals. Relative to SAD carb recommendations and certainly vegetarian intakes, paleo carb intakes, for the majority of people, *will* likely hover at about *half* the amount of standard recommended carb requirements.And IMHO, many will establish that an even lower level is optimum for their needs. And yeah, there will be outliers with 500GM intakes. Maybe their genetics will support that lifelong and maybe not. I've known lots of stick men in their 20's and 30's who = doughboy in 40's, 50's, etc.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on July 25, 2011
at 12:53 AM

@Baconbitch: Welcome! And for clarification: I do not support the recommended level of carb intake, as per the calculator. The point of the calculator is to put some recommended and experiential carb intakes on a paleo diet in *perspective.* On paleo we have a *continuum* of carb intakes for different metabolic needs/issues, for different fitness/activity levels and goals, for different individually defined needs, *and* IMHO, to have a healthy diet that not only can *treat* obesity and multiple *serious* health issues, but can prevent them. Not *all* but a # of these issues *will* be related

Medium avatar

(207)

on July 24, 2011
at 07:59 PM

Interesting point, but isn't that more precisely a predecessor to "the Paleo diet"? (As you point out, it advocates whole wheat bread, for fiber if I remember correctly.) It reaches the public via Cordain, de Vany, maybe even the Eadeses, and by that point it's completely low-carb. The whole "movement" starts out low-carb. Sometimes I wonder whether all the people who are now reintroducing carbs to their diets respond better to them after adjusting their diets with a period of orthodox "paleo" low-carb eating... I'm eating relatively high-carb these days, so not a knee-jerk attack on carbs.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 24, 2011
at 07:15 PM

I mean 46%......

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 24, 2011
at 07:14 PM

Max, supposedly "paleo" was based on early human dietary practices. That's how they sold it. Either way, the original Boyd Eaton/Melvin Konner paper published in 1989 was not low-carb, it recommended 46 carbohydrate!!

Medium avatar

(207)

on July 24, 2011
at 06:38 PM

"Paleo" refers to a contemporary dietary practice, not early human dietary practices in the Paleolithic. As the OP has explained, the "Paleo diet" has been low-carb until probably 2011. It can certainly change, and probably should, but the history is quite clear.

149af6e19a06675614dfbb6838a7d7c0

(3202)

on July 24, 2011
at 04:13 PM

Pale-O-Girl I dig that response. We are all together in the same camp. Some of us are just a little more deranged than the others. United we stand, divided we fall.

Aa1d5fbb9d8051538161c9a03afd384e

(226)

on July 24, 2011
at 03:22 PM

@edrice: I'm deeply sorry for my inaccuracy... I guess my ironic point wasn't perceived, so now I'd like to clarify that when I said "potatoes" what I really meant was starchy tubers like Yam, and when I said mangoes and pineapple what I really meant was "any carb rich tropical fruit" as monkey-oranges, watermelons, AFRICAN bush mangoes, atanga... A word to the wise is sufficient...

Aa1d5fbb9d8051538161c9a03afd384e

(226)

on July 24, 2011
at 03:17 PM

@edrice: I'm deeply sorry for my inaccuracy... I guess my ironic point wasn't perceived, so now I'd like to clarify that when I said "potatoes" what I really meant was starchy tubers like Yam, and when I said mangoes and pineapple what I really meant was "any carb rich tropical fruit" as monkey-oranges, watermelons, AFRICAN bush mangoes, atanga... A word to the wise is sufficient...

Aa1d5fbb9d8051538161c9a03afd384e

(226)

on July 24, 2011
at 03:15 PM

I'm deeply sorry for my inaccuracy... I guess my ironic point wasn't perceived, so now I'd like to clarify that when I said "potatoes" what I really meant was starchy tubers like Yam, and when I said mangoes and pineapple what I really meant was "any carb rich tropical fruit" as monkey-oranges, watermelons, AFRICAN bush mangoes, atanga... A word to the wise is sufficient...

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 24, 2011
at 03:10 PM

My bad :P - Probably because I was only interacting with you on twitter at the time.

6fa48935d439390e223b9a053a62c981

(1676)

on July 24, 2011
at 01:25 PM

Ed, I voted you up just for moral support, though you could have been a little more...delicate (on this forum that's critical). I've been paleo since 2002 and have watched with interest as paleo began to incorporate Taubes, paleonu, and other influences. In doing so, I think "paleo" has both gained and lost some things. For example, a medium baked potato could be "in" for some paleos, even though it's metabolically very similar to a 12 oz. soda, which is definitely out for every paleo. In fact, some paleos seem more like Weston A. Price advocates than paleo. What defines "paleo" anymore?

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 24, 2011
at 12:25 PM

<3 grok!!!!!!!!!

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 24, 2011
at 12:24 PM

What should we eat? Well it depends on the person and what they have access too. If I had the means necessary such as yourself to actually test specific health markers that would be awesome but unfortunately all I have atm is intuition. So far my intituition tells me high carb is the best for me and I don;t see that changing any time soon.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on July 24, 2011
at 12:12 PM

This is a good post with some insight will show people how epigenetic switches really work. We can eat high carb and low carb paleo......that is not the real question. What should we eat is the question

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on July 24, 2011
at 12:10 PM

A good discussion gone bad over ego. I'm with you cliff. We need to appreciate our differences and continue to share ideas

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on July 24, 2011
at 12:05 PM

Problem is what i do to procure this data for me and my family is quite expensive now. I see that changing overtime allowing everyone to really test their diet against their epigenetic switches

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on July 24, 2011
at 12:03 PM

Yes Melissa I do.....

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 24, 2011
at 06:08 AM

I voted you up cliff. See I don't hate you ;)

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 24, 2011
at 06:06 AM

Michael, you forgot about me ;) I was dropping fruit bomb tweets almost in the middle of paleo zero-carb mania. Ha-ha.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 24, 2011
at 05:39 AM

Bahahaha! Thanks for the core workout. Attn: Paleohacks, if you eat you are not paleo. Hell, cut out all foods and become breathairian you are not paleo. There are neolithic agents in the air you breath.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 24, 2011
at 05:31 AM

Calc says, "Daily carb requirement 416." Sounds like breakfast.

B3e7d1ab5aeb329fe24cca1de1a0b09c

(5242)

on July 24, 2011
at 05:18 AM

This posts of Kurt's somewhat gets into his own macro ratios and how they have changed - http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/6/thoughts-on-ketosis-i.html

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 24, 2011
at 05:02 AM

Yeah, he also doesn't preferer lipogenesis kicking in for similar reasons.

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 24, 2011
at 04:45 AM

Ha! Melissa's line looks to be permanently closed (and I'd like to think I had a weee little bit to do with that) but I thought I would throw that tongue in cheek comment out there just to let her know how much I appreciate her comments and blogging, even from the very beginning days of her blog.

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 24, 2011
at 04:40 AM

"fruitaholics," "starchaholics," dogma fueled by emotional attachment because of age (I wonder how old Harris is, 50 maybe?) -hmmmm...sound logical response to what has been offered here. :P

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 24, 2011
at 03:51 AM

Get in line Michael

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on July 24, 2011
at 03:04 AM

"Real Paleo" is silly.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 24, 2011
at 03:00 AM

lol this reminds me of when my militant vegan uncle told me I invented the paleo diet because I just loved the taste of meat so much I had to make up crap to justify it.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 24, 2011
at 02:58 AM

I don't think my dad is an arrogant youngster (http://huntgatherlove.com/node/186) or my 85-year-old academic advisor.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 24, 2011
at 02:57 AM

Whether or not you do well on starch has nothing to do with the paleolithic and everything to do with genetics and epigenetic variation.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:54 AM

That's actually quite interesting, Rose. Just to clarify, I am a believer in context. Low-carb for some, higher-carb for others. I just get irked by people talking about dogmatic "real" paleo. And ageism. Ageism sucks.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:44 AM

"You could possibly call yourself paleo. Or you could just forget about all the carbs and be really paleo."------- **OR you could eat what you think is best for you and not call it anything.**

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 24, 2011
at 02:44 AM

size doesn't matter, women (mostly) go to a great deal of trouble to gather for hours and hours every single damn day, often afterwards they must pulverize whatever starch they get with stones and some starch must also be rinsed and soaked. The food supply is definitely less prevalent than it was in the paleolithic and the few cultures that survive this way this is a full time profession. Gathering some berries on a hike doesn't give you the sense of how intense this pursuit of starch is.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:40 AM

FWIW, evolutionary biologist Michael Rose thinks age is a pertinent factor in how one should eat. Specifically, he thinks Eurasians may be well-adapted to a higher-carb agricultural diet until they pass their reproductive prime, when forces of natural selection stop "caring" about their fitness: http://55theses.org/2011/03/18/thesis-50/

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:40 AM

True that. But I hardly think that's a reason for him to stereotype young adults as "prone to excepting theories as long as it meshes with emotional attachments" and having an arrogant and patronizing tone. We shall see if my "starchaholic" ways will lead me to bad health in the long run and bring me back to the "real paleo". Only if I'm knowledgeable, that is.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:32 AM

@Phoenix, I hope you're right but only time will tell what the "crap" foods are, for you. Edrice wasn't eating a SAD diet. He was eating in accordance with his take on the (alt)science of the times, just like you are.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:29 AM

@Phoenix, I hope you're right but only time will tell what the "crap" foods are, for you. Edrice wasn't eating a SAD diet. He was eating in accordance the (alt)science of the times, just like you are.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:25 AM

Heh, yeah Masterhacks is good. A step up from Answerjohn.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:25 AM

Heh, yeah Masterhacks is good. I step up from Answerjohn.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 24, 2011
at 01:42 AM

By the way, I upvoted your original comment over on Jack's VAP thread, because it was a smart answer. But this ageism crap is just silly and immature, Ed.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 24, 2011
at 01:34 AM

Hey if it works for you and you're happy, that's all that matters. Best of luck with losing what you want!

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 24, 2011
at 01:33 AM

Really? You're going to take a personal stab at people just because they're young? Maybe the fact that I and other young'uns do better on higher carb is because we haven't screwed ourselves up on 64 years of crap foods. Default paleo should be what is healthy for a healthy person, not what is healthy for a metabolically deranged person.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on July 24, 2011
at 01:32 AM

LOL. I'd upvote again, but I already did over there, and it doesn't quite seem fair. http://paleohacks.com/questions/50347/hack-jack-kronks-vap-test-results/53462#53462

91d422b073139d35e0856967ba1c21d6

(1054)

on July 23, 2011
at 11:31 PM

I think it's fortunate that the weight-loss voice is so loud because that's what brings the most new people into the fold -- people who (like me) are too fat. That voice wasn't loud enough for me to hear until this year and I've been an avid diet-er for decades. If Paleo truly does work to help a person lose fat and keep it off, then it's just a matter of time before the person moves from one "camp" into the other for good. Isn't it really one camp, with the less healthy members needing to restrict carbs until they are healthier and can stop doing that?

A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

(4183)

on July 23, 2011
at 11:16 PM

Good point. And the irony of that is that Paul is a big believer that glucose becomes toxic beyond a certain threshold exceeded by many healthy hunter gatherer societies.

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 23, 2011
at 11:10 PM

I'm not sure as to his own personal numbers so I would call it more of an acknowledgement than a "switch". As to the post (comment actually IIRC) I am referring to its buried somewhere on his site, but if you type in "Archevore" in the search box you will see the post explaining the changes he has made in his thinking.

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 23, 2011
at 11:06 PM

Melissa, have I ever told you that I love you? LOL

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 23, 2011
at 10:41 PM

Masterjohn for sure has been a major reference in the WAPF/WAP community much longer than in paleo circles. However the same can not be said of Stephan Guyenet.

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 23, 2011
at 10:39 PM

Yes Denise Minger in a recent post pretty much killed the assumption that fruit was necessarily lower sugar in the wild or during more primitive times.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on July 23, 2011
at 10:17 PM

There's something suspiciously Neolithic here about playing yo mama with college degrees. Hunting and gathering is a more valid expression of paleo lifestyle than eating carrion and blowflies.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 23, 2011
at 10:03 PM

I feel dumber having read this post....

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 09:35 PM

Paul Jaminet was the one, I believe, that first started emphasizing the fact that macro-nutrients are still nutrients and that makes glucose a nutrient. He was crucial in promoting the idea that carbohydrates are not just tolerated but are important for health. Gluconeogenesis is a stressful process. By not having adequate glucose in the diet, people put their body under undue stress.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 09:20 PM

I've spend a lot of time in wilderness the food supply is just not as prevalent as you make it out to be. I get a sense that you are younger.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 09:20 PM

Melissa, I might also add I that my post was referred to as "ignorant of anthropology." That was an assumption. Then the next assumption was that I had only a single class. The next assumption was that because I am older that I took anthropology a long time ago prior to more recent enlightenment. All of these assumptions have been wrong. Anthropology (and paleo studies) has long been an intense avocation of mine and I have shelves literally full anthropology, evolution, archaeology, geology tomes plus I regularly accompany groups documenting remote rock art sites for the BLM. (continued)

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 23, 2011
at 09:17 PM

Uh, did you even read what I wrote? I never argued against the size. I argued against the fact that the size would restrict dear Grok from eating them past a certain point. Just because they're smaller doesn't mean our ancestors would have gotten less carbs eating them; I don't eat less steak when it's cut up into smaller pieces. And actually, the wild blueberries I pick here in Ontario in the summer are about 90% the size of the ones I buy at the grocery store. But I think this blueberry discussion we are having here is kind of irrelevant to the topic. My bad for blowing it up. :)

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 08:56 PM

Melissa, you make it sound as it there were a cornucopia of "thousands" of carrots and parsnips, a lush paradise, just waiting to be plucked out of the ground and succored in bliss. Where this falls flat on it's face is that most hunter-gatherer tribes were nomadic. When the fauna were depleted, they moved to more abundant territory. Carrots didn't keep them there. In summer they moved up into the mountains and in winter back to lower ground. And what carbs they could gather along the way were only available at certain times of the year.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on July 23, 2011
at 08:42 PM

That question is redundant. But it doesn't surprise me, nor does all the downvoting. Seems to be a sensitive topic. I'm sorry to see people fighting over semantics and assumptions instead of trying to understand what is healthiest.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 08:40 PM

If the size thing is what offends you, then please stick to the seasonal aspect and deal with that part. The reason I brought up the size is that anytime I have picked and eaten wild blueberries they have always been small and my wife grew up in northern Maine and has never seen large ones. That's not out of a textbook or somebody's blog. That is my own direct, empirical evidence, as anecdotal as it may be. But please, if you have knowledge of large ones, I'm open.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 23, 2011
at 08:19 PM

I have a bunch of papers I need to write about, but overall if you look at the San diet they work very hard to procure sources of starch.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:59 PM

Hunt gather love. Good paradigm for being human. Mine is "hungry move eat", emphasizing the way the three should be connected. But I cold add a fourth term for love. We survive as a commonwealth - humans wold have died out ad individuals.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:58 PM

Melissa - I would LOVE it if you shared some research in relation to what Devore stated. Let me ask - were you LC then went up to 150g/day? And if so, what was the difference in how you felt both mentally and physically?

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:54 PM

I of course read all of what you said. The fact that you even mentioned blueberry size and how it has some impact is why I called you out on it. Also, definitely read that blog post by Denise Minger that @Curated Wellness posted up there.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 23, 2011
at 07:52 PM

Blueberries? Well, maybe they ate some Umbelliferae roots or one of the thousands of other species that ancient people exploited. Even the Inuit eat roots.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 23, 2011
at 07:49 PM

Sorry, taking a single anthropology class doesn't make you an expert. I'd surmise you are quite a bit older than I am anyway and there has been more research done since then.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:49 PM

@mem - thanks for that calculator! Holy kriky, it tells me to eat 223 grams per day as a 5'1" female. Sheesh! I can't eat that much on paleo. I would have to eat a boatload of potatoes/tubers. I've added white rice but even that won't help. I'm going to try it though! I agree with Rob and think my low carb-ness has actually been detrimental for me. BTW - Great frikkin question!

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:48 PM

Phoenix, there's that context thing again. Yes, you ate a bunch of wild blueberries for a short time, Then they were gone till next year. What did you eat then? If you read all of what I said, it might help make sense.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:46 PM

Phoenix, there's that context thing again. Yes, you ate a bunch of wild blueberries for a short time, Then they were gone till next year. What did you eat then? If read all of what I said, it might help make sense.

62f89aa727cf3ce77c36651347cabc14

(884)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:45 PM

If people are trying to lose weight, they still get yelled at to go low carb. For goal weight crossfitters, sure, eat a sweet potato. For most, it's still low carb.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:43 PM

Imitating milieu and historical reenactment were not the point of the post, as that would be very difficult to do.. Availability and scarcity of carbohydrates was the context. And Melissa I got "A" in my anthropology classes, thank you, and have been on enough archaeological sites to understand the scarcity and hardship of acquiring any food, much less carbs. The advent of carbs was why the neolithic age came into existence. It is the very definition of it. So guys, please keep it in context.

742ff8ba4ff55e84593ede14ac1c3cab

(3536)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:36 PM

I have to call BS on Mark Sisson's comment. I have been eating 500 grams of carbohydrates and I have been losing too much weight, which isn't something I want. Carbs don't make you magically fat.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:30 PM

Also, I think the "wild fruit is smaller" argument is pretty redundant. When I pick wild blueberries, I eat MORE of them, getting the same amount of sugar I would if I ate fewer large blueberries.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 23, 2011
at 07:19 PM

this post is completely ignorant of anthropology and paleobotany. If you eat cows are you not paleo? C'mon dude, eat an Auroch.

B3c62d89cd47b7d7209b6a99243d0ded

(10778)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:17 PM

+1 for the observation of the two camps.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:15 PM

For most people, the word paleo does not mean "historical reenactment". It is an umbrella term for a collection of diets that generally avoid processed foods and grains, and focus on whole foods. So I say forget about being historically accurate (your opinion on what our ancestors ate is also debatable) and instead be really paleo, in the modern sense.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:03 PM

I buy into paleolithic more in the imitating metabolic milieu sense not in the only eating food stuff that have been around forever sense. Minger had a nice post on fruit sugar content: http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 05:49 PM

About a year ago on this board, everyone would clarify that they're eating high carbs cause they're masking or the like. Now people can eat high carbs because they like to and now one will yell at them go low carb if they have any little issue (maybe not no one). And gary taubes isn't the answer to every question now.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 05:17 PM

It's lower carb by elimination of food groups not because low carb is recommended.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on July 23, 2011
at 05:15 PM

@edrice: not necessarily. There are some surprisingly sugar-laden wild fruits on the African continent.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 04:31 PM

Mangoes, bananas and, pineapples would be suspect too, especially in their present form, until that could actually be verified. If they were there, I'm betting they were more primitive, lower-sugar originals.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 04:31 PM

See, this it what bugs me about many of these what's-paleo discussions, is the assumption of what foods were actually present in the paleo world. Potatoes are a neolithic food, not domesticated until around 5000-7000 years ago and not even introduced out of the Andes to the world at large until 400 years ago when the Spaniards brought it home. Further, the original wild potato would hardly even be recognizeable to the domesticated varieties today. So the potato definitely was not in Ethiopa 200,000 years ago.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 23, 2011
at 04:30 PM

so Quilt, do you have clinical data on the epigenetics for your regimin?

69a2a5deb24d5b8d3aae3d9652fac564

(1020)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:57 PM

Ha, okay. I guess it wasn't my most eloquent of posts, but I was being sarcastic.

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:49 PM

wheres the info on kurts switch??

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:24 PM

I think Kurt Harris was/is a major player in paleo circles, and no doubt many more people left behind their carbo-phobia as a result of his own musings on the subject, but he was a major paleo player who, at lest in writing, didn't up carb counts until after the two I mentioned above were in full swing. In fact the first time I ever read where he acknowledged that higher carb counts weren't the unpardonable sin was in reference to the Kitavans in a response about Matt Stone, even though at the time I think he was still eating fairly low carb.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on July 23, 2011
at 02:50 PM

It's ironic how low carb can be as essential for those wanting to be fit and healthy as for those wanting to lose weight.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on July 23, 2011
at 02:49 PM

It's ironic how low carb can be more essential for those wanting to be fit and healthy than for those wanting to lose weight.

Medium avatar

(19469)

on July 23, 2011
at 02:46 PM

Agreed. Conjecture is not science and shouldn't be treated as such.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on July 23, 2011
at 02:36 PM

To my mind, Kurt Harris was a major player. Up until recently, he ate an extremely low carb diet, and he also identifies himself very strongly with Paleo motivations, not just health. As a carnivore, I used him as a model to some extent, and I can't so much now.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 23, 2011
at 12:45 PM

yeah, i think its more an issue of lay people who came to paleo just broadening their reading and along the way finding people like Stephan and Masterhacks than it is either of them really going out of their way to write about the goodness of carbohydrates, etc. I mean, both of them have been a major reference in WAP communities for much longer than in Paleo circles.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 23, 2011
at 12:43 PM

While I think Stone is a bit full of himself and goes on and on in a pretty sophomoric way, he has definitely touted the unevilness of carbohydrates generally for quite a while. Good point.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 23, 2011
at 12:29 PM

MasterHacks. Awesome. Up fucking vote.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on July 23, 2011
at 10:34 AM

i too am amazed that theoretical post drive new paleo dogma. What is lacking is clinical data of how to implement this lifestyle based upon your current epigenetics. That is where the rubber meets the road to me. Plus one Dean!

Aa1d5fbb9d8051538161c9a03afd384e

(226)

on July 23, 2011
at 10:15 AM

Just imagine, Ethiopia, 200.000 years ago, mangoes, bananas, pineapples, potatoes... How can you say "cavemen" didn't have carbs...???

Medium avatar

(10611)

on July 23, 2011
at 06:09 AM

With the exception of the sodas, every food mentioned contains generous dollops of gratuitous fat. The US obesity problem isn't driven by overeating carbs alone.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on July 23, 2011
at 05:39 AM

Recommendations are relative. Sissons has been on a sensible, adjustable scale, as are others in the paleo fold. National *requirements* for a 5"11", 30yr male, who works out regularly, is "very active" and is of medum frame =406 carbs/day. So, yes, relative to national recommendations, indeed, a 200gm carb intake a day is LOW.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 04:43 AM

The general recommendation was keep it under 100g preferably 50g. For me that would be about 5% or 2.5% of calories.

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on July 23, 2011
at 04:17 AM

Use this carb calculator to get the recommended carb intake level for you on a GOOD, non-frankenfood (no, not no neolithic foods like grain and legumes) wholefood, SAD diet. It give you basic national recommendations for healthy carb intake. Is this your carb intake on paleo? No need to eat frankenfoods and neolithic foods to get your this carb level,IF you choose it.http://www.healthcalculators.org/calculators/carbohydrate.asp?Submit=Close

Cbb1134f8e93067d1271c97bb2e15ef6

on July 23, 2011
at 04:10 AM

Define...define...define...The average carb intake recommended for a non-frankenfood SAD diet, ie., the recommendation for adults on a non-paleo diet is about 300 carbs/day. Given age and activity differences, it can go to 365 or more.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:50 AM

I think Stephan and Masterjohn have always been there. It had to do with a coming to prominence and saying "Kitavans: enough times.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:33 AM

It's naturally less neolithic. The carb intake likely varied quite a bit from generation to generation.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:30 AM

I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here. LC falls under the purview of paleo but it is not all paleo. Paleo's "nature" includes the possibility of low carb but a moderate carb paleo is not "less paleo in nature." For a lot of people (especially those with adrenal and thyroid issues and those with a performance bias), low carb paleo is a nightmare.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:26 AM

Those are mechanisms to try to lose weight through trying to change the body's fat homeostasis level. A good chunk of us lean pretty heavily on a performance, health bias over body comp. Maybe that's my way of saying I'm young, lean and am more oriented around function. Once metabolic derangement sets in carbs may need to be limited forever. I do think that Paleo folks under utilize supplementation to help w/ weight loss and so they lean heavier on low carb and caloric intake reduction via elimination of food groups. Jade and Keoni Teta do some smart weight loss supplementing IMO.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:03 AM

And I have read Gary Taubes' book and I respect him but disagree with his insulin phobia.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 02:55 AM

Thank you for reading what I wrote and thoughtfully replying.

  • D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

    asked by

    (5242)
  • Views
    8.5K
  • Last Activity
    1257D AGO
Frontpage book

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

19 Answers

21
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 23, 2011
at 07:32 PM

What I find is that most paleo books and people who think they are following a paleo diet are totally ignorant of paleobotany and actually archeological evidence.

paleo-isn't-low-carb-anymore...-but-it-kind-of-was.

"Dude they didn't have potatoes in the paleolithic and once I looked for blueberries in the winter and didn't find any, so people in the paleolithic were totally low carb!"

Yeah. The truth is that this kind of thinking is caused by our monocultural blinkers. We think of potatoes when we think of starch, not cattail tubers or acorns or sago palm or camus root. There is ample archeological evidence for use of starches such as the latter, as well as genetic adaptations for starch consumption (and separate latter adaptions is smaller populations like the Inuit who ate low-carb). I guess everyone wants to ignore the hundreds and hundreds of papers documenting preparation and consumption of these species in the paleolithic, as well as the fact that most studied modern foragers don't eat a low-carb diet.

If you want to be a reinactor, go ahead and eat some camas roots, but don't let me see you with any beef. You know they didn't have beef back then? They had aurochs. I also thought Denise Minger put the "wild fruit is sooo bitter" argument to bed?

Besides, the problem with most ancient starch is that it requires so much preparation. Thank god for modern agriculture developing starch sources that don't have to be soaked for five days to eat like sago or acorn starches. I think some people have some idea that I am talking about hunter-gatherers having some cornucopia of starch. Nope, what the studied foragers have is a full-time pursuit of starch even at the risk of death. The Inuit gather roots by robbing the nests of mice because they know that mice and humans can eat almost the same thing. Almost is the key here, there are some deadly roots in the caches and they are very very tiny. A woman has to be incredibly keen to sort them. Lower in the Americans, the plains Indians dug up lily bulbs and roasted them. Some of those were also poisonous and it can be hard to tell an edible camas from a death camas. In the Outback, women would work for hours and hours in the scorching sun to gather tiny tubers. Then grind them into edible flour with crude stones. In Papua New Guinea, women spend hours and hours grinding and soaking sago palm to reduce its toxicity. In the jungles of the Amazon, Indian women do the exact same thing with bitter cassava. In the jungles where the Pygmy live, even if they have plenty of food, if they lack starch they will say they have none. This has led them into virtual slavery to agrarian cultures that provide regular sources. In the deserts where the San live, they will chew bitter roots for hours to extract the starchy liquid, then spit out the pith. Before their extinction the Cape Hottentot peoples of South Africa would scoop out the pith of the Broodboom tree, tie it up in animal skins, bury it for weeks, dig it up and knead it to make a starchy "bread." If you study these cultures long enough, you will find they are a struggle for food in general, but the crucible is starch.

If we are going to trade anecdotes, I found and ate cowberries all the time under the snow when I lived in Sweden, as well as sorbus frozen in trees.

But as has been pointed out, low carb is relative. I eat about 150 grams a day, when on a vegan diet I ate 300 grams a day. But yeah, I'm going to resist having paleo/"ancestral eating" lumped in with low-carb.

A big wakeup call for me was when I was talking to Claire Devore, the daughter of the famous "man the hunter" anthropologist Irven. She grew up with the San, arguably the last true culture of hunter-gatherers (though not necessarily reflecting what paleolithic hgs were like). When I mentioned the paleo diet (which at the time was low-carb to me) she said she thought it was dumb because "hunter-gatherers just don't eat like that." I did my research after starting at Columbia University and getting full research access and found she was right...yes, it was a wake up call for me, being a huge proponent of the importance of meat and fat.

Some people do well on low-carb, others on high-carb. It's confusing, but it has nothing to do with the paleolithic. I'll never support folks who think they have the definitive paleo diet since that's just not what the science shows. If anything the paleolithic and the study of foragers/archeology underscores the wide variation in the diets humans can thrive eating. Personal experience might lead you to think that because you do well on low-carb, that this is the definitive paleo diet, but in reality you are a testament to human genetic variation. I am lucky my advisor is a major proponent of human variation because otherwise I think I would go nuts trying to figure out why some people crap out on low carb, while others are happy and healthy. It has little to do with the paleolithic, and a lot with genetic variation and epigenetics. In my work I am looking at genetic, bacterial, and anatomical markers that lend a clue to optimal diets for individuals.

As per the original paleo movement, in 1988 the seminal paper published by Eaton and Konner shows their estimation for paleolithic nutrient intake, which was not low carb. In their original book they recommend lots of complex carbs, including whole wheat bread. I think they changed their mind about the bread when they found out about gluten though.

paleo-isn't-low-carb-anymore...-but-it-kind-of-was.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:58 PM

Melissa - I would LOVE it if you shared some research in relation to what Devore stated. Let me ask - were you LC then went up to 150g/day? And if so, what was the difference in how you felt both mentally and physically?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 23, 2011
at 08:19 PM

I have a bunch of papers I need to write about, but overall if you look at the San diet they work very hard to procure sources of starch.

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 24, 2011
at 04:45 AM

Ha! Melissa's line looks to be permanently closed (and I'd like to think I had a weee little bit to do with that) but I thought I would throw that tongue in cheek comment out there just to let her know how much I appreciate her comments and blogging, even from the very beginning days of her blog.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 24, 2011
at 03:51 AM

Get in line Michael

Medium avatar

(10611)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:59 PM

Hunt gather love. Good paradigm for being human. Mine is "hungry move eat", emphasizing the way the three should be connected. But I cold add a fourth term for love. We survive as a commonwealth - humans wold have died out ad individuals.

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 23, 2011
at 11:06 PM

Melissa, have I ever told you that I love you? LOL

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 25, 2011
at 06:06 AM

wonderful melissa*<3<3

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 24, 2011
at 07:15 PM

I mean 46%......

Medium avatar

(207)

on July 24, 2011
at 06:38 PM

"Paleo" refers to a contemporary dietary practice, not early human dietary practices in the Paleolithic. As the OP has explained, the "Paleo diet" has been low-carb until probably 2011. It can certainly change, and probably should, but the history is quite clear.

Medium avatar

(207)

on July 24, 2011
at 07:59 PM

Interesting point, but isn't that more precisely a predecessor to "the Paleo diet"? (As you point out, it advocates whole wheat bread, for fiber if I remember correctly.) It reaches the public via Cordain, de Vany, maybe even the Eadeses, and by that point it's completely low-carb. The whole "movement" starts out low-carb. Sometimes I wonder whether all the people who are now reintroducing carbs to their diets respond better to them after adjusting their diets with a period of orthodox "paleo" low-carb eating... I'm eating relatively high-carb these days, so not a knee-jerk attack on carbs.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 24, 2011
at 07:14 PM

Max, supposedly "paleo" was based on early human dietary practices. That's how they sold it. Either way, the original Boyd Eaton/Melvin Konner paper published in 1989 was not low-carb, it recommended 46 carbohydrate!!

17
Cf599755619b0588e5e6ed4cb5cef50d

on July 23, 2011
at 03:16 AM

Paleo is naturally lower carb, because cavemen didn't have:

pizza krispy kreme donuts hamburger buns hot dog buns cereal croissantwiches muffins snickers bars reeses peanut butter cups oreos m&ms frozen pasty bites poptarts twinkies banana cream pie doritos cheetos crackers cheezits wheat thins triscuits rice crispy treats quesadillas tacos burritos fanta coca cola twizzlers

and a bunch of other foods that many SAD americans live solely off of. many in food deserts.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on July 23, 2011
at 05:15 PM

@edrice: not necessarily. There are some surprisingly sugar-laden wild fruits on the African continent.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on July 23, 2011
at 06:09 AM

With the exception of the sodas, every food mentioned contains generous dollops of gratuitous fat. The US obesity problem isn't driven by overeating carbs alone.

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 23, 2011
at 10:39 PM

Yes Denise Minger in a recent post pretty much killed the assumption that fruit was necessarily lower sugar in the wild or during more primitive times.

Aa1d5fbb9d8051538161c9a03afd384e

(226)

on July 23, 2011
at 10:15 AM

Just imagine, Ethiopia, 200.000 years ago, mangoes, bananas, pineapples, potatoes... How can you say "cavemen" didn't have carbs...???

Aa1d5fbb9d8051538161c9a03afd384e

(226)

on July 24, 2011
at 03:17 PM

@edrice: I'm deeply sorry for my inaccuracy... I guess my ironic point wasn't perceived, so now I'd like to clarify that when I said "potatoes" what I really meant was starchy tubers like Yam, and when I said mangoes and pineapple what I really meant was "any carb rich tropical fruit" as monkey-oranges, watermelons, AFRICAN bush mangoes, atanga... A word to the wise is sufficient...

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:33 AM

It's naturally less neolithic. The carb intake likely varied quite a bit from generation to generation.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 04:31 PM

Mangoes, bananas and, pineapples would be suspect too, especially in their present form, until that could actually be verified. If they were there, I'm betting they were more primitive, lower-sugar originals.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 04:31 PM

See, this it what bugs me about many of these what's-paleo discussions, is the assumption of what foods were actually present in the paleo world. Potatoes are a neolithic food, not domesticated until around 5000-7000 years ago and not even introduced out of the Andes to the world at large until 400 years ago when the Spaniards brought it home. Further, the original wild potato would hardly even be recognizeable to the domesticated varieties today. So the potato definitely was not in Ethiopa 200,000 years ago.

Aa1d5fbb9d8051538161c9a03afd384e

(226)

on July 24, 2011
at 03:15 PM

I'm deeply sorry for my inaccuracy... I guess my ironic point wasn't perceived, so now I'd like to clarify that when I said "potatoes" what I really meant was starchy tubers like Yam, and when I said mangoes and pineapple what I really meant was "any carb rich tropical fruit" as monkey-oranges, watermelons, AFRICAN bush mangoes, atanga... A word to the wise is sufficient...

13
667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 23, 2011
at 12:42 PM

I think your general assessment is more or less correct.

One of the main explanations behind ???whether paleo is LC or not??? is perhaps simply what author/voice was popular at what time. I think Sisson, and his book Primal Blueprint, was very popular when Paleo started getting popular in general. As you rightly say, Sisson is more than others LC. His book reflects that more than any other work I???ve read.

Especially before Wolf and his books/podcast really spiked in popularity, Sisson was a major gateway into Paleo for many people. As those people though read more and more I???d say that naturally they may have realized that LC is not mandatory, etc.

Also, I really think (and I???ve said this many times here on paleohacks) that a major reason LC-or-not-LC is an issue in the Paleo world is that from the beginning Paleo has attracted two very different camps:

  1. Athletic individuals more concerned with performance and general health than with losing weight.
  2. People more concerned with losing weight than with performance/athleticism.

Obviously the two camps are NOT mutually exclusive, but their fuels are usually quite different.

I???d add that I feel it is somewhat unfortunate that the weight-loss camp seems to have become the more dominant voice on the internet. Please don???t think I???m bashing anyone. I simply seem to read/hear more about, say, ???paleo for weight loss??? than ???paleo for generally being healthier and more fit??? or something similar.

91d422b073139d35e0856967ba1c21d6

(1054)

on July 23, 2011
at 11:31 PM

I think it's fortunate that the weight-loss voice is so loud because that's what brings the most new people into the fold -- people who (like me) are too fat. That voice wasn't loud enough for me to hear until this year and I've been an avid diet-er for decades. If Paleo truly does work to help a person lose fat and keep it off, then it's just a matter of time before the person moves from one "camp" into the other for good. Isn't it really one camp, with the less healthy members needing to restrict carbs until they are healthier and can stop doing that?

B3c62d89cd47b7d7209b6a99243d0ded

(10778)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:17 PM

+1 for the observation of the two camps.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 24, 2011
at 01:34 AM

Hey if it works for you and you're happy, that's all that matters. Best of luck with losing what you want!

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on July 23, 2011
at 02:49 PM

It's ironic how low carb can be more essential for those wanting to be fit and healthy than for those wanting to lose weight.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on July 23, 2011
at 02:50 PM

It's ironic how low carb can be as essential for those wanting to be fit and healthy as for those wanting to lose weight.

149af6e19a06675614dfbb6838a7d7c0

(3202)

on July 24, 2011
at 04:13 PM

Pale-O-Girl I dig that response. We are all together in the same camp. Some of us are just a little more deranged than the others. United we stand, divided we fall.

13
2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:45 AM

Wolfang Lutz wrote about nutrition grounded in evolution and especially about carbohydrate restriction in the 1960s onwards and has done a lot to back it up ??? those few theoretical blog posts have not proven it wrong. There's a reason Lutz based his entire diet on the premise of limiting carbs to at most 72 grams daily, no matter the source. I think he arrived at that value through measuring blood glucose in overweight youths - any more caused hyperinsulinemia. Underweight people seemed to have a similar response. Add to that a whole bunch of other conditions that are improved under a primal low carb diet and it seems very reasonable that it is the preferred way of eating for many. Do yourself a favor and don't overindulge in loopholes like "safe" starches ??? unless you know for a fact you can handle it.

2870a69b9c0c0a19a919e54cb3a62137

(1520)

on July 23, 2011
at 08:42 PM

That question is redundant. But it doesn't surprise me, nor does all the downvoting. Seems to be a sensitive topic. I'm sorry to see people fighting over semantics and assumptions instead of trying to understand what is healthiest.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 23, 2011
at 04:30 PM

so Quilt, do you have clinical data on the epigenetics for your regimin?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on July 24, 2011
at 12:03 PM

Yes Melissa I do.....

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on July 23, 2011
at 10:34 AM

i too am amazed that theoretical post drive new paleo dogma. What is lacking is clinical data of how to implement this lifestyle based upon your current epigenetics. That is where the rubber meets the road to me. Plus one Dean!

Medium avatar

(19469)

on July 23, 2011
at 02:46 PM

Agreed. Conjecture is not science and shouldn't be treated as such.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on July 24, 2011
at 12:05 PM

Problem is what i do to procure this data for me and my family is quite expensive now. I see that changing overtime allowing everyone to really test their diet against their epigenetic switches

10
37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

on July 23, 2011
at 05:07 AM

Your timeline is pretty accurate though I think you can pretty much credit two people for causing the shift: Stephan Guyenet and Matt Stone. Stephan for his well thought out posts and willingness to take the evidence as it is, and Matt for becoming so controversial in pointing out some of the same things that Stephan did except in a much more confrontational way culminating in the big brouhaha with Richard Nikoley and his later controversial post on Jimmy Moore. That led people to openly come out with much higher carb counts (like Dr. Harris) that had not been seen before, and the need to make it very clear that paleo did not equal low carb.

What is interesting is that when I wrote my Ten Notable Blogs for 2009 I identified Stephan as a paleo, and via private email he told me was not paleo.

Paul Jaminet was later in the game and Chris Masterjohn even later. There was a lot of movement well before either of them were somewhat prominent in paleo circles. But bottom line the impetus behind the movement in terms of carbs came from people who do not self-identify as paleo.

It really wasn't hard to predict. There are some very smart bloggers in the paleo world who couldn't keep looking at the evidence and continue to act as if low carb was the only or best way. I said when paleo first started really going mainstream that it would not remain wedded to the low carb movement. I also predicted more than a year ago that many paleos would start dropping the name altogether, and indeed that is happening.

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 23, 2011
at 11:10 PM

I'm not sure as to his own personal numbers so I would call it more of an acknowledgement than a "switch". As to the post (comment actually IIRC) I am referring to its buried somewhere on his site, but if you type in "Archevore" in the search box you will see the post explaining the changes he has made in his thinking.

B3e7d1ab5aeb329fe24cca1de1a0b09c

(5242)

on July 24, 2011
at 05:18 AM

This posts of Kurt's somewhat gets into his own macro ratios and how they have changed - http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/6/thoughts-on-ketosis-i.html

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:49 PM

wheres the info on kurts switch??

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 24, 2011
at 03:10 PM

My bad :P - Probably because I was only interacting with you on twitter at the time.

100fd85230060e754fc13394eee6d6f1

(18696)

on July 23, 2011
at 02:36 PM

To my mind, Kurt Harris was a major player. Up until recently, he ate an extremely low carb diet, and he also identifies himself very strongly with Paleo motivations, not just health. As a carnivore, I used him as a model to some extent, and I can't so much now.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 23, 2011
at 12:43 PM

While I think Stone is a bit full of himself and goes on and on in a pretty sophomoric way, he has definitely touted the unevilness of carbohydrates generally for quite a while. Good point.

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:24 PM

I think Kurt Harris was/is a major player in paleo circles, and no doubt many more people left behind their carbo-phobia as a result of his own musings on the subject, but he was a major paleo player who, at lest in writing, didn't up carb counts until after the two I mentioned above were in full swing. In fact the first time I ever read where he acknowledged that higher carb counts weren't the unpardonable sin was in reference to the Kitavans in a response about Matt Stone, even though at the time I think he was still eating fairly low carb.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 24, 2011
at 06:06 AM

Michael, you forgot about me ;) I was dropping fruit bomb tweets almost in the middle of paleo zero-carb mania. Ha-ha.

93f44e8673d3ea2294cce085ebc96e13

(10502)

on July 26, 2011
at 06:30 AM

So, Michael, I am digging your predictions -- what is next?

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 28, 2011
at 05:08 PM

Hey Patrik, haven't thought much about it lately, but I will post a question when I think I can help advance the discussion. In the meantime look out for some real life paleo/real food marriages. ;-) And I'm curious what will come out of the AHS along that line

9
B14dc4aa1ddefbec3bc09550428ee493

on July 23, 2011
at 05:07 AM

Compared to a SAD diet, I would say it's still lower carb, no matter how you slice it. It's kind of hard to eat a lot of good for you carbs and fats and still get in the same numbers that SAD people do.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 05:49 PM

About a year ago on this board, everyone would clarify that they're eating high carbs cause they're masking or the like. Now people can eat high carbs because they like to and now one will yell at them go low carb if they have any little issue (maybe not no one). And gary taubes isn't the answer to every question now.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 05:17 PM

It's lower carb by elimination of food groups not because low carb is recommended.

62f89aa727cf3ce77c36651347cabc14

(884)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:45 PM

If people are trying to lose weight, they still get yelled at to go low carb. For goal weight crossfitters, sure, eat a sweet potato. For most, it's still low carb.

7
A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

on July 23, 2011
at 09:29 PM

I think that timeline is a fair assessment. For me personally, it was Paul Jaminet that convinced me to increase carbs, though I'm still not quite there with his protein recs.

I still get my back up when people slag off low carb though. Low carb was the first time that I realised that controlling my weight was much easier than I had previously thought, I didn't actually need to starve. I was lucky enough to encounter a plan called the 'Idiot Proof Diet' which although low carb, was very paleo by accident (unprocessed food, carbs aren't intrinsically evil, eat organic as possible, no frankenfood).

I also didn't have wrenching gut pain and diarrhoea for the first time in 5 years which was a revelation. I admit I became a little evangelical, but I'm over it now.

So forgive me if I'm still a little defensive of low carb, there's always the danger that the pendulum could swing too far in the opposite direction and people may miss out on something that could start them on the road to better health. Low carb is a great first stepping stone for some (not all) of the metabolically challenged.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 09:35 PM

Paul Jaminet was the one, I believe, that first started emphasizing the fact that macro-nutrients are still nutrients and that makes glucose a nutrient. He was crucial in promoting the idea that carbohydrates are not just tolerated but are important for health. Gluconeogenesis is a stressful process. By not having adequate glucose in the diet, people put their body under undue stress.

A727956fa3f943057c4edb08ad9e864e

(4183)

on July 23, 2011
at 11:16 PM

Good point. And the irony of that is that Paul is a big believer that glucose becomes toxic beyond a certain threshold exceeded by many healthy hunter gatherer societies.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 24, 2011
at 05:02 AM

Yeah, he also doesn't preferer lipogenesis kicking in for similar reasons.

6
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 06:43 PM

I'm seeing a lot of misconception about what paleo actually is and I see many are really eating neolithically while erroneously calling it "paleo" because they are unaware of what the hunter-gatherer diet was really like. To those that think high carbs were a natural gatherer part of the diet, let me plagiarize myself from a comment I made earlier in this thread and then expand on it, and this is in reference to a comment about mangoes, bananas, pineapples and potatoes being in Ethiopia 200,000 years ago -

In many of these what's-paleo discussions are assumptions of what foods were actually present in the paleo world just because you see them in a grocery store and they didn't come out of a factory. Potatoes are a neolithic food, not domesticated until around 5000-7000 years ago and not even introduced out of the Andes to the world at large until 400 years ago when the Spaniards brought it home. Further, the original wild potato would hardly even be recognizable to the domesticated varieties in the store today. So the potato definitely did not exist in Ethiopa 200,000 years ago. This is what wild potatoes looked like - http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/potato.htm

One of the major reasons neolithics cultivated and domesticated plant foods is because they were not just growing abundantly in fields, ripe for the picking, like a garden of eden. They were rare and domestication made them more reliable and plentiful. So available carbs increased with neolithic endeavors. They were more scarce before. If they had been abundant there would have been no need to cultivate them in the first place. So if you're eating cultivated bulbous, domesticated potatoes from the grocery store, please do not kid yourself, you are neo.

Likewise, what are today known as "bananas," the current iteration did not even exist in paleo times. Borrowed from a page -

One of the fruit???s [the banana] wild ancestors is the Musa acuminata, a spindly plant with small, okra-like pods that were bred to produce seedless fruit. At one point, this was crossed with the heartier-looking Musa balbisiana to create plantains, and it is from plantains that our modern varieties of bananas are derived. (And yes, there???s more than just the supermarket variety.) Banana pollen and stem imprints and other sorts of fossils do show up in the archaeological record, and it looks like Musa acuminata has been cultivated since at least 6,500 years ago; the oldest evidence comes from New Guinea. From - http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/food/2011/07/taming-the-wild-banana/

So bananas are neolithic. If you eat bananas, you are not paleo!

As for more northern climes, my wife and I have picked wild blueberries on hillsides in northern Maine and Canada. You can only find them 3 to 4 months of the year. These are smaller than the domesticated variety you find in the store. So if you are eating big blueberries and you are eating them all year long, you are not eating paleo. This carb was available only a short time out of the year.

My point here is that most produce today is a far cry from their original wild ancestors and they have been cultivated to to get rid of fibrous tissue, seeds and to increase flesh and sugar content, which increases carbs. This was done because many of the orginals bordered on inedible. And the supply was not consistent.

Except for possibly very few locales, carbs were scarce, so if you eat high carbs, you are not really eating paleo. So if you're eating wild potatoes in Peru, okra-pod-like wild bananas in southeast Asia, and blueberries only in the the months of July through October, You could possibly call yourself paleo. Or you could just forget about all the carbs and be really paleo.

Ed

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 23, 2011
at 07:52 PM

Blueberries? Well, maybe they ate some Umbelliferae roots or one of the thousands of other species that ancient people exploited. Even the Inuit eat roots.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 23, 2011
at 07:19 PM

this post is completely ignorant of anthropology and paleobotany. If you eat cows are you not paleo? C'mon dude, eat an Auroch.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:48 PM

Phoenix, there's that context thing again. Yes, you ate a bunch of wild blueberries for a short time, Then they were gone till next year. What did you eat then? If you read all of what I said, it might help make sense.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 23, 2011
at 09:17 PM

Uh, did you even read what I wrote? I never argued against the size. I argued against the fact that the size would restrict dear Grok from eating them past a certain point. Just because they're smaller doesn't mean our ancestors would have gotten less carbs eating them; I don't eat less steak when it's cut up into smaller pieces. And actually, the wild blueberries I pick here in Ontario in the summer are about 90% the size of the ones I buy at the grocery store. But I think this blueberry discussion we are having here is kind of irrelevant to the topic. My bad for blowing it up. :)

Medium avatar

(10611)

on July 23, 2011
at 10:17 PM

There's something suspiciously Neolithic here about playing yo mama with college degrees. Hunting and gathering is a more valid expression of paleo lifestyle than eating carrion and blowflies.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 08:40 PM

If the size thing is what offends you, then please stick to the seasonal aspect and deal with that part. The reason I brought up the size is that anytime I have picked and eaten wild blueberries they have always been small and my wife grew up in northern Maine and has never seen large ones. That's not out of a textbook or somebody's blog. That is my own direct, empirical evidence, as anecdotal as it may be. But please, if you have knowledge of large ones, I'm open.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:30 PM

Also, I think the "wild fruit is smaller" argument is pretty redundant. When I pick wild blueberries, I eat MORE of them, getting the same amount of sugar I would if I ate fewer large blueberries.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:03 PM

I buy into paleolithic more in the imitating metabolic milieu sense not in the only eating food stuff that have been around forever sense. Minger had a nice post on fruit sugar content: http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/05/31/wild-and-ancient-fruit/

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 09:20 PM

I've spend a lot of time in wilderness the food supply is just not as prevalent as you make it out to be. I get a sense that you are younger.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 23, 2011
at 07:49 PM

Sorry, taking a single anthropology class doesn't make you an expert. I'd surmise you are quite a bit older than I am anyway and there has been more research done since then.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 09:20 PM

Melissa, I might also add I that my post was referred to as "ignorant of anthropology." That was an assumption. Then the next assumption was that I had only a single class. The next assumption was that because I am older that I took anthropology a long time ago prior to more recent enlightenment. All of these assumptions have been wrong. Anthropology (and paleo studies) has long been an intense avocation of mine and I have shelves literally full anthropology, evolution, archaeology, geology tomes plus I regularly accompany groups documenting remote rock art sites for the BLM. (continued)

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 23, 2011
at 10:03 PM

I feel dumber having read this post....

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 08:56 PM

Melissa, you make it sound as it there were a cornucopia of "thousands" of carrots and parsnips, a lush paradise, just waiting to be plucked out of the ground and succored in bliss. Where this falls flat on it's face is that most hunter-gatherer tribes were nomadic. When the fauna were depleted, they moved to more abundant territory. Carrots didn't keep them there. In summer they moved up into the mountains and in winter back to lower ground. And what carbs they could gather along the way were only available at certain times of the year.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 24, 2011
at 05:39 AM

Bahahaha! Thanks for the core workout. Attn: Paleohacks, if you eat you are not paleo. Hell, cut out all foods and become breathairian you are not paleo. There are neolithic agents in the air you breath.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:43 PM

Imitating milieu and historical reenactment were not the point of the post, as that would be very difficult to do.. Availability and scarcity of carbohydrates was the context. And Melissa I got "A" in my anthropology classes, thank you, and have been on enough archaeological sites to understand the scarcity and hardship of acquiring any food, much less carbs. The advent of carbs was why the neolithic age came into existence. It is the very definition of it. So guys, please keep it in context.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:46 PM

Phoenix, there's that context thing again. Yes, you ate a bunch of wild blueberries for a short time, Then they were gone till next year. What did you eat then? If read all of what I said, it might help make sense.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:54 PM

I of course read all of what you said. The fact that you even mentioned blueberry size and how it has some impact is why I called you out on it. Also, definitely read that blog post by Denise Minger that @Curated Wellness posted up there.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 23, 2011
at 07:15 PM

For most people, the word paleo does not mean "historical reenactment". It is an umbrella term for a collection of diets that generally avoid processed foods and grains, and focus on whole foods. So I say forget about being historically accurate (your opinion on what our ancestors ate is also debatable) and instead be really paleo, in the modern sense.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:44 AM

"You could possibly call yourself paleo. Or you could just forget about all the carbs and be really paleo."------- **OR you could eat what you think is best for you and not call it anything.**

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 24, 2011
at 02:44 AM

size doesn't matter, women (mostly) go to a great deal of trouble to gather for hours and hours every single damn day, often afterwards they must pulverize whatever starch they get with stones and some starch must also be rinsed and soaked. The food supply is definitely less prevalent than it was in the paleolithic and the few cultures that survive this way this is a full time profession. Gathering some berries on a hike doesn't give you the sense of how intense this pursuit of starch is.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on July 24, 2011
at 12:10 PM

A good discussion gone bad over ego. I'm with you cliff. We need to appreciate our differences and continue to share ideas

Aa1d5fbb9d8051538161c9a03afd384e

(226)

on July 24, 2011
at 03:22 PM

@edrice: I'm deeply sorry for my inaccuracy... I guess my ironic point wasn't perceived, so now I'd like to clarify that when I said "potatoes" what I really meant was starchy tubers like Yam, and when I said mangoes and pineapple what I really meant was "any carb rich tropical fruit" as monkey-oranges, watermelons, AFRICAN bush mangoes, atanga... A word to the wise is sufficient...

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 05:13 PM

@A.J. Aguirre: You don't have to be deeply sorry for anything. (Tongue-in-cheek, I know) You might want the read a long edit that deals with this that was added to another answer of mine. It was originally posted as a separate answer but Melissa decided she didn't want questions "cluttered up" with answers, so she moved to place where it wouldn't get much notice.

6
1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on July 23, 2011
at 05:04 AM

I'd suppose that it depends on what particular region or era of the Paleolithic one ascribes to.

For many, Europe/Neanderthal Paleo fits their bill. For them the low-carb model holds because of the harsh climate they lived in. Fruits were seasonal (unlike the warmer & wetter Africa and Asian continents), tubers were limited, meat and fat were heavily relied upon for calories. This falls in line with the long-standing low carb lifestyle touted by health nuts to heavy lifters, minus the fear of animal fats. But hey, we're not Neaderthals, 4% of our DNA notwithsanding. Our species developed from H. ergaster, which inhabited southern and eastern Africa. No wooly rhinos that far south!

Then you have others who, like myself, feel that anything that was edible during our long evolution (not just the few thousand years we spend in Europe) was meant to be eaten, including tubers (OMG starch! lol), fruits, greens, nuts, coconuts, meat, fish, molluscs, etc. Not so much of this "seasonal foods" mindset, because in the equatorial regions "seasons" as we know them were virtually nonexistent. Sure there were dry periods, and flooding, and maybe a cold snap here and there, but for the most part it was warm. Definitely not a low-carb model diet like the Neanderthal one, but not necessarily high-carb either.

4
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 24, 2011
at 01:23 AM

Since age has been brought up a couple of times in this thread, for a lark, I went back over a number of these posts and comments making a note of ages of the posters and it's apparent that most of the fruitaholics and the starchaholics pushing for revisionism of the paleo diet are in their 20s and 30s. This is most telling. When I was in my 20s and 30s I could do just about anything and get away with it but that didn't hold up. Today I have very little to do with fruit and starch and I explained the reason why a few days ago over here -

http://paleohacks.com/questions/50347/hack-jack-kronks-vap-test-results/50907#50907

Not only that, most younger adults are prone to excepting theories as long as it meshes with emotional attachments. Nothing like physical degeration to unlatch those. I don't mean to come off sounding patronizing, but it might be better not to fix everything is stone just yet.

So begging your forgiveness for operating with the benefit of hindsight and experience, I'm curious how many will be able to hang onto their newly acquired dogma into the decades. I read Denise Minger's paper and if that's what you're clinging to as proof of your general theory of paleotivity, please keep a light rein. I am fairly certain many of you down the path will not look back as it recedes over the horizon. It was a nice paper, interesting, and I did learn a few things about giant African fruit, but not one thing that could be incorporated by a European, North American or most Asians. I noticed she is rather young too. I wonder if someone could prod her expound on my still very valid example of the banana. Or would that not gel with the agenda?

Anyway the effects of sugar and starch in the long run is what will bring most knowledgeable people back to the real paleo.

Ed

Edit: Sorry for my absense - prior commitments...

If we can momentarily sidestep all the unbridled and brash, youthful potshots (which I may come back to), I'd like to return to the discussion concerning carbs in the paleolithic. The OP question implied that the original paleo conventional wisdom once said that the paleo diet was once known as low carb but that later conventional "wisdom" has attempted to morph that into something high, or least higher carb. So Curated Wellness asked - "Am I crazy or is this really how the low-carb history of paleo went? Were carbs always welcome in the paleo scene?

And I think I might be able to lend further perspective to an interesting question. Back when I was a vegetarian and opened a vegetarian restaurant (35 years ago when a certain young moderator was minus 10) and it was well "known" to vegetarians at the time that banana-eating monkeys dropped down out of the trees, stood upright, developed opposing thumbs with which to pick up sticks to hit each other, but otherwise lived in some sort of fruitopian, vegetarian bliss, where a bountiful feast was only within arm's reach. So the original paleo to the vegetarian cult was high carb and vegetarian. This was a popular notion at the time and was a useful means to drive and motivate vegetarianism and I think still exists today. It might even be prevalent in the forum. I haven't been here long enough to really know. Maybe we have closet or mole vegetarians. But I was right there with it so you might say that I've been dealing with the question of what's-paleo for a long time. But I was incorrect then, just as incorrect as a certain young moderator is about paleo including lots of fruits and high carbs.

But in earlier posts I was rather untactfully pointed to Denise Minger's paper on giant African fruits, the relevance of which still evades me (but more on that), but I also learned that my life was shambles because I was "ignorant" and old and I saw a linked picture for the first time of what I really looked like and it was devastatingly unbecoming. "O wad some Power the gift tae gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us" (Burns) But now that I know how you like me and I have regained my composure, I can press on with why I reject Minger's paper as evidence of high carbs in the paleolithic. Not reject it for it's intended purpose, mind you, but reject it as a weapon wielded by a certain young moderator in defense of high carbs because it was erroneously confused with paleo diet. For it's intended purpose she did quite well and after stating the four myths she wanted to dispel. she admits -

"*Virtually all the food we have available today???from plant and animal kingdoms alike???has been selectively bred for both flavor and ease of eating, and fruit is certainly no exception. It seems reasonable to conclude that, apart from the rare batch of honey or seasonal berry bushes popping up outside, humans didn???t get much exposure to sugar during our evolution, and modern fruits are completely unlike anything we encountered in the past.

But are these assumptions truly accurate? Let???s take a look at the facts.*"

But she is selective in her fruits and the facts she uses are very narrow in scope. Her premise is that some ancient fruits are basically equivalent to modern ones and that's OK as far as it goes. She didn't fully eradicate any "myths" by using selective examples and my own example of evolution of bananas and potatoes (although not fruit) and many others attest to the fact that the scope of this study is narrow, but here's why it did not portray the paleo diet.

Like I said in an earlier post in reference to A.J. Aguirre's bananas and potatoes in Ethiopia (which started my whole drift), just because you currently see lots of produce in a grocery store, it in no means that it was present during paleo times, and we all know that. Just like when Denise Minger went to Africa (I'm assuming she did), it no way indicates that all those giant African fruit were present in paleo times.

We came out of the Pleistocene 11-12,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial period. The beginning of the Pleistocene is roughly 2.5 million years ago and the Pleistocene itself roughly coincides with the advent of modern hominids. This would be our beloved paleo era. During these periods of repeated glaciation Africa was a very dry place, so much so that the African woodlands retreated to just three small patches during glacial maxima and there was broad expanse of African savannas and grasslands. Not much fruit or tubers in grassland, but the important part is coming up.

The earth's ecliptic plane changes seasonally in relation to the sun, but we all know this. The north pole is sunny in summer and dark in winter, etc, but the surface of the earth closest to the sun near the equator keeps moving in cycles above the equator and then below the equator and so on. That surface gets direct perpendicular heat from the sun causing the humid air to heat up and rise to altitude which causes the air to cool and condense into rain. So as the changing eliptical plane of the earth moves up and down in relation to the sun, the rain likewise moves above the equator and then below the equator and these are the monsoons. As the monsoons move north then south, then north, then south, hoofed animals follow these rains and these are known as the great migrations.

I mentioned in an earlier post that paleos were nomadic because they chased after game when an area became depleted, and because they went high in summer and low in winter. Well this is another reason. They followed the hoofed migrations because they were going where the food was going.

I'm not sure how long this went on but you had the better part of 2.5 million years to get this pattern established and when you see illustrations of paleo people out in vast grasslands, this is what you are looking at. So as, I said before, the African woodlands retreated to three small patches. Before this happened there was one main species of gorilla. Here is the diet of the herbivorous gorilla -

*The diet of a gorilla consists primarily of fruits, leaves, shoots, shrubs, vines, tree bark, flowers and a variety of other plant matter. http://www.ehow.com/about_4580393_gorilla-diet.html*

Originally gorilla habitat was broad, as broad as the woodlands use to be. As the woodlands shrank, the supply of gorilla feed and fruits (and habitat) shrank with it till there were separate groups of gorillas which eventually diverged into subspecies.

Maybe now you can see where I am going with this. If the available gorilla carbs dropped to such low levels, so low that the gorilla couldn't thrive and almost died out retreating to small patches, and yet nomadic humans were traipsing north and south thriving on animals, and this went on for most the Pleistocene, where is the evidence that carbs had anything to do with this? Grasslands are not carb friendly, yet the hooved animals were capable of converting grass into protein.

Today in Africa, most of that rainforest has recovered since the end of the last ice age, but the gorilla populations have not re-established contact (and probably never will in today's Africa). But as the forest recovered so did the supply of fruit and that was what Denise Minger saw.

So we need to keep it all in context and keep open minds. When I said "real paleo" I'm into what really happened back then and not somebody's cockeyed hypothesis or romantic faux interpretation of it. Some of you younger guys just internalize something because it seems to fit and then you shoot from the hip at anybody who disagrees with you. A little cognitive dissonance will not fail you. And maybe a little humility...

Ed

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:40 AM

True that. But I hardly think that's a reason for him to stereotype young adults as "prone to excepting theories as long as it meshes with emotional attachments" and having an arrogant and patronizing tone. We shall see if my "starchaholic" ways will lead me to bad health in the long run and bring me back to the "real paleo". Only if I'm knowledgeable, that is.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 24, 2011
at 02:58 AM

I don't think my dad is an arrogant youngster (http://huntgatherlove.com/node/186) or my 85-year-old academic advisor.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 24, 2011
at 01:33 AM

Really? You're going to take a personal stab at people just because they're young? Maybe the fact that I and other young'uns do better on higher carb is because we haven't screwed ourselves up on 64 years of crap foods. Default paleo should be what is healthy for a healthy person, not what is healthy for a metabolically deranged person.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:29 AM

@Phoenix, I hope you're right but only time will tell what the "crap" foods are, for you. Edrice wasn't eating a SAD diet. He was eating in accordance the (alt)science of the times, just like you are.

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:54 AM

That's actually quite interesting, Rose. Just to clarify, I am a believer in context. Low-carb for some, higher-carb for others. I just get irked by people talking about dogmatic "real" paleo. And ageism. Ageism sucks.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on July 24, 2011
at 03:04 AM

"Real Paleo" is silly.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on July 24, 2011
at 01:32 AM

LOL. I'd upvote again, but I already did over there, and it doesn't quite seem fair. http://paleohacks.com/questions/50347/hack-jack-kronks-vap-test-results/53462#53462

76f3ead3aa977d876bcf3331d35a36e9

(4620)

on July 24, 2011
at 01:42 AM

By the way, I upvoted your original comment over on Jack's VAP thread, because it was a smart answer. But this ageism crap is just silly and immature, Ed.

559aa134ff5e6c8bcd608ba8dc505628

(3631)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:32 AM

@Phoenix, I hope you're right but only time will tell what the "crap" foods are, for you. Edrice wasn't eating a SAD diet. He was eating in accordance with his take on the (alt)science of the times, just like you are.

6fa48935d439390e223b9a053a62c981

(1676)

on July 24, 2011
at 01:25 PM

Ed, I voted you up just for moral support, though you could have been a little more...delicate (on this forum that's critical). I've been paleo since 2002 and have watched with interest as paleo began to incorporate Taubes, paleonu, and other influences. In doing so, I think "paleo" has both gained and lost some things. For example, a medium baked potato could be "in" for some paleos, even though it's metabolically very similar to a 12 oz. soda, which is definitely out for every paleo. In fact, some paleos seem more like Weston A. Price advocates than paleo. What defines "paleo" anymore?

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on July 24, 2011
at 02:40 AM

FWIW, evolutionary biologist Michael Rose thinks age is a pertinent factor in how one should eat. Specifically, he thinks Eurasians may be well-adapted to a higher-carb agricultural diet until they pass their reproductive prime, when forces of natural selection stop "caring" about their fitness: http://55theses.org/2011/03/18/thesis-50/

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 24, 2011
at 03:00 AM

lol this reminds me of when my militant vegan uncle told me I invented the paleo diet because I just loved the taste of meat so much I had to make up crap to justify it.

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 24, 2011
at 04:40 AM

"fruitaholics," "starchaholics," dogma fueled by emotional attachment because of age (I wonder how old Harris is, 50 maybe?) -hmmmm...sound logical response to what has been offered here. :P

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 24, 2011
at 02:57 AM

Whether or not you do well on starch has nothing to do with the paleolithic and everything to do with genetics and epigenetic variation.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 25, 2011
at 09:19 PM

Also please provide citations for the idea that there are few roots and tubers in grasslands or that gorillas of 2.5 million years ago are relevant (hint, whatever ape was around back then it was not a modern gorilla).

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 05:58 PM

"The separate species and subspecies developed from a single type of gorilla during the Ice Age, when their forest habitats shrank and became isolated from each other." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 25, 2011
at 04:59 PM

It's metabolically very different than a 12 oz soda. Glucose vs. sucrose. That's what that crazy sugar is death guy runs around yelling about. Fructose is the "bad one" and that hasn't been proven yet. That said, what defines paleo is not "low carb."

Medium avatar

(10611)

on July 25, 2011
at 10:16 PM

Eat opportunistically (there's some smoked pork butt calling my name tonight) and put your underused paleo appendages to work. Connect activity with eating. This works for me to stay healthy at age 58, though at 54 I was diabetic wreckage.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 25, 2011
at 09:23 PM

and no one ever said Minger's post was evidence of high carbs in the paleolithic, it was evidence against the idea that wild fruit is tiny, low-sugar, and unpalatable. We don't need that post to bolster arguments about carbs in the paleolithic, you can go on Google scholar and type in starch grain analysis, legumes +paleolithic, starch +paleolithic, roots +paleolithic, paleolithic grinding stones, or other keywords and get hundreds of scientific papers on the subject.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on July 25, 2011
at 09:16 PM

lol YOU are telling others to have a little humility? Thought you had the definitive paleo diet? Please edit your original answers and refrain from cluttering up this post with new posts.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 05:28 PM

Melissa, in one comment you proclaim to be a google scholar and in another you want citations provided. I'm getting whiplash.

6fa48935d439390e223b9a053a62c981

(1676)

on July 27, 2011
at 02:28 PM

I think it's sad that this paleohacker has decided to leave, but I can understand why he feels unwelcome. This could have been an interesting discussion but degenerated into something less when Melissa called him "completely ignorant." Not satisfied, she then stated "I'd surmise you are quite a bit older than I am anyway and there has been more research done since then. –," which is clearly an unbidden insult. This is specifically what started this whole exchange. Why can't we just state our mutually exclusive positions and agree to disagree??

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 05:57 PM

Melissa, it was gorilla, gorilla then and it's gorilla, gorilla now, except for the divergent subspecies. Would you say that about sharks. You seem to jump to conclusions very fast.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 06:06 PM

And one last comment - my call for civility was met with yet more hostility, and this from a moderator. My original post in the thread was landed on with both feet in a rather ad hominem and puerile manner. The FAQ states "We can disagree like adults. Be respectful" but I see that's a one-way street. This is a very polarizing and intolerant forum and I think I'm done here. Please delete my acount.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 05:58 PM

Children of the Ice Age by Steven Stanley was where I first learned of the woodland shrinkage. How it is relevant is exactly how I explained it in my post-turned-edit. Reread if you need to.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 26, 2011
at 05:31 PM

Melissa, the context into which the Minger paper was placed and your usage of the word "also" made it an adjunct premise. The message was clear then even if you're attempting a distinction now.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 31, 2011
at 03:04 PM

Well put, Mark. My request has been ignored so I seem to be still around. The context of the phantom paleo fruit would seem to me to be an important aspect in discovering what "real paleo" is, but I guess many researchers and proponents are capable of leaving "real science" behind when it comes to guarding pet theories.

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 30, 2011
at 11:02 PM

Well put, Mark. My request has been ignored so I seem to be still around. The context of the phantom paleo fruit would seem to me to be an important aspect in discovering what "real paleo" is, but I guess many researchers and proponents are capable of leaving "real science" behind when it comes to guarding pet theories.

4
E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 23, 2011
at 11:43 AM

Staffan linderberg has been recommending a high carb kitavan style paleo diet for around 10 years or more. His book "Food and Western Disease: Health and nutrition from an evolutionary perspective" came out in sweden in 2003.

I think most people switched to the higher carb camp because they realized VLC only works if your obese and trying to lose weight or have specific health problems.

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 24, 2011
at 12:25 PM

<3 grok!!!!!!!!!

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on July 24, 2011
at 12:12 PM

This is a good post with some insight will show people how epigenetic switches really work. We can eat high carb and low carb paleo......that is not the real question. What should we eat is the question

E5c7f14800c5992831f5c70fa746dc5c

(12857)

on July 24, 2011
at 12:24 PM

What should we eat? Well it depends on the person and what they have access too. If I had the means necessary such as yourself to actually test specific health markers that would be awesome but unfortunately all I have atm is intuition. So far my intituition tells me high carb is the best for me and I don;t see that changing any time soon.

Cc93847bfa820f0f2da654060b401fa5

(746)

on July 24, 2011
at 06:08 AM

I voted you up cliff. See I don't hate you ;)

2
Medium avatar

on August 25, 2011
at 10:26 PM

Wow, that was a lot of unnecessary vitriol I just waded through in those other answers. Anyway, I don't think the Hadza were mentioned, but this is a good paper on the nutritional analysis of the tubers they ate pretty much year-round: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fanthro.ucsd.edu%2FFaculty_Profiles%2Fmargaret%2FMarlett%2520etal.2001.pdf&rct=j&q=hadza%20tuber&ei=O71WTt6jKqbSiAKO7eyrCQ&usg=AFQjCNHH6_KHpXGRZepdAhKVRsUF27ZfaQ&sig2=hxkk8eOOt1YaR8rg1v-yZg&cad=rja I can't really do better than that for a link.

That wasn't their only source of carb, since they ate honey, baobab, berries etc. but that was probably the most consistent. Even though I personally eat about 200g a day, I have to admit that starch acquisition, at least in the case of the Hadza, requires quite a bit of glycolytic activity, and thus adds a further level to determining "net carbs." So, you have the carb content of the tubers, minus the (considerable) amount of fiber and also minus the amount of muscle glycogen it takes to dig 3 meters underground (in some cases) with a sharpened stick.

I find "low" or "high" carb to be kind of messy. It's better to look at it as those who choose to undershoot CHO glycogen repletion in favor of protein-derived gluconeogenesis, others who overshoot like me in order to decrease that pathway and also to never dip down into unpleasant hypoglycemia and still others go low enough in carb and protein like Gedgaudas, in which case I don't really know how they can replete glycogen without the catabolism of muscle. In any case, it's all meaningless until you try each out and see which one feels the best.

2
F77c6462cf6596fe6dabeeb5931821ab

(365)

on August 25, 2011
at 07:18 PM

It's the Kitavans, man. The Kitavans started the turnaround.

2
4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:42 AM

Your perception of how it played out is very accurate in my opinion, though I'd put it a bit farther back than 1 year - maybe 2 for Stephan Guyenet.

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 23, 2011
at 12:45 PM

yeah, i think its more an issue of lay people who came to paleo just broadening their reading and along the way finding people like Stephan and Masterhacks than it is either of them really going out of their way to write about the goodness of carbohydrates, etc. I mean, both of them have been a major reference in WAP communities for much longer than in Paleo circles.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:50 AM

I think Stephan and Masterjohn have always been there. It had to do with a coming to prominence and saying "Kitavans: enough times.

37f4b3c51afbd92d259afaa171270874

(1219)

on July 23, 2011
at 10:41 PM

Masterjohn for sure has been a major reference in the WAPF/WAP community much longer than in paleo circles. However the same can not be said of Stephan Guyenet.

0
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on July 25, 2011
at 08:56 PM

Sorry for my absense - prior commitments...

If we can momentarily sidestep all the unbridled and brash, youthful potshots (which I may come back to), I'd like to return to the discussion concerning carbs in the paleolithic. The OP question implied that the original paleo conventional wisdom once said that the paleo diet was once known as low carb but that later conventional "wisdom" has attempted to morph that into something high, or least higher carb. So Curated Wellness asked - "Am I crazy or is this really how the low-carb history of paleo went? Were carbs always welcome in the paleo scene?

And I think I might be able to lend further perspective to an interesting question. Back when I was a vegetarian and opened a vegetarian restaurant (35 years ago when a certain young moderator was minus 10) and it was well "known" to vegetarians at the time that banana-eating monkeys dropped down out of the trees, stood upright, developed opposing thumbs with which to pick up sticks to hit each other, but otherwise lived in some sort of fruitopian, vegetarian bliss, where a bountiful feast was only within arm's reach. So the original paleo to the vegetarian cult was high carb and vegetarian. This was a popular notion at the time and was a useful means to drive and motivate vegetarianism and I think still exists today. It might even be prevalent in the forum. I haven't been here long enough to really know. Maybe we have closet or mole vegetarians. But I was right there with it so you might say that I've been dealing with the question of what's-paleo for a long time. But I was incorrect then, just as incorrect as a certain young moderator is about paleo including lots of fruits and high carbs.

But in earlier posts I was rather untactfully pointed to Denise Minger's paper on giant African fruits, the relevance of which still evades me (but more on that), but I also learned that my life was shambles because I was "ignorant" and old and I saw a linked picture for the first time of what I really looked like and it was devastatingly unbecoming. "O wad some Power the gift tae gie us, to see oursels as ithers see us" (Burns) But now that I know how you like me and I have regained my composure, I can press on with why I reject Minger's paper as evidence of high carbs in the paleolithic. Not reject it for it's intended purpose, mind you, but reject it as a weapon wielded by a certain young moderator in defense of high carbs because it was erroneously confused with paleo diet. For it's intended purpose she did quite well and after stating the four myths she wanted to dispel. she admits -

"*Virtually all the food we have available today—from plant and animal kingdoms alike—has been selectively bred for both flavor and ease of eating, and fruit is certainly no exception. It seems reasonable to conclude that, apart from the rare batch of honey or seasonal berry bushes popping up outside, humans didn’t get much exposure to sugar during our evolution, and modern fruits are completely unlike anything we encountered in the past.

But are these assumptions truly accurate? Let’s take a look at the facts.*"

But she is selective in her fruits and the facts she uses are very narrow in scope. Her premise is that some ancient fruits are basically equivalent to modern ones and that's OK as far as it goes. She didn't fully eradicate any "myths" by using selective examples and my own example of evolution of bananas and potatoes (although not fruit) and many others attest to the fact that the scope of this study is narrow, but here's why it did not portray the paleo diet.

Like I said in an earlier post in reference to A.J. Aguirre's bananas and potatoes in Ethiopia (which started my whole drift), just because you currently see lots of produce in a grocery store, it in no means that it was present during paleo times, and we all know that. Just like when Denise Minger went to Africa (I'm assuming she did), it no way indicates that all those giant African fruit were present in paleo times.

We came out of the Pleistocene 11-12,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial period. The beginning of the Pleistocene is roughly 2.5 million years ago and the Pleistocene itself roughly coincides with the advent of modern hominids. This would be our beloved paleo era. During these periods of repeated glaciation Africa was a very dry place, so much so that the African woodlands retreated to just three small patches during glacial maxima and there was broad expanse of African savannas and grasslands. Not much fruit or tubers in grassland, but the important part is coming up.

The earth's ecliptic plane changes seasonally in relation to the sun, but we all know this. The north pole is sunny in summer and dark in winter, etc, but the surface of the earth closest to the sun near the equator keeps moving in cycles above the equator and then below the equator and so on. That surface gets direct perpendicular heat from the sun causing the humid air to heat up and rise to altitude which causes the air to cool and condense into rain. So as the changing eliptical plane of the earth moves up and down in relation to the sun, the rain likewise moves above the equator and then below the equator and these are the monsoons. As the monsoons move north then south, then north, then south, hoofed animals follow these rains and these are known as the great migrations.

I mentioned in an earlier post that paleos were nomadic because they chased after game when an area became depleted, and because they went high in summer and low in winter. Well this is another reason. They followed the hoofed migrations because they were going where the food was going.

I'm not sure how long this went on but you had the better part of 2.5 million years to get this pattern established and when you see illustrations of paleo people out in vast grasslands, this is what you are looking at. So as, I said before, the African woodlands retreated to three small patches. Before this happened there was one main species of gorilla. Here is the diet of the herbivorous gorilla -

*The diet of a gorilla consists primarily of fruits, leaves, shoots, shrubs, vines, tree bark, flowers and a variety of other plant matter. http://www.ehow.com/about_4580393_gorilla-diet.html*

Originally gorilla habitat was broad, as broad as the woodlands use to be. As the woodlands shrank, the supply of gorilla feed and fruits (and habitat) shrank with it till there were separate groups of gorillas which eventually diverged into subspecies.

Maybe now you can see where I am going with this. If the available gorilla carbs dropped to such low levels, so low that the gorilla couldn't thrive and almost died out retreating to small patches, and yet nomadic humans were traipsing north and south thriving on animals, and this went on for most the Pleistocene, where is the evidence that carbs had anything to do with this? Grasslands are not carb friendly, yet the hooved animals were capable of converting grass into protein.

Today in Africa, most of that rainforest has recovered since the end of the last ice age, but the gorilla populations have not re-established contact (and probably never will in today's Africa). But as the forest recovered so did the supply of fruit and that was what Denise Minger saw.

So we need to keep it all in context and keep open minds. When I said "real paleo" I'm into what really happened back then and not somebody's cockeyed hypothesis or romantic faux interpretation of it. Some of you younger guys just internalize something because it seems to fit and then you shoot from the hip at anybody who disagrees with you. A little cognitive dissonance will not fail you. And maybe a little humility...

Ed

0
6da7ce6a4a250c46a6e78b5b4e22da83

(987)

on July 23, 2011
at 04:45 PM

My only critique of your timeline is that it doesn't start early enough. I became interested in the Paleo diet about 6 or 7 years ago, having been pointed to the Loren Cordain's work through Crossfit. Although "low carb" is admittedly relative, Cordain's recommendations weren't particularly low carb - at least, that was not his emphasis. I remember "lean meats" and "unlimited fruits and vegetables". Around 20-30% of calories from carbs. This fits with the fact that it was combined with the Zone, which is not particularly low carb or high fat. Then people started tinkering with the Zone, upping the fat blocks and cutting out carbs... Robb Wolf's how to skin the Zone article was pretty influential, I think. After this, it strikes me that people became pretty extreme in their carb-phobia - although I think Good Calories, Bad Calories was excellent in many respects, it really fanned the anti-carb flames in paleo circles. I'm happy to see things returning to a more moderate place regarding carbs, much more in line with Cordain's original recommendations.

0
96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:10 AM

Based on 5 months of reading, I think it boils down to what you can get away with and still get desired results. For most people, the desired result is either weight loss or good performance at a desired weight. Other than a lucky few who seem able to eat anything they want within Paleo/Primal parameters, most people have to either:

  1. restrict calories with a risk of feeling deprived and the issues that causes
  2. restrict food type--go low on either carbs or fats, in which case many people feel it's healthier to go low on carbs if you must choose
  3. restrict how often you eat (IF.)

In my case, I follow option 3 and eat 1 meal per day. I average 75-150 grams of carbs and as much protein/fat as I can eat in that large meal. I don't suffer physical hunger until the next day although I do have "wish I had soda" moments. In my 5 months I've lost about 30 pounds.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:26 AM

Those are mechanisms to try to lose weight through trying to change the body's fat homeostasis level. A good chunk of us lean pretty heavily on a performance, health bias over body comp. Maybe that's my way of saying I'm young, lean and am more oriented around function. Once metabolic derangement sets in carbs may need to be limited forever. I do think that Paleo folks under utilize supplementation to help w/ weight loss and so they lean heavier on low carb and caloric intake reduction via elimination of food groups. Jade and Keoni Teta do some smart weight loss supplementing IMO.

0
69a2a5deb24d5b8d3aae3d9652fac564

(1020)

on July 23, 2011
at 02:53 AM

I think that Paleo is INDEED still a LC diet in nature. Who says it's not? Granted, there is no 1 size fits all version of "Paleo".

69a2a5deb24d5b8d3aae3d9652fac564

(1020)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:57 PM

Ha, okay. I guess it wasn't my most eloquent of posts, but I was being sarcastic.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:30 AM

I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here. LC falls under the purview of paleo but it is not all paleo. Paleo's "nature" includes the possibility of low carb but a moderate carb paleo is not "less paleo in nature." For a lot of people (especially those with adrenal and thyroid issues and those with a performance bias), low carb paleo is a nightmare.

F77c6462cf6596fe6dabeeb5931821ab

(365)

on August 26, 2011
at 01:09 AM

I didn't pick up any of the sarcasm either =(

-1
1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on July 23, 2011
at 02:52 AM

Paleo does not need to be low carb. However if you are looking to loose weight and you read Taubes book you will likely try low carb.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 03:03 AM

And I have read Gary Taubes' book and I respect him but disagree with his insulin phobia.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on July 23, 2011
at 02:55 AM

Thank you for reading what I wrote and thoughtfully replying.

Answer Question


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