0

votes

What do you guys think of this "anti-paleo" article?

Commented on November 04, 2013
Created November 01, 2013 at 4:52 AM

This article is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've read recently:

http://www.blisstree.com/2012/08/13/food/john-mcdougall-lose-weight-carbs-paleo-diet-343/

What's with mainstream "health" (yeah right) websites and organizations always attempting to detract the paleo lifestyle/diet? It's absurd how much false information is put out there, IMO.

So what are your opinions on that article?

Fa14fbe0ac345e586fb407dbed9eda04

(0)

on November 04, 2013
at 03:01 AM

Oh, leave him alone.

He's trying to sell his book.

I say let him! let the gullible die of heart attacks and diabetes. So long as those idiots don't breed, I see nothing wrong with him capitalizing on stupidity

Fa14fbe0ac345e586fb407dbed9eda04

(0)

on November 04, 2013
at 02:48 AM

The atkins diet isn't actually that bad. At least he has the sense to restrict calories from carbs, which is something not a lot of nutritionists dare to do(despite it being the correct approach to dieting)

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 04, 2013
at 01:32 AM

Quilt already is in trouble… no need to take it away for selling books/ideas.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 04, 2013
at 01:31 AM

He, like you, don't have a handle on what paleo is and is not.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on November 03, 2013
at 11:24 PM

These macro wonkers always deny reality to press their point. They skip over inconvenient truths like marrowbones, eggshells, roasting pits, etc etc. The 9000 BC Catalhoyuk site contains both grain residue and piles of animal bones, mostly from small domesticated animals.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on November 03, 2013
at 11:16 PM

Let's take away Atkins', Davis' and the Quilt's licenses too while we're at it. I hate hucksters selling books using their unrelated creds.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on November 03, 2013
at 10:43 PM

What's wrong with edit? I can't delete the link in my comment - please disregard, unless you're interested in what makes French fries sparkle.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on November 03, 2013
at 10:35 PM

I liked the line about the problem with the American diethttp://www.cargillfoods.com/na/en/products/oils-shortenings/Products/flakes/index.jsp was that it was high protein, high fat, high calorie and high carb. So at a minimum our diet macros add up to 150%? Are we manbearpigs?

Medium avatar

on November 02, 2013
at 03:34 AM

I agree with you about fat is more easily translated to body fat, and carbs are good for weight loss. I eat mostly carbs and follow hundreds of people who do the same thing, losing weight, getting healthy, as well as carbohydrate overfeeding studies that validate these words (400g daily can be burned for thermogenesis). Low fat doesn't mean no fat, we still get plenty of fats, its arguable the levels necessary for optimal health.

Medium avatar

on November 02, 2013
at 03:26 AM

I think your emotion got the best of you again, he simply stated its an apology of the Atkins diet. May want to read the article, no sense in avoiding all the information that doesn't support your personally constructed beliefs, right?

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 02, 2013
at 12:45 AM

Wow, is this what 17% looks like? My chart above has to be way off. No idea what I'm at. Probably 13-20%? Haha, no idea.

Edit: Err.. Mark's lab was off and we're both sub 10%. Confusing.

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 02, 2013
at 12:12 AM

Imgur for the win -- http://i.imgur.com/FzMYxi3.jpg

Though, Mark Sisson is pretty ripped and he does just fine on low carb.. wrote the book. So I don't think low body fat is really too much of an issue. I just need to remember to eat a lot more fat when I eat a lot less carbs.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb

(4493)

on November 02, 2013
at 12:11 AM

that link to the jpeg did not work (for me)..."not found"

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 02, 2013
at 12:09 AM

Good call. When I don't eat much (~1800 calories), it's not so strange to be low carb. It's really when I need to eat more that it's trickier to not have an excess of protein. I started low-carb / low-cal and have been needing to up both of them as I've started exercising more frequently. I can feel my diet is too much sugary now though, at least on a daily basis. Going to make the effort to eat more fat and less sugar and figure out where I am exactly on a larger timeframe.

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 01, 2013
at 11:59 PM

Good calls. I have no idea what my BF is. (Look at this, I think I'll soon be in a little better shape than the 8% guy.) I'll play around with making an effort to eat more fat in place of the sugary carbs. I haven't kept an eye on my diet since I was first learning how to eat real food. I'm going to enter my food this week / month so I get a real clear picture (for fun.) I don't do high intensity, just lots of high rep low weight type stuff throughout the day.

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 01, 2013
at 11:31 PM

Unless you;re under 10% BF you don't have to put on fat to be able to burn it. It's likely to already be there. A pound of body fat easily trumps your glycogen stores... another pound or two should should handle whatever workouts you do unless you're crazy active at super high intensity. Yes, some people handle starch better than others. I don't have any data but I'm making the fat burning argument based on the fact that our stored energy is predominantly fat. Store fat / burn fat seems logical. Need instant high energy output... the glycogen. YMMV

F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 01, 2013
at 11:19 PM

"why not just eat energy as I need it"?

Because that implies & requires a ready supply of carbs. Not a problem in the modern world but for ancient man....no grocery store, fridge or Gatorade. I prefer a system with a substantial fuel tank. :) That's body fat!

Glycogen stores? maybe ~500g max? Maybe 2000 calories stored? If you're a fat burner you can easily have MANY times that readily available via body fat. Dr. Attia was a ketosis fueled athlete for ~ 1 year. Check out http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-fuel-a-marathon/#axzz2jREB4HTI

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 01, 2013
at 07:59 AM

(today my diet looks like this). First day I've tracked in several months since starting the diet. At 3,000 calories, more than 50% of the energy is carbs, followed by fat, then protein. The fat is primarily SFA today. On other days when I eat less cal, it's closer to a 40/30/30. Looks like I could have eaten more omega 3 and vitamin e today.

I could see eating more starches or more fats from this point. Still dialing it in.

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 01, 2013
at 06:53 AM

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 01, 2013
at 06:44 AM

It's a little tricky for me, as I don't have digestive issues or much body fat. When I read these things about running on fat, it sounds like maybe I need to put on some fat so I can burn it off, but why not just eat energy as I need it.

There was an interesting reference to AMY1 genes(unfortunately not read by 23andme) in the starch solution where individuals might be genetically better with starches than others. (I have a copy of the APOE-E4 which can lead to extra sfa's.)

I think I agree though.. fat is probably the way to go. (Still convincing myself.)

Medium avatar

on November 01, 2013
at 06:42 AM

Wow. I can't see anything I would call 'food' in that list, I honestly didn't expect that. I'm glad I decided the book was pretty dubious.

Medium avatar

on November 01, 2013
at 06:36 AM

I have had the same experience. Carbs have always made me hungrier and want more carbs no matter how much I would have happened to eat. So low carb paleo is the winner for me.

Medium avatar

on November 01, 2013
at 06:34 AM

I was also curious about the book too, it was a bit tempting to me since I like carbs although I'm pretty happy to reduce them for the sake of health (aka low carb). It's definitely ironic how it describes an optimal Paleo diet while "hating" on the it.

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 01, 2013
at 06:31 AM

Reading through the recipes in the back of the starch solution.. under "Starting the day" they're recommending 1/2 cup of agave nectar, 1/2 cup of soy milk, 2 cups of wheat flour, and a tablespoon of "Ener-G Egg Replacer"... Nice.

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 01, 2013
at 05:32 AM

I tend to look to carbs for cardio. Things like running when you're skinny and there's no chance of weight gain. In that context, I have a hard time determining how carbs work over fat, though for the avg person trying to lose weight, the high-fat paleo protocol seems to be the way.

It gets muddy when I think of hunter-gatherer exercise with my association of carbs and exercise, though, I can't imagine them not having meat as a staple.

(currently reading low-carb performance which argues fat is the best energy.)

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 01, 2013
at 05:11 AM

I was curious about reading that book, but that article really turned me off.

"Basically, the paleo diet is a terrible diet."

I like how the whole premise of the article is describing what an optimal Paleo diet might be, as it hates on Paleo diets.

Edit: Aw, meme gif removed.

Frontpage book

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

8 Answers

0
Fa14fbe0ac345e586fb407dbed9eda04

on November 03, 2013
at 06:09 PM

His answer to this quote: "One of the things you spoke about in the book is what an actual, foundational, early-human diet really looked like. Are you concerned about the popularity of the meat-heavy, so-called paleo diet?"

What? Where exactly would humans get their calories from if not from meat 100000 years ago? Starch(and carbs as a whole) became a major part of the human diet about 10000 years ago, when agriculture was invented. A human requires about twice as many carb calories per day to maintain the weight. Where the fuck would you get 6000 calories of fruit in a time when fruit literally did not exist?!

Those apple trees in your backyard? The only reason they produce such large fruit is because of artificial selection lasting generations, which caused the cherry sized crab apples to develop into actual fruit. Those potatoes, which are supposedly the main source of starch? Yeah, the modern potato didn't exist either. Or maybe corn? Nope. Corn is a human invention. So where could humans get starch from? Well, if you lived in post ice age Europe, you'd encounter wild garlic(which is nowhere near as edible as modern garlic), and roots. Other than that, the only calories you'd find that didn't have eyes came from berries(incidentally, berries are also the only plants that humans almost didn't alter in the past 10000 years).

Medium avatar

(10611)

on November 03, 2013
at 11:24 PM

These macro wonkers always deny reality to press their point. They skip over inconvenient truths like marrowbones, eggshells, roasting pits, etc etc. The 9000 BC Catalhoyuk site contains both grain residue and piles of animal bones, mostly from small domesticated animals.

0
96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19463)

on November 03, 2013
at 02:04 PM

You know, that article changed my mind. I'll give up paleo right now and switch to potatoes, after all he says so right in his book that cave paintings aren't of buffalo and hunters, infact, it's all pictures of potatos! NOT! Yawn, another snake oil... err, carb diet salesman.

0
9605b157f7ae5b131f2e0b244c9b7500

on November 01, 2013
at 04:10 PM

somebody take his med lic away...he is a fool trying to sell a book.

Ok what do we and early man eat and can we prove it? YES! In the scientific study of pre-historic animals we know what the ate...How? We look at their tooth structure. This tells us if the chewed or just swallowed, ate meat and or plants and by what %, along with many other things about our diet. Look in a cow/horse mouth, then look in a dogs mouth. DUH!

Medium avatar

(10611)

on November 03, 2013
at 11:16 PM

Let's take away Atkins', Davis' and the Quilt's licenses too while we're at it. I hate hucksters selling books using their unrelated creds.

0
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on November 01, 2013
at 12:10 PM

Stopped reading at the (mistaken) generalization that paleo is meat-heavy Atkins.

Medium avatar

on November 02, 2013
at 03:26 AM

I think your emotion got the best of you again, he simply stated its an apology of the Atkins diet. May want to read the article, no sense in avoiding all the information that doesn't support your personally constructed beliefs, right?

0
7904c7276d7e48f1be887fabd263bfd9

(300)

on November 01, 2013
at 12:01 PM

this article isnt really an anti-paleo article, its just trying to get his book sold. he didnt include any actual information in the article, nor even attempt to refute any of the paleo philosophy.(baring the dispute over what ancestors ate)

if i was to play the devils advocate i may argue that dietary fat is more easily translated to body fat, carbs ofcourse being more difficult to convert, so in theory if you ate carbs that were not refined and in the absense of fat you could make an arguement that would be good for weight loss. but i dont think the arguement is which diet can you lose weight on, as im sure many of you know, you can lose weight eating pretty much anything. whats really important is which is better for our health in general, i cant imagine cutting out carbs or fats would be wise.

Medium avatar

on November 02, 2013
at 03:34 AM

I agree with you about fat is more easily translated to body fat, and carbs are good for weight loss. I eat mostly carbs and follow hundreds of people who do the same thing, losing weight, getting healthy, as well as carbohydrate overfeeding studies that validate these words (400g daily can be burned for thermogenesis). Low fat doesn't mean no fat, we still get plenty of fats, its arguable the levels necessary for optimal health.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on November 03, 2013
at 10:35 PM

I liked the line about the problem with the American diethttp://www.cargillfoods.com/na/en/products/oils-shortenings/Products/flakes/index.jsp was that it was high protein, high fat, high calorie and high carb. So at a minimum our diet macros add up to 150%? Are we manbearpigs?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on November 03, 2013
at 10:43 PM

What's wrong with edit? I can't delete the link in my comment - please disregard, unless you're interested in what makes French fries sparkle.

0
F291857fa12a0291688ea994343156dc

(720)

on November 01, 2013
at 06:34 AM

@paleot

This guys philosophy completely goes against my experience of "Lose the carbs, lose the fat".

If I ate as the dear doctor advises... I still have heartburn, acid reflux & I'd be 30 lbs heavier. Maybe his diet works for him, but does not for me.

To digress... the conventional wisdom of carbs for cardio is again a matter of "it depends"....

Depends on at what level you're performing..... at average to high amateur status fat burning is the way to go. If you're aiming for elite athlete status that's different story.

check out Dr. Peter Attia...yeah he's an MD but came to medicine by way of engineering undergrad so you can be assured is has a working brain. He's also very accomplished fat fueled athlete. He's done the California coast to Catalina Island (both ways on different occasions) but he was a carb eater then. Check out his person blog. He scientific self-experimenter who takes meticulous data that he shares. His non-profit NuSI (San Diego) is working to support good nutritional science.

If you visit his blog you'll see how he went from a pudgy but athletic 200lbs to a equally if not more athletic 177. He spent ~1 year on purpose in ketosis.

http://eatingacademy.com/how-can-i-lose-weight

For any budding elite athletes he gives his person experiences with SuperStarch

http://eatingacademy.com/sports-and-nutrition/introduction-to-superstarch-part-i

http://eatingacademy.com/sports-and-nutrition/introduction-to-superstarch-part-ii

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 01, 2013
at 06:44 AM

It's a little tricky for me, as I don't have digestive issues or much body fat. When I read these things about running on fat, it sounds like maybe I need to put on some fat so I can burn it off, but why not just eat energy as I need it.

There was an interesting reference to AMY1 genes(unfortunately not read by 23andme) in the starch solution where individuals might be genetically better with starches than others. (I have a copy of the APOE-E4 which can lead to extra sfa's.)

I think I agree though.. fat is probably the way to go. (Still convincing myself.)

0
Medium avatar

on November 01, 2013
at 06:31 AM

@samc I agree with you, its all about personal experience, everyones body is different and reacts differently. But a "diet" or more so lifestyle based on what our ancestors ate and did is far more damn convincing for me than a bogus, biased article.

0
Medium avatar

(238)

on November 01, 2013
at 05:24 AM

I think the guy has to support his lifestyle and his product line. Having had his overpriced soups in the past, I can tell you for sure that they are big money makers. Eating carbs has always put weight on my body, eliminating them has the opposite effect. Science be damned I go for personal experience over anything else.

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57

(995)

on November 01, 2013
at 05:32 AM

I tend to look to carbs for cardio. Things like running when you're skinny and there's no chance of weight gain. In that context, I have a hard time determining how carbs work over fat, though for the avg person trying to lose weight, the high-fat paleo protocol seems to be the way.

It gets muddy when I think of hunter-gatherer exercise with my association of carbs and exercise, though, I can't imagine them not having meat as a staple.

(currently reading low-carb performance which argues fat is the best energy.)

Medium avatar

on November 01, 2013
at 06:36 AM

I have had the same experience. Carbs have always made me hungrier and want more carbs no matter how much I would have happened to eat. So low carb paleo is the winner for me.

Answer Question


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