Caveman Diet

  • tony_boost

    Posts: 390

    Jun 18, 2010 8:54 AM GMT
    my friend's brother and sister were talking about going on this diet because her brother had lost 20 lbs in a month while eating this way, i had never heard of it until today but from what i've heard it seems like a back to basics, organic whole foods diet. I want to start a cutting diet soon and was wondering if anyone on here had any experience with the caveman and any tips on how to make it work and stick to it
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2010 2:30 PM GMT
    It's commonly called the Paleo diet.

    Loren Cordain's book is probably the best place to start.

    It's not too hard to follow except for the no legumes part, but with any diet research it first and see how it will fit into your life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 18, 2010 2:51 PM GMT
    I like Paleo - it makes you think about what you're eating, why you're eating it, how to eat a ton of veggies. I pretty much just eat veggies, meat, fruit, milk, nuts, and some rice these days. And I have about half a cup of rolled oats in the morning. And I have two protein shakes because I can't be bothered to figure out how to get 2g per kg body weight without it.

    Paleo is a low GI, semi-low carb, no dairy, no legume, low sodium diet without any weighing, calorie counting, or worry about fat/ carb/ fiber contents of your food. I think the main book is like $10. And in the book he worries too much about saturated fat. It's the sodium that comes with the bacon that causes heart disease, not the meat and fat. Otherwise it is pretty good.
  • UFJocknerd

    Posts: 392

    Jun 18, 2010 3:01 PM GMT
    The premise of it is silly. There's no reason why pre-agrarian foods should be better for us merely because we're "evolutionarily suited" to eating that. Pre-agrarian humans also used to bust open the skulls of dead animals to eat the protein-rich brain matter because we weren't capable of taking down most animals to get good meat, but I don't see people advocating that.

    I think part of the support for it it also the irrational belief that "cavemen" actually looked like the ripped, 7-foot-tall ubermenschs in grade school textbook illustrations rather than the 20-year-life-expectancy, consistently near-death waifs they were.
  • Starboard

    Posts: 242

    Jun 18, 2010 3:02 PM GMT
    I've been 90% Paleo since January. No dairy, no grains, or legumes (beans and peanuts); just meat, fruit, nuts and seeds. Cutting dairy was hard, but I have found a substitute for the cream in my coffee (coconut milk). The diet is not designed to make you lose weight (thought that will happen as a side effect)....it's designed to eliminate the foods that make many of us sick (gluten/lactose, processed sugars). I do not limit portions at all, just the types of food that I eat. Getting lean is just a collateral benefit.
  • Starboard

    Posts: 242

    Jun 18, 2010 3:18 PM GMT
    Buffhunk64It only works if you go out an hunt your own food and burn up extra calories.
    .

    Nothing wrong with a little physical activity...you could also spend some time foraging for wild berries.

    Here is one of the best resources I have found for understanding some of the health benefits of eliminating things like dairy, grain, potatoes, etc. from your diet. http://paleolithicdiet.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/original-introduction/
  • Starboard

    Posts: 242

    Jun 18, 2010 4:20 PM GMT
    UFJocknerdThe premise of it is silly. There's no reason why pre-agrarian foods should be better for us merely because we're "evolutionarily suited" to eating that


    Many people are lactose intolerant, gluten intolerant or both. Some of us have certain levels of tolerance thanks to some healthy evolution that's occurred over several centuries...but by eliminating these elements from our diet, theoretically we become healthier and more immune to certain ailments that are common today. The benefits of eliminating processed sugars speak for themselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2010 12:21 AM GMT
    Yep, its been a life style change for me rather than a diet. It seems to fix everything...no exaggeration at all. Who would think a guy my age could go way below his high school waist size. My bro lost 30 lbs stuffing his face rather than dieting.. but Cave Man style. Nature never intended that we grow fat and sick.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2010 3:18 AM GMT
    UFJocknerd saidThe premise of it is silly. There's no reason why pre-agrarian foods should be better for us merely because we're "evolutionarily suited" to eating that. Pre-agrarian humans also used to bust open the skulls of dead animals to eat the protein-rich brain matter because we weren't capable of taking down most animals to get good meat, but I don't see people advocating that.

    I think part of the support for it it also the irrational belief that "cavemen" actually looked like the ripped, 7-foot-tall ubermenschs in grade school textbook illustrations rather than the 20-year-life-expectancy, consistently near-death waifs they were.


    Christians always get dumped on for being anti-evolutionists but I am astounded how evolutionary principles like nature selection and survival of the fittest are routinely denied by "enlightened" liberals for the same inexplicable reasons. The paleo diet is the present case in point. If we eat alien food that we have no real ability to process then we get horribly fat and sick.
    c
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2010 3:20 AM GMT
    Eliminating grains from our diet has a sound scientific foundation. The biological purpose of seeds and grains, from the plant's perspective, is to germinate and propagate their species. As a defense mechanism these grains contain micro toxins that block specific digestive and metabolic processes.
  • UFJocknerd

    Posts: 392

    Jun 19, 2010 4:25 AM GMT
    Alpha13 said
    Christians always get dumped on for being anti-evolutionists but I am astounded how evolutionary principles like nature selection and survival of the fittest are routinely denied by "enlightened" liberals for the same inexplicable reasons. The paleo diet is the present case in point. If we eat alien food that we have no real ability to process then we get horribly fat and sick.
    c


    On the contrary; it's merely that I'm in favor of rational and correct application of evolutionary principles, not naive or simplistic ones.

    e.g., "Clearly, if the carbohydrate-rich diet of our ancestors implemented 10,000 years ago was in discordance with their physiology, then this would have created a selection pressure for evolutionary change in some features of human metabolism. Given this, modern humans – especially Europeans, the descendants of simple agriculturalists which had consumed cereal grains for 400–500 generations – should be in some way ‘adequately adapted’ to carbohydrate-rich diets. However, if Kopp is right and there was no ‘adequate adaptation’ since the end of the Pleistocene, then the carbohydrate-rich diet was functional without it. Whatever is the fact, to think that a dietary factor is valuable (functional) to the organism only when there was ‘genetical adaptation’ and hence a new dietary factor is dysfunctional per se because there was no evolutionary adaptation to it, such a panselectionist misreading of biological evolution seems to be inspired by a naive adaptationistic view of life"

    from

    Ströhle, A., Woltersa, M., & Hahn, A. (2007) Carbohydrates and the diet–atherosclerosis connection—More between earth and heaven. Comment on the article “The atherogenic potential of dietary carbohydrate.” Preventative Medicine, 44, 82-84.


    It's of course true that fake food is bad for you and any diet that discourages it is a step up. But, that doesn't relieve the premises of the "caveman diet" from their error.
  • Starboard

    Posts: 242

    Jun 19, 2010 4:42 AM GMT
    UFJocknerdWhatever is the fact, to think that a dietary factor is valuable (functional) to the organism only when there was ‘genetical adaptation’ and hence a new dietary factor is dysfunctional per se because there was no evolutionary adaptation to it, such a panselectionist misreading of biological evolution seems to be inspired by a naive adaptationistic view of life


    Is that English?

    It's hard to tell since it's just an excerpt but the focus of that argument seems to be an carbohydrates. I eat plenty of carbs...just not grains. And the reason why I don't eat grains is not because of their carbohydrate levels, it's because of the gluten that grains and flours contain.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2010 5:32 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidJust curious why beans are not allowed on this diet. Can anyone provide a fully supported rational as to why this is contra-indicative (according to this diet)? I personally eat quite a bit of beans as it helps me stay regular and they are high in protein and carbohydrates.

    Thanks.


    Legumes produce a bunch of isoflavones which have a large number of effects in mammals, a lot of them negative but also some positive. Phytoestrogens are examples of isoflavones. Then there's the phytic acid which chelates metal ions like calcium, magnesium and iron. Then there's some beans which are toxic in raw form so you have to soak and boil them - does that get rid of all of the toxins? And then some beans have a very high content of carbs as you say yourself. Do you need all those carbs? A marathon runner has exhausted his glycogen stores (carbohydrates stored in his muscles and liver) when he hits the wall at about the 32km mark. So if that doesn't happen to you that often then you probably don't need that much carb. The extra greens and nuts should compensate for the fiber lack.
    Also by some estimates 70% of the stuff you see on the shelves in the supermarket contains soy products. A very one-sided diet no?

    But hey, I don't eat Paleo, I try to eat pre-industrialization diet, and you can eat whatever you want. I just agree with the Paleo proponents that it is a very good idea to try out strict Paleo for about 6 weeks. It kinda resets your sweet and salt sensation and opens your eyes to what you eat and how long it's been around (most Asian chefs will insist that their kitchen is based on white, not brown rice, but white rice have been widely available for less than 200 years - our collective food memory is very short).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2010 5:49 AM GMT
    It amazes me how much quackery gets bandied about when it comes to any pet diet scheme, whether it's a viewpoint that's pro or con. Honestly... grains are bad for us? Beans are bad for us? Dairy is bad for us? Pseudo-scientific talk about microtoxins, enzymes, and phyto whatever that no one really knows anything about.

    Diet is not rocket science. Eat lean meats, vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy, and legumes in moderate amounts and avoid packaged, processed, preserved crap as much as possible. Simple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2010 7:46 AM GMT
    Ciarsolo saidEliminating grains from our diet has a sound scientific foundation. The biological purpose of seeds and grains, from the plant's perspective, is to germinate and propagate their species. As a defense mechanism these grains contain micro toxins that block specific digestive and metabolic processes.


    I don't suppose you'd be kind enough to post a source? I'd be curious to read more =)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2010 8:08 AM GMT
    I stopped trying to give advise in here. There are so many who just want to disprove anything good. This is a great diet. I am glad you mentioned it. Now, I don't feel like such an idiot for trying to let others know that bread and other stuff is crap for you!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2010 8:11 AM GMT
    Global_Citizen saidIt amazes me how much quackery gets bandied about when it comes to any pet diet scheme, whether it's a viewpoint that's pro or con. Honestly... grains are bad for us? Beans are bad for us? Dairy is bad for us? Pseudo-scientific talk about microtoxins, enzymes, and phyto whatever that no one really knows anything about.

    Diet is not rocket science. Eat lean meats, vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy, and legumes in moderate amounts and avoid packaged, processed, preserved crap as much as possible. Simple.


    Sorry if I offended you. I just reiterated why Paleo is without legumes. I even think that people who advocate Paleo just lump it in there because there is so much weirdness in beans. I don't feel the urge for beans and I feel better without bread and pasta (and I suspect that may be because I then get hungry and eat tons of vegge and fruit instead).

    And OP if you do decide to do Paleo (even though it's not meant as a cutting diet for bodybuilders - bodybuilding really is the strangest sport IMHO) please remember that bacon isn't Paleo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2010 8:13 AM GMT
    Global_Citizen saidIt amazes me how much quackery gets bandied about when it comes to any pet diet scheme, whether it's a viewpoint that's pro or con. Honestly... grains are bad for us? Beans are bad for us? Dairy is bad for us? Pseudo-scientific talk about microtoxins, enzymes, and phyto whatever that no one really knows anything about.

    Diet is not rocket science. Eat lean meats, vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy, and legumes in moderate amounts and avoid packaged, processed, preserved crap as much as possible. Simple.


    I agree.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2010 8:29 AM GMT
    Starboard saidI've been 90% Paleo since January. No dairy, no grains, or legumes (beans and peanuts); just meat, fruit, nuts and seeds. Cutting dairy was hard, but I have found a substitute for the cream in my coffee (coconut milk). The diet is not designed to make you lose weight (thought that will happen as a side effect)....it's designed to eliminate the foods that make many of us sick (gluten/lactose, processed sugars). I do not limit portions at all, just the types of food that I eat. Getting lean is just a collateral benefit.


    Almond milk is a fantastic replacement for cow's milk. You might want to try it out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2010 3:28 PM GMT
    I don't dismiss the fact that the study of food and nutrition can be as scientific as anything. But for 9 out of 10 people, the minutiae of nutrition science just isn't that relevant.

    For those who take a keen interest in it, such as fitness instructors, bodybuilders, or people with certain diseases affected by certain foods, it can be important and interesting.

    But for most people, I reiterate what I said above. Lean meats, vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and legumes, all in moderation. Not processed. Simple.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2010 3:40 PM GMT
    Global_Citizen saidI don't dismiss the fact that the study of food and nutrition can be as scientific as anything. But for 9 out of 10 people, the minutiae of nutrition science just isn't that relevant.

    For those who take a keen interest in it, such as fitness instructors, bodybuilders, or people with certain diseases affected by certain foods, it can be important and interesting.

    But for most people, I reiterate what I said above. Lean meats, vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and legumes, all in moderation. Not processed. Simple.


    We all eat, and for the sake of our own health we should all be aware of our diets.

    Nutrition should a part of your ever evolving "continued" education. It's a huge part of our lives, and as such we shouldn't dismiss it so frivolously.

    Addendum: A huge factor in the US's obesity epidemic is that so few care about nutrition or are educated about it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 22, 2010 7:16 AM GMT
    Ganymede80 said
    Global_Citizen saidI don't dismiss the fact that the study of food and nutrition can be as scientific as anything. But for 9 out of 10 people, the minutiae of nutrition science just isn't that relevant.

    For those who take a keen interest in it, such as fitness instructors, bodybuilders, or people with certain diseases affected by certain foods, it can be important and interesting.

    But for most people, I reiterate what I said above. Lean meats, vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy and legumes, all in moderation. Not processed. Simple.


    We all eat, and for the sake of our own health we should all be aware of our diets.

    Nutrition should a part of your ever evolving "continued" education. It's a huge part of our lives, and as such we shouldn't dismiss it so frivolously.

    Addendum: A huge factor in the US's obesity epidemic is that so few care about nutrition or are educated about it.


    I don't think people were any better educated in the past. Obesity used to be a luxury reserved for the rich because they could afford to overeat. Now thanks to fast food anyone can be obese.