I love when big agriculture pays for studies to protect corporate interests.
I'm 6 foot tall, and I used to weigh 340 pounds. I ate my whole grains, and drank my wholesome skim milk, I limited my meat and animal fats intake, I tried their suggested amount of cardio (but was too fat to not feel too shitty afterwards). I did what the FDA said and what my doctor said, and I kept gaining weight.
I decided to tell the entire establishment to fuck off, and went strict Paleo: no grains (no corn, or wheat, or rice, or soy; no pasta or cereals or breads or whatever), no refined sugars (not even things like honey or agave syrup), no dairy (except very limited hard cheese low in lactose and hormones), and even got rid of any caffeine; and I ate all the meat and meat fat I wanted, all the veggies I wanted, and more fruit than I was under the grand FDA plan.
I went from 340 to 214 in a year. No increase in caloric burn, no decrease in caloric intake. Less than a year after that, I hit 184. After that I started weight lifting to fix my lack of muscle mass that years of eating the FDA diet caused, and under this diet I built muscle faster than I ever have before (mostly due to the increase of good protein sources from meat, the kind of meat the FDA demonizes).
I feel better than I ever have, I think faster and clearer, and I sleep better. So yeah, let them publish their studies all they want, if being fitter than I've ever been in my life is 'fat and unhealthy', then fuck them, and black is white, and we've always been at war with Eurasia.
Low-carbohydrate, high-fat/protein diets are warned against by almost all nutrition and medical authorities of the world. You should have a look at plant-based vegan diets. Many of the benefits of paleo, and none of the baggage of meat. May I also recommend you carb up with sweet, natural sugar from fruit, not resort to using stimulants like coffee!
What a ridiculous "study"; no wonder it hasn't been mentioned much in the scientific press.
1) population was an obscure breed of mice that was prediabetic at study onset.
2) carb content of the "paleo" group was 100% pure sucrose. For the control group, 2% total simple sugars.
3) saturated fat was just 1.8% of calories for the control group but 45% of calories for the "paleo" group.
4) whereas any real-world paleo diet will be higher in protein than a control diet, in this phony study, the control group diet was almost 50% higher in protein than the "paleo" diet!
5) the study was NOT CONTROLLED FOR EQUAL CALORIES between "paleo" and control! Mice were allowed to eat as much as they wanted.
I can hardly imagine a more concocted, phony "study".
> 5) the study was NOT CONTROLLED FOR EQUAL CALORIES between "paleo" and control! Mice were allowed to eat as much as they wanted.
One of the things that paleo advocates constantly wang on about is how satiating it is. Thus it makes sense to try to test that, which means you let mice eat what they like. (Although I accept this study was a poor way of testing it.)
But satiety requires protein satiety, and the faux-paleo group was getting a lower percentage of protein than the control group. Also, sources/quality of protein was not stated.
Color me unimpressed. For one, they seem to be conflating ketogenic and Paleo diets here. And while there is overlap between the two, they are not the same thing. Furthermore, there has been recent researching suggesting that there is no one "ideal" diet for all people. So if we can't even determine the ideal human diet using studies on humans, then how much stock should I put into studies done on mice? Sure, mice and humans are similar, but not as similar as, say, one human and another, no?
I'm not specifically a follower of the Paleo fad, but by and large I've become convinced that a low carb, moderate protein, high fat diet is the way to go. And, yes, there is at least some scientific evidence to support it. I don't have the citations all in front of me, but here's somewhere to start looking:
6 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 21.7 ms ] threadI'm 6 foot tall, and I used to weigh 340 pounds. I ate my whole grains, and drank my wholesome skim milk, I limited my meat and animal fats intake, I tried their suggested amount of cardio (but was too fat to not feel too shitty afterwards). I did what the FDA said and what my doctor said, and I kept gaining weight.
I decided to tell the entire establishment to fuck off, and went strict Paleo: no grains (no corn, or wheat, or rice, or soy; no pasta or cereals or breads or whatever), no refined sugars (not even things like honey or agave syrup), no dairy (except very limited hard cheese low in lactose and hormones), and even got rid of any caffeine; and I ate all the meat and meat fat I wanted, all the veggies I wanted, and more fruit than I was under the grand FDA plan.
I went from 340 to 214 in a year. No increase in caloric burn, no decrease in caloric intake. Less than a year after that, I hit 184. After that I started weight lifting to fix my lack of muscle mass that years of eating the FDA diet caused, and under this diet I built muscle faster than I ever have before (mostly due to the increase of good protein sources from meat, the kind of meat the FDA demonizes).
I feel better than I ever have, I think faster and clearer, and I sleep better. So yeah, let them publish their studies all they want, if being fitter than I've ever been in my life is 'fat and unhealthy', then fuck them, and black is white, and we've always been at war with Eurasia.
This appears to be the actual study - https://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0034-1389991 - I don't see any author disclosures of competing or corporate interests?
Low-carbohydrate, high-fat/protein diets are warned against by almost all nutrition and medical authorities of the world. You should have a look at plant-based vegan diets. Many of the benefits of paleo, and none of the baggage of meat. May I also recommend you carb up with sweet, natural sugar from fruit, not resort to using stimulants like coffee!
1) population was an obscure breed of mice that was prediabetic at study onset.
2) carb content of the "paleo" group was 100% pure sucrose. For the control group, 2% total simple sugars.
3) saturated fat was just 1.8% of calories for the control group but 45% of calories for the "paleo" group.
4) whereas any real-world paleo diet will be higher in protein than a control diet, in this phony study, the control group diet was almost 50% higher in protein than the "paleo" diet!
5) the study was NOT CONTROLLED FOR EQUAL CALORIES between "paleo" and control! Mice were allowed to eat as much as they wanted.
I can hardly imagine a more concocted, phony "study".
> 5) the study was NOT CONTROLLED FOR EQUAL CALORIES between "paleo" and control! Mice were allowed to eat as much as they wanted.
One of the things that paleo advocates constantly wang on about is how satiating it is. Thus it makes sense to try to test that, which means you let mice eat what they like. (Although I accept this study was a poor way of testing it.)
I'm not specifically a follower of the Paleo fad, but by and large I've become convinced that a low carb, moderate protein, high fat diet is the way to go. And, yes, there is at least some scientific evidence to support it. I don't have the citations all in front of me, but here's somewhere to start looking:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/science