What is a Paleo or Primal Diet?
Have you seen the words “Paleo” or “Primal” and wondered what they mean? Are these diets really as good for us as many say they are?
Thanks to Jeanmarie for allowing me to post excerpts today from her post titled, “Why is Everyone Talking Paleo and Primal?”
Is the Stone Age trend something you should take seriously? What are the advantages of Paleo/Primal eating, and how does it differ from low carb? Just who is this Grok, anyway? And do you have to wear a loin cloth?
American food habits are nothing if not trend-driven. We want to eat without restraint, we want to be slender with glowing good health, and we want easy-to-follow rules. And, if possible, we like to have an overarching philosophy to guide (or justify?) our dietary decisions.
Nothing is trendier now than vegan food except its polar opposite: caveman food, better known as the Paleolithic, Primal, or hunter-gatherer diet.
The boom and bust cycle of diet fads lends great appeal to the idea of getting back to our roots: eating the wild plants and animals that hominids evolved on in the Paleolithic era, from about 2.5 million years ago to the dawn of agriculture about 10,000 years ago.
The New York Times and The Washington Post ran feature stories on modern-day caveman food within a week of each other early this month, so you know it’s only a matter of time before Grok meets Oprah. (For now, the queen of the talk shows seems to have fallen under the spell of Kathy Freston, who advocates a 21-day “cleansing” vegan diet.) (A note from Kelly: read why you should stay away from vegan diets!)
There is considerable overlap between “Living La Vida Low Carb” (to borrow a phrase from low-carb blogger Jimmy Moore), and living the Primal lifestyle.
Both emphasize meats and fish, eggs, non-starchy vegetables, nuts, and low-sugar fruits such as berries. The Paleolithic diet includes root vegetables, and perhaps a bit of raw honey. What’s generally excluded is grains, dairy, legumes, processed oils, refined sweeteners, sometimes peanuts and cashews. Some versions of the diet exclude or minimize salt. The more extreme view is to eat only what you could hunt with a stick or gather with your bare hands, which would exclude such nutritious delights as lacto-fermented vegetables and bone stock.
Both Paleo and low carb promise to help normalize weight and provide relief from modern medical scourges such as metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and degenerative diseases and freedom from food cravings. They tend to diverge on dairy and artificial sweeteners (low carbers often include both), and each group has varying opinions on whether to eat lots of fat or little. Both overlap with the Weston A. Price Foundation’s nutrient-dense, traditional foods philosophy, which teaches preparation techniques to make the dietary latecomer’s grain and dairy more digestible and nutritious, while recognizing wide variation in healthful, native diets (and pointing out that none excluded animal products and all prized certain animal foods such as cod liver oil and organ meats). Neither low-carb nor Paleo necessarily include lacto-fermented vegetables—which are so important for good digestion and a strong immune system—but those would fit in either plan, except perhaps for the most extreme interpretations of Paleolithic nutrition.
Each respective philosophy could be simplified as:
- Low carb: “Eat no sugar or starch to stay thin—it’s not fat that makes you fat!”
- Paleo/Primal: “Eat only foods your paleolithic ancestors could have eaten—with a spear!”
- WAPF: “Eat local, nutrient-dense foods, prepared to maximize nutrition and good digestion—preferably with butter!”
Healthy fats:
These days while eating my veggies dripping with butter I think, what a waste! All those years I skimped on fat because everyone “knew” it made you fat, and prone to keel over from heart attack at any moment.
Somehow surviving those trends, I made my way to fat-laden, nutrient-dense eating, thanks to an accidental encounter with Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon at the book section of the Berkeley Whole Foods Market.
The work of Weston A. Price, detailed in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, (and in more accessible form in Traditional Foods Are Your Best Medicine, by Ron Schmid), reveals the best practices devised by varied traditional cultures to overcome the shortcomings of agriculture. Price taught the modern world how those “primitive” people revered certain sacred foods such as butter and cod liver oil, which bestow in concentrated form the blessings of animal foods that our ancestors thrived on.
Food writer Michael Pollan famously boiled his nutritional advice down to “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” One rebuttal to that by a New York Times blog reader was, “Ate plants. A big heap. Still hungry.”
In a review of Pollan’s In Defense of Food, a WAPF editor added: “Eat plants. Always with butter. Or cream.”
Continue reading at Jeanmarie’s blog for more:
- Read about Cordain and others who started the Paleo trend.
- Does Paleo or Primal necessarily mean eating mostly raw food?
- How does intermittent fasting play into this lifestyle?
- Do our bodies need carbohydrates? (This one may surprise you!)
- What about fermented foods?
- She also includes a huge “further reading” list.
Jeanmarie’s Suggested Resources:
For my money, the best of the Paleo/Primal guides are Nora Gedgaudas’s Primal Body-Primal Mind: Empower Your Total Health The Way Evolution Intended (…And Didn't)- And The Primal Blueprint
by Mark Sisson, author of the popular blog MarksDailyApple.com. Sisson, who named the prototypical Paleolithic man “Grok,” advocates a holistic lifestyle encompassing a fat-loving ancestral diet, stress reduction, low-intensity exercise spiked with sprints and brief, intensive weight lifting, mimicking the demands Stone Age survival placed on the body and mind.
Gedgaudas pairs clear explanation of high-fat Primal nutrition with a discussion of the wonders of neurofeedback (which I’m dying to try, if only I had the money and a practitioner nearby) for fixing whatever ails your brain. The two books are very much in harmony; each is worthwhile. Sisson’s work is better written and edited; both are amply documented and emphasize plenty of natural fats in the diet, moderate protein and minimal carbohydrates to shift the metabolism from sugar-burning to fat-burning. Both specify natural animal and WAPF-friendly fats (coconut oil anyone?) and grass-fed meat and eggs, plus non-starchy vegetables as the best dietary foundation.
* * * * * * * *
—Jeanmarie Todd loves to eat. Especially butter. And also cream.
Scott says
Just curious about the creation/evolution debate having anything to do with diet and nutrition. If you believe that we’ve evolved over the last 2.5 million years, aka Primal Eating, then why cling to the notion that we are genetically geared to eat the way we did 2.5 million years ago? On the other hand, why is the creationist point of view relegated to being merely a religious preference and not science? After all, the Bible gives much insight into how to eat, what to eat, and when to eat it. Some of you need to enlarge your view of what constitutes science and learn to get information from varied sources. NT references both points of view and allows for individual selection of food groups and preparation techniques. Paleo and other fat/protein methodologies only allow for a narrow view which may only fit a minority group. After all, isn’t modern agriculture the result of selective breeding of certain plants AND animals? Maybe the best way to describe this process would be adaptation. Food allergies, obesity, and arteriosclerosis after all, are a relatively new effect of limiting diet to a smaller food selection which focuses on over-consumption, limited selection and over-processing not of eating a balance of all things edible. Paleo eating has merit because it gets individuals to eat eat less of what’s processed. NT has merit because it recognizes that we’ve gotten out of balance. However one chooses to get in balance is her or his choice. I think it’s a privilege to have one.
Sasha says
@ Asiangirl – are you being serious? If you’re not, then I admire your sarcasm, but if you are then I just wanna ask you what is “sicko racism”? How does it compare to regular racism?
My comment was directed to people who take Bible literally, the fact that there were technically people from the Asian continent in the Bible does not take away from the fact that there were no Japanese, Chinese, Indian or Korean people mentioned – the groups more commonly referred as “Asians” in public discourse. There’s nothing racist about it, my statement could be even considered to be anti-racist since I’m trying to point out how unfair it is that those ethnic groups were not a part of the “good book”.
Also, I know I don’t have an ingenious nickname such as “Asiangirl” but how do you know I’m not Asian myself?
If I didn’t find your comment hilarious I wouldn’t bother commenting on an ancient blog post. If you knew me personally you’d know how ridiculous it is to call me a racist, since I am an active member of several NGOs that fight against discrimination in all shapes and forms. But then again I can’t expect everyone to have a sense of humor – so you might wanna work on developing one.
Kelly the Kitchen Kop says
OK, let’s drop it now please since it’s getting nasty & this chat is not really related to the original post.
Thanks,
Kelly
Asiangirl says
Shame on you, Sasha, for your sicko racism. Of course there were Asians in the Bible. Who the heck do you think the Babylonians, the Persian and the Medes are? Not to mention the inhabitants of Asia Minor (Turkey). The Hebrews too are technically Asians since Israel is in the continent of Asia. Your racist views sicken me. Please learn the basic of history in future!!
Jeanmarie says
So many good comments! Vin, my personal philosophy is quite in harmony with yours.
Sasha, good points. As to unanswered questions in the theory of evolution… that is true, and true as well of any field of science. Kari, science isn’t about proving things beyond a shadow of a doubt. Science is about asking questions in search of answers, and each answer brings up more questions. It’s a process, not an endpoint. Sasha is so right that it is ever moving forward. Darwin’s genius wasn’t that he had all the answers, but that he asked questions that few had asked before, he noticed things no one else had noticed before, and he knew he didn’t have the full explanation for *how* evolution worked, but his work kicked scientific knowledge far ahead of where it had been. All of current biology (and everything that flows from that) owes a debt to his great insights.
Americans’ scientific knowledge is so abysmal that deciding something is true or not because of what a majority of us believe makes little sense to me. My personal philosophy, based on the religious teachings I grew up with that “The glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth,” is to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. I believe there is nothing to fear by increasing our knowledge and understanding.
Sasha says
oops, its Kari, not Kara – sorry for that 🙂
Sasha says
Thanks Jeanmarie!
Kara, I really appreciate the kind reply – it is refreshing to see someone approach this matter in a calm and reasonable fashion. I’ve heard so many people defending their belief with anger and insults, and that will never result in any type of understanding.
I do believe that there are many unanswered question in the current theory of evolution and that there is a great chance that we will find out a twist in the whole story. One of the recent stirs in the theory was a series of discoveries regarding the importance of cell receptors in all it’s processes and the fact that DNA can be rewritten to better suit the environment. It disproved the original hypothesis where a series of accidental mutations happened and then natural selection took it’s course.
So basically, what I want to say is that science is moving forward and hopefully one day we will know a great deal more about our origins. Also one of my thoughts is that whatever science proves does not have to compete with religion, not everything from the bible has to be taken literally, it just might be that the both science and religion are in fact telling the same story from different angles.
P.S. If any of you guys need some tips on getting off the sugar(or other carbs) – I basically mastered that(being a former sugarholic 🙂 ) just shoot an e-mail to flight_20392yahoo.com
Vin - NaturalBias says
Great article, Kelly!
My philosophy on nutrition is a blend of WAPF and “primal”, but probably leans more towards WAPF with the exception that I rarely eat grains. Although I love the idea of focusing on the basics and incorporating the principles of evolution into health and lifestyle decisions, I think the primal philosophy can sometimes be cult like and people can get carried away with it. In the process, the focus on optimal health is sometimes lost. For example, some people say that protein powder “is primal” despite most of it being processed crap.
Whether low carb, WAPF, or primal, all philosophies offer great insight that anyone can benefit from. The key is adapting the information to your personal needs and beliefs. As Michelle said, I also think Metabolic Typing, or more generally, nutritional individuality is another important consideration.
Kari says
Sasha, Thank you for your post. I’ve been struggling losing weight eating the NT way, and you shed some light on it for me. 🙂
About the P.S…:)…When you are talking about evolution, you need to be careful to define your terms. 🙂 All Christians believe in microevolution, to some degree. We do see small changes in animal life as they adapt to their surroundings. But, many people, in fact over 50% of the American population, question whether we really see macroevolution. We really don’t have any evidence that one animal changes into another animal over a long period of time. There are scientists who have taken issue with some of the more popular theories of evolution. (MIT scientists, Oxford Scientists, Berkley professors, etc.) There are very reasonable people, who are qualified in their various fields of science (and not just random people who have read a “Textbook”), who have serious doubts that animals have evolved into different animals.
It really comes down to your worldview. If God created the heavens and the earth and the animals and mankind, then did He create it instantaneously or through the long process of macroevolution? It’s not too radical of a concept to believe that God created all things. And, until science PROVES beyond a reasonable doubt (and there is plenty of doubt) that animals and humans have evolved, as some in the past have taught, then we should be open to a healthy and honest debate concerning origins. If you are interested in books or scientific publications that call into question macroevolution, then I can provide those for you. 🙂
The reason there still is doubt in America and in much of the world, is that there IS reasonable doubt. Don’t just assume over 50% of the American population is just dumb and ignorant. 🙂 In fact, America has been a leader in science for years. Try to keep an open mind to those who have their doubts. 🙂
And, I subscribe to the NT way of eating, because I feel it’s natural and real food. It is NOT my religion, and it is not my idol. I am always open to learning about health and how to do better for my family. And, I also wish to take care of my body, to bring honor to my Creator. 🙂
I am not offended by your post at all. 🙂 I just wanted to share a bit of MY worldview. 🙂 Have a lovely evening. 🙂
Jeanmarie says
Sasha, very inspiring story. I liked the P.S., too!
Sasha says
Also – Dana – you rock!
Sasha says
I’d like to add a personal story that led me to believe that restriction in carbohydrate consumption(yes even the good carbs such as sweet fruit, honey and sprouted grains) is the right path to go – at least if one has a health concern.
My close cousin got diagnosed with pre-diabetes around November ’09, but the weirdest thing is that she had been eating a lot better in the past few years than ever before – she avoided all white flour products, sugar, trans fats etc.. and ate a diet of strictly organic vegetables, fruit, whole grains(mostly sourdough bread and sprouted kamut/rye pasta – all from a local health food in Milan, Italy), she also included some chicken, eggs, fish and red meat. She usually made her own dessert at home with honey and whole grains, and that was maybe once a week. Over all, her diet was leaps and bounds beyond SAD diet and she still managed to get blood sugar disorder.
After she told me I have explained her the science behind carbohydrate restriction and the values of increasing saturated fat intake. It took her a few weeks before she decided to do it, but at first she included a tbsp of honey in her tea daily or a small piece of sourdough bread or some fruit with lunch and she was complaining that even though she reduced her carb intake dramatically still nothing was happening. I convinced her to try and follow low carb precisely, eliminating all carbs except non starchy vegetables and the results were astonishing – she had lost 15 pounds in a month, no caloric restriction whatsoever, her skin cleared up, her gum inflammation went down, her digestion improved and most importantly after two months on the diet she checked up her blood sugars and the results were normal – she did not have pre-diabetes any more.
Even though my experience with cutting out all grains and fruit from my diet was beyond positive, I have not got my blood drawn so besides me losing weight, building muscle and feeling great I did not have anything in writing to support that my blood panels and health parameters improved. There is always that factor of denial which makes it difficult to asses your progress, but when you see dramatic results in someone else, than it’s a whole different story.
So basically now I follow and advise everyone to follow almost all the principles of NT, including fermentation and making bone broths, but I’m definitely omitting grains, most fruit and natural sweeteners other than stevia.
Another important issue that is overlooked, and especially by the paleo people is the protein consumption – I believe that it should be limited, because there is plenty of evidence that too much protein can be damaging to ones health and negatively affect longevity in humans. That’s where Nora Gedgaudas steps in, and that is one of many reasons I respect her work and suggest that everyone read “Primal Body – Primal Mind”.
P.S. I hope this does not offend anyone, but I’ve seen a couple of people mention that evolution does not fit in their beliefs? As a rational person I would suggest reading some basic science textbooks and watching a few discovery channel documentaries on the subject because it is really sad that creationism still prevails in the USA, especially since it does not have anything to do with proper religion(even the Vatican recognizes the theory of evolution). But on the other hand I’m just wondering why are creationists actually reading Nourishing Traditions and Know Your Fats – it’s backed up by real science(where evolution fits in) and not to mention Weston Price teachings that reflect upon and actually affirm the theory of evolution. I’ll be just a little bit mean here – a question to all the people who do not believe in evolution – do you believe in Asian people? because they do not exist in the bible…just a thought…
Jeanmarie says
HI Dana,
Great comments, thanks.
I agree, carbohydrates per se are not required in the diet, but it would be awfully difficult and ultimately pointless to get rid of *all* of them. Grains are harder for me to justify eating anymore. I only eat the small amount I still do because my partner insists on buying and cooking rice (which we soak at least overnight). I do each much smaller portions, and much less often, than I used to.
My remarks about Atkins weren’t really directed towards the doctor himself, but more the direction his company took towards the end of his life and after, promoting lots of artificial, processed foods including soy. I know they went bankrupt and have no idea whether they were revived or not. I wish I’d kept my original copy of Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution, too! His Vita-Nutrient Solution book was very good on nutrition.
I’ve heard that definition of “essential” as regards to diet, too, but I’m not sure that always holds. Various fatty acids are essential that we don’t make, but that could be that they were ample in the environment during our evolutionary history so there was no need for our bodies to make it. Some animals make their own vitamin C and we don’t, but I don’t think that means it’s any less necessary for us. We make vitamin D from sunlight interacting with cholesterol in our skin, but many of us can’t make enough of it that way and so must get it from dietary sources, perhaps including supplements.
Thanks for making the point about evolution. I didn’t want to get into that in my post, but I agree that appreciating science doesn’t mean a person can’t believe in God. Personally, my own view is to follow where the evidence leads me, in any field of inquiry, whether spiritual or secular. It leads to growth!
Dana says
I think the accusations thrown at Atkins really are unfair. It is being presented as though Atkins REQUIRES people to consume artificial sweeteners and soy when, in reality, those things are only allowed. Remember that a lot of the information we know now about soy wasn’t widely known when Dr. Atkins was most active in his practice and that just because information might be available now, doesn’t mean everyone knows about it, even people with degrees who ought to.
Also, if you’re metabolically damaged with hyperinsulinism and insulin resistance then eating sugar, even Rapadura, is suicidal. I agree aspartame’s the work of the devil, so to speak, and I don’t trust saccharin, but stevia and sucralose seem pretty OK if a person is not sensitive to them. (I’ve heard about sucralose supposedly shrinking the thymus but you know, age does that too.) Ditto for sugar alcohols.
I view it like modern medicine. It’s pretty artificial/synthetic for the most part, I guarantee you that the average aspirin tablet does not come from willow bark but is cooked up in a lab, but there are times the artificial/synthetics really come in handy, if you’re hurt bad enough or you’re sick enough.
Anyway, it’s entirely possible to do Atkins using only whole foods. And that is what Dr. Atkins originally recommended. I know, because I found the original edition of his diet book at Goodwill. He only recommended the artificial sweeteners to make it easier for sugar-addicted people to not backslide. They didn’t have to use them. They still don’t today.
As for the remark that it’s “unhealthy” to leave out a food group or a macronutrient, let’s look at this. It’s a common accusation made of low-carb dieting. Well, grain is USEFUL (and tasty!) as a food if you process it correctly. But do you NEED it in your diet? No. And if you leave it out of your diet, what macronutrient are you leaving out? None. If you are eating other plant foods, you still get carbs! We have come, in this culture, to equating “carbohydrate” with “grains” and I’m not real sure why. Atkins is not a no-carb diet. If you eat salad, you’re eating carbs.
But even if you didn’t, again, is there a nutritional requirement for dietary carbohydrate? Is there any such thing as an essential carb? No, and no. Why? Because the body can make glucose from protein (and rarely from fats, even). That’s how you maintain a baseline blood glucose level even when you have fasted for twelve hours or more. Logic says that if you have not been eating sugar sources then you shouldn’t have any blood sugar UNLESS your body has found some other source to use to make it. And it has. Any cell in the body with few to no mitochondria has to have sugar because it can’t process fatty acids, which is what most cells in the body use. Hence the process of gluconeogenesis is used to break down protein into sugar.
Basically, the definition of “essential” in nutrition-speak boils down to, “My body cannot make this nutrient so I must eat it.” If your body can make it, it’s not a dietary requirement. We need to get back to a definition of balanced diet that has to do with ensuring we get all of our essential nutrients plus adequate energy every day.
And before someone asks about fiber, nope, that’s not an essential nutrient either. I was surprised the other day to find a study from 2000 about calcium absorption in pre- and post-menopausal women in which they found that the more fiber and less fat a woman ate, the less calcium she absorbed. The researchers figured that intestinal transit time had something to do with it, which of course fiber decreases that transit time. I’d already heard it posited by an MD who writes a low-carb blog that fiber does more harm than good. The study was just another piece of evidence weighing in that direction. Go figure…
As for the notion that we couldn’t have had paleolithic ancestors without believing in evolution, that’s just silly. Well, I think evolution is a valid theory and see no reason why God couldn’t have created life that way. But even if that’s not how things went down, what, are we going to argue that Satan created the bones of Paleolithic people in order to confuse believers? And isn’t that idea kind of insulting to these people, our ancestors, who lived and died so long ago? They weren’t demons or a scam, they were human beings. There are still people living like them today, actually, where we haven’t “civilized” them or killed them all off.
Metroknow says
Great discussion here – I am amazed to see how many people have fallen into a similar view as I have in the sense of finding what works for you. I think the WAPF principles are fundamentally important, but for my body type I supplement it with some of the principles of primal eating (I think the Grok business is cutesy, but not really very realistic), meaning I have been eating primarily vegetables, meats, and fats on the days that I choose to eat that way. I also like their incorporation of fasting and exercise, as this is REALLY working for me right now (down almost 17 lbs this month alone). I eat a lot of eggs as open range, naturally fed (meaning non-grain) eggs are easy to get where I live; we eat beef from strictly grass-fed sources (again, available here).
I know for my body that eating sweet things in any form whether it’s fresh fruit or something refined triggers gigantic cravings for sugar; emotional eating may be a factor there, but it is certainly also physical for me. I limit fruit consumption generally for that reason. I am now only eating raw milk products (raw milk, cheese) as we have a direct from the farm source for both.
I respect and sometimes use the primal approach, especially with it’s practical suggestions on exercise (like not getting a grocery cart in favor of carrying two heavy baskets – great way to get a little exercise), and reducing the focus on excessive cardio exercise as a means to burn off those calories. It also (as you point out) is less in conflict with my views on the benefits and critical importance of fats, both saturated and unsaturated.
Thanks for posting this – it was really a thought-provoking discussion!
Melissa says
Good info and discussion. The evolution aspect of Paleo/Primal is totally opposite of my beliefs but I also enjoy Sisson and am at a stage in my life (finally) where I don’t have to follow anyone or anything 100%.
Jeanmarie says
Thanks for posting this, Kelly. I’m enjoying all the comments! I realized I should clarify that Mark Sisson really emphasizes vegetables (especially non-starchy ones) in his dietary advice, as does Nora Gedgaudas. I may have created some confusion when I talked about whether or not carbohydrates are necessary to human metabolism. Sisson says, the carbs may not be necessary, but the phytochemicals, antioxidants and micronutrients we get from vegetables are very necessary, especially with all the modern toxins we deal with, so he puts plant foods at the bottom of his own food pyramid.
Anne Marie, those summaries were my own tongue-in-cheek interpretations of the three dietary philosophies, so no correction necessary as they can’t be attributed to anyone but me. The bit about butter is in honor of Sally Fallon. At the first Fourfold Path to Healing Conference in Oakland, CA, a few years ago, in answer to a question about what she ate for breakfast, she gave an example that included a piece of sprouted grain toast with “butter a quarter-inch-thick” on it. As we all laughed in appreciation she quipped, “Well, you can always use more!”
The main criticism I’ve read of The Paleo Diet is that it is too low in fat! The Weston A. Price Foundation teaches that protein needs fat for proper digestion and nutrient assimilation, and that makes sense to me and seems to be working for me. As several people pointed out, the problem with the Atkins approach (other than many people assumed the induction phase was the whole diet) was his embrace of artificial sweeteners and processed foods like soy bars sweetened with sugar alcohols. Yuck! To be fair, Atkins also wrote more about vegetables in his later years.
I agree with the comment about us not eliminating whole categories of food. Most low-carbers or Paleo/Primal dieters don’t advocate zero carbohydrates in the diet, and I didn’t mean to imply that that is something we should aspire to, yet the more I learn of the health problems associated with eating grains, especially improperly prepared ones, the less eager I am to eat any. To the extent that I eat grains anymore, I prepare them according to Weston A. Price guidelines (soaking overnight, etc.). Personally, I feel better without them but I’d never tell anyone they had to give them up entirely. Our situations and preferences naturally differ. I’m just excited that we’re all crossing paths here on Kelly’s site!
alexsandra says
After experiencing increasing illness and food allergies I finally found balance in my diet. I can’t follow trends or fads; I eat what feels good. For me that means: green smoothies, lots of fruits and veggies, including root veggies, nuts and seeds, seafood, chicken once or twice a week and occasionally (once or twice a month) eggs, dairy, other meat, grains, legumes. I chose organic whenever it is available. My advice is to get the best info you can then listen to your bodies’ response.
The green smoothies were the missing link to end my food cravings and heal my digestive issues after I went gluten free. People tell me my skin looks amazing.
Peggy says
Thanks so much! I’ve always wondered about how Paleo fits with WAPF. I don’t think I could do without my beloved butter, cream and cheese long enough to go Paleo (and their evolutionary bias is tough to swallow, too.)
Motherhen68 says
When I went “low-carb” I ate like the Atkins people said. This included many diet cokes & splenda. Looking back, I feel it was the only way I would have been able to stay low-carb for a long time. I had to wean myself off the sugar and the sugar substitutes were the way to go.
A year later, I was ready to give up the sugar subs. I began fermenting milk. I was “afraid” to drink too much milk because of the carb issue. I discovered I can drink fermented dairy every day and not gain weight. In fact, I’ve continued to lose, very very slowly, but that’s ok.
I tend to combine Low-Carb/NT/Paelo as I tend not to make any type of starch (rice, grains, etc) but I do eat sweet potatoes and other root plants. I love that there is so much good information on the web about these three ways of life, so I can do what works for us!
Avivah @ Oceans of Joy says
We’ve been eating according to NT guidelines for several years, but in the last few months have been gradually reducing our grain intake and moving towards the primal way of eating. NT is great, but it’s very easy to include too many grains, thinking that you’re eating something really good for you because you’re soaking them/using sprouted flour.
I’ve found it interesting in the last three years (when I started researching a nutritional approach to cure candida) that I’ve repeatedly seen similar suggestions to take out grains from a variety of different points of view: to deal with candida, autism, adhd, digestive issues, etc. All of the protocols vary slightly, but all of them recommend taking out grains. It gets you wondering why if grains are so good for you, so many people are suggesting you take them out if you need to heal! I think the main advantage of grains are that they are inexpensive ways to fill up, not that they actually are good for us.
And for someone looking to lose weight and struggling on NT, it’s very likely because their carb/grain intake is too high. (Ask me how I know. :))
Kelly the Kitchen Kop says
RPW,
You said, “I used to do Atkins, but was so frustrated with how unhealthy it would go toward, because of the allowance of aspartame, soy, and other processed foods.”
That same stuff drives me crazy. (But you probably knew that!)
Kelly
RPW says
I know there are lots of variations, but when I did Paleo diet for a while, it was also an emphasis on “don’t eat anything you COULDN’T eat raw.” You don’t have to eat it raw, but if you couldn’t, the belief was the cavemen wouldn’t either. That eliminated potatoes , yams, and legumes…but allowed for some of the other root veggies. I used to do Atkins, but was so frustrated with how unhealthy it would go toward, because of the allowance of aspartame, soy, and other processed foods. It has really helped to concentrate on getting healthy foods and getting a lot of the bad things out of my diet and knowing what good fats really are, and then trying to eliminate the sugars and grains.
Your last couple of articles have really helped me start down this road again!
KitchenKop says
Isn’t it ironic that we can no longer “eat how our grandmothers ate”, now we need to eat how our GREAT grandmothers ate…
I agree with the comments above as far as finding what works best for you.
Ann Marie, butter may not be a requirement, but it sure is an easy way to get your healthy fats in!
Kelly
Ann Marie @ CHEESESLAVE says
Good article!
A couple very minor corrections:
Low carb:
Sheila says
Kelly – “…Oprah falling under the spell of ….” That is awesome!!! I love reading your posts and never stop learning. Thank you so much and keep up the good work!!!
Elizabeth @ The Nourished Life says
With all the overlapping info it can be hard to know what to follow! And I think that is where finding what works for you personally is so important – and then to adjust that as needed when something doesn’t work anymore.
As Michelle mentioned above, we’ve eating a lot of damaging foods in the last few decades, so a lot of us have to make up for that with a temporarily restricted diet (I mean like gluten-free or similar ideas). But I lean more toward principles from Eat Fat, Lose Fat; The GAPS diet; and the Schwarzbein Principle series – these all focus on healing the body so its ability to tolerate a wide variety of natural foods is restored. I don’t think cutting out a food group or macronutrient for life is necessary or even healthy for most people. Finding balance is.
Michelle says
Great post! I have been following WAPF and Primal for almost a year now with great results. It does drive me nuts, all the evolutionary garbage, but I like Mark Sisson so much, I can overcome that 😉 My biblical convictions fly smack in the face of their (primal/paleo) ‘foundation’ for their diet, but I believe there is great widsom in it.
I do think it is important to know what ‘metabolic’type you are, I am a protein type person, so this fits perfectly with me. I also think there are probably people out there who do just fine with grains (prepared properly ;-), but in this day and age, I think those people are far and few between.
For years it bugged me that people would remove whole food groups that I knew my God made for us to eat. Now, with health challenges in our family and myself, I see that we live in a fallen world and have eaten junk for too long. So this effects how we need to eat now. Make sense?
So, call it low-carb, primal/paleo, WAPF . . .I call it a combination of all. For me, right now, with my health what it is, I eat ‘clean’ protein (grass-fed, organic ONLY!) lots of veggies, as much raw as possible, fermented foods, including dairy. Occasionally properly prepared legumes. Soaked nuts and seeds and almost never grains. (not because I think they are evil, just where I am at right now) I do hope to get to a point where I can add this back in, but for now they are out. One to two fruits a day. Lots of good fats, well, I try on this one.
Melissa @CelluliteInvestigation says
Such an informative post, Jeanmarie. Thank you! The only book I read about the primal diet was The Paleo Diet by Loren Cordain. I thought it would go into the history of the paleo diet, but it talked more about the health benefits. He made a lot of assumptions about what paleolithic people ate without ever backing that up with evidence.
April says
It can be hard to know how to eat best for your body. Or that should be actually doing it ;). I kind of mesh the various things together to get what works. I call it low carb because people understand that. I can’t digest grains and am gluten free so saying “Low Carb” is the easiest way to describe it. I do have some things low carb people don’t have and I love lacto-fermented food. Sauerkraut is LC and for yogurt and kefir, a lot of the milk sugars are “eaten” away and turned into healthier things, so I don’t feel bad eating them. I’m far from what I want to be but working on it. My family is going to be a long work to get where I want them (my son has sensory aversions to a lot of foods and DH is in the habit of bringing lots of junk home since he works at a grocery store and it’s there. DD kind of goes with the flow).
Wardeh @ GNOWFGLINS says
Thanks, Jeanmarie – that was a great summary! I love that you included the two rebuttals to Michael’s Pollan’s three sentence summary of his position. Those were great. 🙂
Henriette says
What a great post
Thanks.
I have wrietten a little about it in dansih as well- but no so complete GREAT <3