My Paleo

"Lynn would definitely be able to add a lot of knowledge to this discussion!"
Ya, Lynn was always on my case :)

"Ya, Lynn was always on my case :)"

Mine, too, but I always enjoyed the give and take. And I learned a lot, about a lot of things.

Sorry everyone, the bed was calling.

Miguel – No worries. I'm perfectly fine with educated debate/argument. I'm about 90% certain what I've seen in the wild here are honey bees (shape, size, color, etc). I've seen them in captivity working, so I have a pretty good idea of what they look like. Now as to whether they're native, or just escapees from any of over a dozen local honey farms, I can't be certain. The mountain towns here in the SE US (at least the ones I've visited) are pretty big on local honey.

Everyone else – My last phase of weight loss was based almost exclusively around p90x (some of you have read this before). I did it for 4 total rounds or basically a solid year and the photo I posted was after 2 rounds (~180 days). If done right, it's basically HIT (high intensity training). It does incorporate strength training along with yoga, stretching, cardio kickboxing, and plyometrics. The only ones that have zero cardio benefit are stretching and yoga. The yoga adds some strength (first half is more of a power yoga) training. The rest all get your heart rate up pretty high. In fact, I pushed so hard a few times I had to choose between backing off a bit or puking. Honestly, I should've stopped after 2 rounds. I was roughly 143 lbs and 7% bodyfat. It had almost become routine at that point though, I and kept going but mixed it up a little by running on plyo days and some days doing a p90x workout on top of a run or 10-15 miles of mountain biking. I added in maybe one 2-300 cal snack on double workout days (not nearly enough). Final result – I lost a little more fat and a ton of muscle that I have yet to figure out how to get back. Anyone reading this please note that I got out what I put in. I was 100% committed to the point that it became routine and I refused to miss a workout (even doubling up on some days). I also have a bit of an addictive personality and pushed myself farther than most people would be comfortable (see puking note above).

David and Tom – I got to about 162 (down from 175) by primarily adding in cardio. At that point I was perfectly healthy and pretty fit. I was backpacking or hiking 2-3 times a month, had started running a couple times a week, and was also mountain biking a couple of times a week. I was skinny fat though. I felt great as far as overall fitness, but I didn't look fit. That's something I decided I wanted and where the p90x and HIT came in.

Back to calories in/out. First, cutting calories doesn't mean you *have* to count them. I'd feel pretty confident in saying that anyone who loses weight without adding a bunch of exercise, does so by cutting calories. It doesn't matter what the diet is or what you do or don't eat. Take the paleo thing. If carbs don't satisfy a hunger buzz for very long(due to insulin response or any other reason) and you would eat 600 cals of carbs to satisfy you as long as 300 cals of meat would, you're cutting calories by eating the meat.

Example –

We have a man who wants to lose weight without adding additional exercise. His BMR/RMR is lab tested and his activity level calculated for. Net result is he uses 2600 calories a day to maintain his current mass.

Option one is to all but cut out carbs. He will eat a diet of 65% protein, 25% fat, and 10% carbs. (I'm making this up and have no idea if that's feasible) He will still eat 2600 calories a day.

Option two is he continues eating the same way, but drops to 2100 calories a day. Percentages here don't matter.

Does anyone seriously think the subject will lose weight on option one?

Edit – looks like Bryan and I mostly agree here. As to my particular case, I'll concede that I did eat less sugar but it wasn't by replacing it, it was just because I happened to cut certain things like candy and soda out completely. I didn't have to cut those though, and I'm certain I would've lost the weight by cutting something else instead. If I wasn't as much of a health nut as I've become, I'd almost be willing to go on a diet of nothing but snickers and coke to prove it. If I stuck to my required caloric intake, I don't think it would matter what I ate as far as overall weight is concerned. I would, however, worry about the other issues such a diet might cause.

Wow that is a long response. FWIW, I think going on a "diet" is a worthless idea and while doing so may result in short term changes (weight loss or something else) you'll wind up where you started in the long term. Long term changes require a lifestyle change.

Doug – keep after it!

Chris, this link will explain much better than I can why a junk food diet will not work:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search?q=TWINKIE

He is researcher who's life is dedicated to understanding obesity.

In simple terms the paleo/wholefoods movement is all about food quality over quantity. With the belief that quality will take care of quantity on its own.
I can understand why you would be passionate about calories/exercise since it worked for you. But understand that wholefoods has worked for me and many people. So we both can be a bit zealous on this subject.

I haven't read the link (out walking my dog), but how does a diet of primarily junk work for so many thruhikers?

I'm fairly confident quality over quantity results in consuming less calories.

I feel like you're agreeing with me without wanting to admit. I'm saying that to lose weight you must consume less than you expend. It doesn't matter how you do it, as long as you do it.

If you can show me a peer reviewed medical study where they concluded you can lose weight without a net loss in caloric consumption, I will gladly admit I was wrong.

I've found it pretty easy to keep my weight stable by not keeping food in my house.
Apart from things like coffee/tea, milk, etc, i buy what i need daily. I only keep a supply of fruit in the house.
I'll have a cup of coffee in the morning before i leave for work. On the way to work, i stop at a store and grab a banana or similar for breakfast, and a sandwich for lunch.
After work, i'll pick up something for my evening meal. Sometimes that's a healthy meal, sometimes it's junk. If i want a snack later, there is only fruit in the house to tempt me.
If you have a fridge full of food, you need supreme willpower.
Sometimes i gain 8 pounds, sometimes i lose 8 pounds, but i don't worry about it.

Edit. Obviously you couldn't live like this with a house full of kids.

what Im saying is yes, you need need to lower your calories ( over eating is a symptom of obesity)
But, where we differ is that I contend it matters a lot how you do it. Eat healthy foods and you will eat less calories than if you eat junk without even trying. Eat junk and count your calories -you will lose weight after a lot of struggle, and gain it all back plus some when your body must make up for the calorie loss. Sure you can literally starve yourself and lose weight, is that healthy? Then when you had enough suffering you still never learned how to eat properly.
By simply eating a healthy diet you don't suffer, you feel good. You learn how to eat properly and can maintain that for life.
And we aren't even touching the subject of health beyond weigh- a whole other subject

I’m fairly confident quality over quantity results in consuming less calories.

Chris, that just doesn’t jive with your earlier statement about not trying the junk food diet “because you are such a health nut”. If it doesn’t make any difference, why then even be a “health nut”? Why even differentiate “healthy food” from “junk food”, or “quality” over “quantity”? What is it exactly you are referring to by using the word, “quality”? That is the dilemma in how you’re explaining this. In your reasoning there is no difference, as if nutrition has no value in the running of the body, only calories (which is not actually a nutritionalsubstance, just a measurement of potential heat that can be expended from the intake of food). I feel that reasoning is deeply flawed and simplistic (as Mark Sisson, a former Olympic level athlete and originator of the Primal Blueprint movement, discovered) and one of the main causes of how people think today about health. In my view (and that of Mark Sisson, Loren Cordain, Philip Maffetone, and numerous others who don’t just research all this, but actually live it, too, as much as, if not more than, you do), you represent the opposite extreme of the conventional dogma about health… the fitness addict who pushes himself beyond what is healthy. There are many serious athletes with that way of thinking, and the ranks of those who get injured, fall ill, or burn out are very long. (again I refer you to Philip Maffetone’s “The Big Book of Endurance Training”, where Maffetone goes into great detail about the sheer numbers of serious and extremely fit athletes who came to him with overtraining/ bad nutrition ailments. If you can only do px90 two times without your body breaking down, then it is too much and probably not a smart regimen to use for lifelong health. The main reason I gave up Crossfit is because I was experiencing severe inflammation throughout my body. I was fit (55 full pull-ups, 75 kg dead lifts, 300 squats, 250 sit-ups), but my body certainly didn’t think I was doing right by it!

Six months or so is just not enough time to see the effects of malnutrition. During thru hikes people ravenously eat fresh food whenever they can get it. That is definitely a sign that the eating is off. They may be fit, but they are not healthy because they cannot sustain that way of eating for years on end. I maintain that “health” is something you can and should be able to do indefinitely, without your body breaking down or going through severe cravings. Even your exercise, if you cannot continue with it (and must resort to almost puking… as often happened when I did Crossfit. Puking is your body telling you that you are overdoing it. It was a point of pride among my Crossfit companions to be able to get yourself to the point of puking… I thought it was totally and irresponsibly insane) for years and years, if your weight and strength fluctuate greatly, then that is not healthy, just, perhaps, fit. I certainly could not hope to survive for long as a diabetic on the advice that you give here. And the ideal lifestyle for a diabetic is a good balance of nutrition, exercise, rest, and lowering stress, while keeping it all within reasonable levels…exactly what should be prescribed to anyone who wants to be healthy. The only difference between a diabetic and a non-diabetic is that with the diabetic the insulin function has gone awry. There is nothing wrong with my body otherwise. This should show everyone exactly why understanding how insulin works is so vital to understanding nutrition and health. And the culprit most certainly is over-consumption of carbs. (I’m probably more sensitive to carbs than most…)

Lowering the amount of food, yes (the Primal Blueprint advocates “intermittent fasting”), but why, then, is the nutrition, the type of food, so important?. That question has not been answered here.

Note that I made no mention of overall health in my calories in/out statement (at least I don't think I did and if I did it was by mistake). I simply said you lose weight by consuming less than you expend. Period. It's undeniable. As to the long-term effects of doing that by eating a diet of pure junk versus one of whole foods, sure, there are bound to be differences. But, they don't effect an overall loss of weight assuming you can stick to eating less than you expend. I'm not willing to make a blanket statement that no one can lose weight or even maintain reasonable health without eating what most of us (including me) consider healthy. I am willing to make a blanket statement that if you consume less than you expend, you will lose weight.

FWIW, I have and have read Mark's book along with Tim Ferris' book and a host of others. I played with both, and found neither to work well *for me*.

Sorry to be pushing Mark so strongly. I accede that one regimen doesn't necessarily work for everyone. Pushing Mark to the exclusion of all else is arrogant and simplistic. Sorry about that.

Can someone please put a link to this thread into my 'US only medical conditions'? :)

"Pushing Mark to the exclusion of all else is arrogant and simplistic."

Ah, Miguel, it's neither arrogant nor simplistic. You found something that, for the first time in years, really works for you in very concrete ways. It's made a dramatic difference in your life. You want to share that with the world. That's natural. In fact, isn't that what we often do here, share our lightweight backpacking style of life vociferously? ;-)

Keep your passion, it's working wonders for you. You know that there are a hundred ways to skin the (insert animal, vegetable or mineral of your choice), so you won't go all fundamentalist on us. A bit o' proselytizing is okay…..

"Can someone please put a link to this thread into my 'US only medical conditions'? :)"

Sorry Mike, every time I go to do this I get distracted by something else…..

Nice one Doug. :)

Miguel, we all get passionate when we find something that works well for us. No need to apologize for it.

When I got fat and then got fit again, I was working for a hospital and they did an annual "health risk assessment" which included bloodwork. I'm hoping I can find the data so I can post it here, since it's a bit more objective than word of mouth.

My *subjective* data-

Going off of my memory my fat diet consisted largely of:

breakfast – snickers and a 20 oz sprite
lunch – sometimes fast food (fried chicken, burgers, etc.) and sometimes large restaurant lunches (burgers, fried chicken, country fried steak, fries, mashed potatoes soaked with "butter", etc.)
dinner – southern cooking at it's best (similar to restaurant lunches but smaller portions) and delivery pizza (which also doubled for leftover lunch and sometimes breakfast)

When I started cutting calories it was more like:

breakfast – cereal, scrambled eggs with toast, oatmeal, etc.
lunch – sandwich and potato chips
dinner – same as previously but more emphasis on veggies

I also switched to primarily water here.

In both cases I snacked if necessary but on the weight-loss diet I had crackers instead of candy.

Both were overly carb heavy and overall unhealthy IMO. I still lost (and kept off) 40+ pounds. My cholesterol and blood pressure were pretty similar in both cases. If I find the data I'll post it on this thread.

Forget 'healthy' or 'unhealthy' diets, Chris.
That was a lazy diet you had before.
You're not a stupid man. Did you expect to feel good, or not be fat, having a Snickers for your breakfast?
I've mentioned before that i have US family. When i've visited them, i've been shocked/disgusted at the size of the plates of food given out. Folk can blame the 'advertising industry', but it all boils down to personal discipline and restraint.
Unless it's a fiendish communist plot to get all you US folk too fat to fight off the imminent invasion from 'them'. ;)

None of the above Mike. I didn't think about it and didn't care. No good reasons why and I'm not going to blame society, genetics, chemical imbalances or anything else. :-)

In all fairness though, I'm not sure how much healthier the belgian waffle and maple syrup I had this morning was.

We don't have belgian waffles and maple syrup here, Chris. It sounds a bit too sweet for my liking though.
The traditional (modern) Scots diet is very unhealthy (we deep fry everything) so i'm not claiming nationalistic points here. I simply get the feeling that US folk blame 'something' if they get 'weight challenged'.
Scots folk simply accept they are fat 'b******s if they over eat.

"The traditional (modern) Scots diet is very unhealthy (we deep fry everything) so i'm not claiming nationalistic points here. I simply get the feeling that US folk blame 'something' if they get 'weight challenged'.'

Well, biology and society are real. We have serious epidemics, disorders, and diseases since our food culture and quality dramatically changed in the 1970s. Now as England and Australia are eating more like us they too are having obesity/diabetes problems..
Its not "blaming" things to cover up personal shortcomings to understand how the body reacts to certain foods, and its a bit simplistic to believe that the advise of doctors and the media (society) have no real influence over even intelligent people.
We have a real problem and our children are suffering. We can't sit back and tell them to stop stuffing their pie hole and get off the couch while not addressing the problem. If people tell them they can lose weight and eat cake and soda "IN MODERATION" they will never change their eating habits and thats exactly what is happening.

To separate mind, body, and environment when looking at health is very foolish.

To say it's purely "calories in, calories out" negates the role of a person's mind and environment.
To say it's purely "personal responsibility" negates the role of a person's environment and biology.
To say it's purely "our culture's fault" negates the role of a person's mind and biology.

You can't separate the three and get the full picture of what's happening with a human's health.

@Craig.
Excuses my friend.

But whats the excuse? Why are we moralizing a medical issue? Instead of recognizing that the population is eating an unhealthy diet while being told there is no such thing as unhealthy food( its all calories) We want to stroke our ego and believe they are fat because they have a character flaw and I am not, therefore I am righteous?
If I lose lots of weight I have proven myself superior to those who did not? So now I am emotionally invested in the belief that it is all about moral character?
It never occurs to people that they lucked out by not having a sweet tooth or having healthier foods growing up. Maybe when someone loses a lot of weight it was because they dramatically improved the quality of their food and had little to do with some super duper show of self discipline?
I know lots of people who are over weight and I would not describe any of them as lazy gluttons that blame every one else for their problems. In fact, tragically most overweight people blame themselves and have low self esteem. When they should have a low opinion of their doctor who will not update their education on the matter.

Only in the US will an industry build up around a human weakness.
'You're fat?' Here's a lawyer to make money for you and him. It's always someone else at fault.
'You burned your mouth on that 'hot' coffee?' You poor victim. I can make money for you out of that.

Walk into any US bookstore, and there will be 1000snds of self help books reinforcing your belief that it 'isn't you fault', and someone else has to pay.

Unfortunately, that thought process is spreading around the world as the empire spreads. ;)

All of this has been very interesting. And yes you can lose weight and cause more complex problems by just burning more than you eat.

I see this diet as a lifestyle change, and a good one. I am fortunate to have good genes, regular exercise, and a wife who controls what I eat most of the time. Also, I think that regular exercise is a key ingredient, as it impacts our metabolism and even our brains in a positive way. But over the long haul, doing everything "right" except eating foods that are truly good for us will have negative effects for most people. To me the Paleo food content makes sense.

There is still a lot we do not know yet, and some people who do everything "right" do develop diabetes and other diseases.

>> I know lots of people who are over weight and I would not describe any of them as lazy gluttons that blame every one else for their problems. In fact, tragically most overweight people blame themselves and have low self esteem. When they should have a low opinion of their doctor who will not update their education on the matter.

I'm a fatty. I'm a fatty because I love food. A lot of food. Every kind of food. And the more of it I get, the better. Right now I'm sitting at about 100 pounds overweight.

Yes, I blame myself. I know better. I AM a lazy glutton. I know what it takes to be a very fit, lean 170 pounds. I've done it. I also know what it's like to be over 300. I've done that, too.

I don't feel sorry for myself, and I don't blame my doctor. Lord knows he's tried to change my ways!

Bottom line: You may know fat folks who aren't lazy gluttons, but I bet you know plenty who are, too. If those folks are adults who've ever had access to a doctor, a TV, a library, or the internet, they SHOULD accept a significant part of the blame.

By the way, I do NOT have low self esteem. I make all this look good, and frankly, I'm awesome. 8-)