Talk:Paleo diet/Archive2

A true paleo diet is impossible...
...because are extinct. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So are paleolithic humans.  But who's counting.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Dear god, fucking grow up 01:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, all except one of course. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, no. By all accounts (especially the accounts of people who don't know better, but that's neither here nor there), we have evolved.  we are not a new species or anything, but we are not paleolithic man, either.  Just saying.... ;-)  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Dear god, fucking grow up 01:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that qualifies as extinction. Also, Neanderthal Man lives! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Should I not have barbecued the last one yesterday? I would've invited you if I had known. 01:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

How is a paleo diet low fat/low cal?
A paleo meal should consist of:

meat <- could be high in fat depending on the animal/cut (re: chicken thigh vs chicken breast) vegetables nuts/seeds <- high in fat
 * The paleo diet itself, understanding that it is very heart unhealthy when you can eat any ol animal, exclaims that you should be eating low fat meats. Why is it low cal?  protiens are significantly lower cal that carbs, which are very limited in this diet.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Dear god, fucking grow up 22:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If the proponents aren't pushing dieters to chase down and kill their meat, they're doing it wrong. That should be why the diet is low cal. That's how I would write it. ERK ! |  Complaints Hotline  22:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's another misleading thing. paleo people were not thin cause they ate "the right foods", they were thin cause they fucking had to run around and hunt things.  They had to carry their wood to make fires (yes, they had fire, for at least 400,000 years and were most likely cooking that whole time), they had to stay warm, which takes cals, they had to walk, everywhere.  It is estimated (this number is not pulled out of my ass, but maybe somewhere near, but from a report i read on ancient nutrition) 5000-10000 cals, per day, to do the things we do every day.  eat, survive, heal, etc.  There are reasons this diet works, but it's got nothing to do with eating "like paleo people did", and everything to do with cutting back cals and processed sugars, and carbs.  (yes yes, I am a lower carb person. heh)[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 22:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

sources??
I would like to point out that some of these sources are trash.

7: ↑ In writing this article, I searched Pubmed for "paleolithic diet".

I have no words for that one....

5: Hunted wild game is generally quite low in fat, though I'm guessing few following this diet are hunting wild game.

completely false.... wild animals even in times of famine are still 50% fat by caloric content.

Also, this statement in the article "Proponents claim that the human digestive system is adapted to the diet of the paleolithic era and has not evolved since" is false.

Just a bad article overall.... So is the food woo article really... 75.139.32.32 (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as a response...
 * In writing this article, I searched Pubmed for "paleolithic diet".I have no words for that one.... Cause god, why would you search pubmed for anything relating to diets?
 * Hunted wild game is low in fat. what the f' are you on about 50% fat?  No animal, not even the fattest of humans are 50% fat by calorie content.  Even given that 1 oz of fat is far more caloric than 1 oz of meat.  a 10 oz steak of Elk, compared to the same 10oz steak of Beef, compared to the same 10oz steak of sheep, and 10oz of rabbit - the beef will be the higest fat content of those, followed by the sheep, followed by the elk, followed by the rabbit -depending on season of course.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 22:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dammit
This was the quack fad diet I was going to make millions on once I had my MD. I'm really frustrated to find out that someone else already pushed it. Now I have to think of something else. ERK ! | Complaints Hotline  22:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * don't worry. it's dieting.  dieting sucks.  anyone who has ever tried it, knows that.  There will be plenty of space for you to market your new diet. Hey, how bout instead of "paleo", you go with the "future man" diet.  Most likely, food shortages will cause us to turn to an insect diet.  now THERE is some weight loss.  not only are they very low fat, they are also crunchy, and if you eat the right owns, they bring their own picante! (I hear the hot ants are quite spicy!) [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 23:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not bad, but it will be harder to get the pseudoscience. I'm thinking right now of a Crystal Diet, made of rarified sugars and salts. Bring in multiple levels of new age, y'know? But we'll see. ERK ! |  Complaints Hotline  23:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ohh, Ahh, they will eat it up. I can see it now, the blond who has "Lost 1000000 lbs" saying "and did you know that salt and sugre are actually, wait for it, yes CRYSATLS.  Just like the crystals you use for healing!  Just like those crystals the aliens used!!!!  and we align them in your body, to align with the magnetic (um, need scientificy sounding word) magnetic fields of your body, so that your body is in ballance all as you lose weight".  you've a winner here![[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    oi, putain, genial, merci 23:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Difficulty of finding food is baseless
"they were dying at a much younger age, generally malnourished (as seen by bone samples and hair samples), and often starving"

Just as exact diets varied greatly, so too did caloric intake. In modern hunter/gatherer societies, there's huge variation in calories/day: Info

Additionally, though I don't have access to the full study here (currently citation 22), the abstract does not seem to support the claim it is a source for.

71.82.69.206 (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)