When I first started strict paleo, it was spring of 1997, I
believe--when this list was first started. I had already lost quite a
bit of weight on the Zone diet. I switched to paleo after reading
Neanderthin (previous edition), and began to eat much more liberal
amounts of SFA, and considerably less carbs. I had blood work done in
June, and was expecting low cholesterol. I was dismayed at my results,
which I posted in this message:
http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?A2=ind9706&L=PALEOFOOD&P=R24992&I=-3
Between then and now, I've tried many "tweaks" of paleo, and non-paleo
lowcarb, and at various times (such as recently!) fallen off the wagon
altogether.
What I'm doing now is LCIF (lowcarb intermittent fasting), i.e., I'm
eating one large meal a day, consisting of plenty of fatty meat, and a
vegetable. I have a yogurt or a piece of fruit an hour or so later.
Thus, I'm fasting for 22 out of every 24 hours. I'm losing weight (5
lbs. since a week ago today). Even though it *feels* like a humongous
meal--which is psychologically satisfying and makes compliance easier
for me--I'm clearly still running a caloric deficit. I posted my recent
lab results, and I expect I'll get another test in a month or two. My
expectation is that my TG will drop to under 100, and my HDL will either
stay at 55 or go up a tiny bit. I won't be surprised if my LDL goes up,
but then again the fasting effect may push it down. Hard to predict.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
>> ... I noticed no measurable different between [Paleo] and a
>> comparable lowcarb plan.
>>
>> Todd
>>
>
> Interesting. I noticed that the people I know who had less than dramatic
> positive results and an increase in LDL on a Paleo-type diet tended to be
> eating a lot of saturated fats (like bacon or sausage and eggs for
> breakfast). In one case a couple was eating a NeanderThin diet high in
> saturated fat. The wife's sleep quality improved dramatically after the
> first day, but her LDL shot up, whereas the husband's LDL didn't go up at
> all. So I guessed that some people may be better able to handle SFA's than
> others and I noticed you've made the same hypothesis.
>
> My best guess as to why you're blood sugar didn't fall would have been
> saturated fats, but I assume by your posts that you keep your SFA's between
> the Hunter-Gatherer data range of 10-15%, correct?
>
> Thanks for your time. I know you are a busy man.
> Philip
>
>
|