Elizabeth Beeton wrote:

>I'm nearly strictly paleo (butter, sorry) because of candida issues, but
>that doesn't mean I like it.  However, it's not nearly as difficult as I
>thought it would be before I started.  I'd be happy to go back to regular
>Atkins without all the treats.  Oh, for cheese and dressing on my salad
>again!
>
>

I find that the difficulty is proportional to the level of rigor that
you try to achieve.  Personally, I've backed way off on all that, and
I'm much happier having done so.  I understand why people adopt the more
rigorous approach, but it simply doesn't fit my temperament and the
manner of living that I choose.  I regard "paleo" as a kind of ideal
that I'm happy to orbit, sometimes closely and sometimes less so.

Paleo requires adopting a "rejectionist" attitude toward many foods;
i.e., "I can't eat this, I can't eat that".  It requires a certain
amount of fixation on what one can't eat, as well as what one can eat.
That's okay, but that fixation takes a certain amount of mental energy,
and carried beyond a certain level (different for different people) it
takes a *lot* of mental energy, and for me the rewards are
insufficient.  If I think I'd like some crumbled feta cheese on my
salad, I'm bloody well going to have it and not give it a second
thought.  If there's a half gram of sucrose in my bacon, I simply don't
give a flying [expletive deleted].  I still consider my diet "paleo" in
inspiration, but this more relaxed approach has enabled me to achieve
*better* weight control and health than the more rigorous approach, and
I believe that's because it's simply easier to live with and maintain
over the long haul.  I still reject large categories of foods, as well
as the various low-carb "gimmick" foods, but the small liberties I take
make the whole thing much more livable.

In my view, the "best" version of the paleo diet is the one that you can
actually stand to follow over the long haul.  My hat is off to the
rigorists, but that's simply not my way.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]