On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Jim Swayze wrote:
> Todd > The thing you're missing is that the simple versions of the diet
> don't work for everybody.
>
> It bears repeating that virtually any human being following the diet as
> prescribed Ray and Loren (they don't really differ that much after all)
> will get 90-95% of its benefits by not worrying about the esoterica.
There are some *very* significant differences between the two
approaches. Ray, for example, argues that calories don't matter
and that obesity is caused by foreign proteins. Cordain makes
neither claim.
> Back to the immediate subject. You specifically mentioned weight as an
> issue. I'd be interested in hearing whether you've tried Ray's
> recommendations for weight loss: Cut out fruit, or if you must have it, go
> for fruits with low sugar content: pears, plums, oranges, berries.
In a word, yes. It's approaching five years that I have been on
some version or other of paleo. My first foray was *strict*
Neanderthin: I made pemmican and consumed lots of it; soaked
bacon and ate lots of it; ate almost no fruit at all. This
period included an all-meat experiment of about two months
duration. But mostly I was eating meat, mushrooms, zucchini,
peppers, salad greens, and walnuts. As I reported in the other
message, I did lose a bit of weight initially (about 7 lbs.), it
began to creep back on. Calorically, I found that I was eating
more and more.
At various times during these years, I have kept careful food
journals, and I have learned that my weight fluctuates according
to my caloric intake, no matter what I am eating. If I give
myself the liberty of eating unrestricted amounts of high-fat
paleo foods, such as pemmican, bacon, nuts, roasted chicken
wings, etc., I simply eat too much of them and gain weight.
> Common sense says never, ever, ever cheat if you're worried about weight
> loss. If I'm not being fair at least I'm being honest in that I believe
> that it's generally the case that those most prone to obesity are those who
> feel that they just have to try to incorporate non-paleo items such as rice
> or butter or sweet potatoes into their dietary reportoire.
In my case, at least, it's simply false. My *best* weight-loss
experiment was on the semi-paleo "Steak Lover's Diet", which I
tried a couple of years ago as an experiment. This diet, by
Melvin Anchell, involves plenty of meat and restricted portions
from a short list (10) of non-meat foods, some of which were not
paleo (white potatoes and rice). I lost weight speedily on this
plan, but found it difficult to adhere to, because of the
restricted assortment of non-meat foods.
Incidentally, there is simply no rationale for categorizing sweet
potatoes as non-paleo. These tubers are *completely* edible raw,
in whatever quantity you like. Plenty of people eat raw white
potatoes too, but I don't know if they can eat a lot of them.
I went through a period when I figured I must be "doing the diet
wrong", and obsessed on finding the hidden "forbidden fruits."
But there weren't any. I was just eating too much, and I was
failing to figure out *why* I was eating too much. I am still
trying to figure that out.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|