Blog

11

2

Is this a low carb forum? I'm quite concerned by the advice given to newbies regarding carbohydrates. Paleo, or what I prefer to call "hunter-gatherer diets" are NOT low carb... they are normally in the region of 30-40% carbs.

I'm really concerned because young people are coming on for example saying they eat 20g or 50g of carbs feeling crabby, or stalling weight loss etc and people tell them to eat more fat and these bad answers are voted up! That must mean lots of people are bloomin' carbophobes.

And what the heck is the story with fruit... one "expert" gingerly recommended "even 1 or 2 pieces is OK" Come ON people! Dr Lustig has you all mesmerized!!

Read Chris Kresser or Stephan Guyanet if you're are having a panic attack every time your are tempted by fruit. I overcame serious illness getting nearly ALL my calories from fruit and nuts and felt AMAZING, the best I had ever felt in my LIFE.

The carbophobe and fruitophobe combo is very serious imo, not funny, because kids as well as adults are getting crappy advice imo. What say you?

flag
14 
 To go low-carb or not depends on one's goals and metabolism. It's not automatically bad advice to give. It depends on what the OP's stated goals are. If the OP has PCOS, low-carb is a fair start. Diet must be individualized, that's all. :) – GurlzLuvSteak Jun 22 2012 at 17:13
5 
 Yeah sure Gurlzluvsteak, but that ain't what's happening. Regular people asking regular questions are given the low carb mantra. And THAT imo, is very disturbing to me. It's BAD ADVICE. For generalities, then average PALEO macronutrients should be recommended. This is a PALEO formum, not a PCOS or a VLC forum!! – Mike Jun 22 2012 at 17:19
14 
 Mike - there are Paleo macronutrients? Shit I've been wrong this whole time! This is a discussion about lifestyle, which includes people that VLC, people that eat starches on an ancestral diet, people that have PCOS. Seriously, are you bitching because Paleohacks isn't what YOU want it to be? – Joshua Jun 22 2012 at 17:23
16 
 Bad advice isn't the same thing as advice you don't agree with. – trjones Jun 22 2012 at 17:25
6 
 Hey everyone-- this issue has been beaten to death in the past year or two on paleohacks. Is there a special reason why this should continue (other than the face that it elicited many responses, which these kinds of threads always do)? For example, if there is a specific question that has not been addressed before. – Kamal♦ Jun 22 2012 at 19:21
show 52 more comments

closed as not a real question by Joshua, trjones, PrimalDanny, raney, Kamal♦ Jun 22 2012 at 19:25

15 Answers

4

Low carb has it's utility, but I don't think that's where generally healthy people should start.

Read: carbsanity.blogspot.com

link|flag
4 
 I would say PHD and Chris Kresser's site are much better choices for someone new to Paleo. – Higgs Jun 22 2012 at 17:17
I agree with Higgs, PHD is a well reasoned starting point for people. – scottts Jun 22 2012 at 17:30
2

I've seen a decent number of people on here recommending higher-carb plans. Like Potato Avenger says, some people have use for low carb, but there are a great deal of people who function better with them.

Personally, it took some doing to get over the carb hump—I read from Mark Sisson and countless people on here that >150g was the only way to lose weight. I tried this, while training 10+ hours a week and competing weekly (rowing), and it was absolutely terrible. This certainly doesn't mean that low-carb is bad, it's just not for everyone.

link|flag
Or it's not easy to do right perhaps. – PrimalDanny Jun 22 2012 at 17:35
3

I know that PH has gone in a lot of extremes, if you think low-carb is bad, when I first started it was all about no-carbs or vlc. So I'm at least happy that some people have changed their game in recommending diets.

I still think though, that paleo is an individually optimized diet with a broad set of principles. Telling people you "have to do low-carb" without presenting all the options is kind of mean, in my opinion.

link|flag
20

I'm way more annoyed about the constant complaining from (relatively) higher carb folks about the supposed low carb bias.

link|flag
10 
 I wish I could like this a hundred times. – Kelly Jun 22 2012 at 17:28
2 
 This is a PALEO site... go to a low carb site if that is your bag. – Mike Jun 22 2012 at 17:29
7 
 Kelly: Member 7 months. Mike: Member 23 days. I'm just sayin' – Joshua Jun 22 2012 at 17:35
14 
 Mike, why don't you get off your high horse and stop telling people on this site what to do? Everyone here has a voice, it's the whole nature of the site. You can use yours to tell people about what works for you, like the rest of us do, but don't use it to try to shut people up or drive people away just because you don't agree on their level of carb consumption. – trjones Jun 22 2012 at 17:38
6 
 @Mike, being a newcomer to a site, and telling someone else to GTFO because they don't agree with you is a dick move, not a fresh experience. – Joshua Jun 22 2012 at 19:15
show 26 more comments
21

Really?

Seriously. This banter between low-carb and high-carb sucks. Some people do great on low carb, some people do great on high carb.

Putting this thread up just adds more reason for division over all of us "eat real food" people. Thus, it contributes to the problem. Yes, your post is a problem.

And I posted this as an answer - although it really should be a comment... simply because I welcome the downvotes I receive for it. All this venom over flipping macronutrients? Really?

link|flag
1 
 Joshua... telling kids who have no energy, are undereating and are eating 50g carb per day to eat more fat is BAD ADVICE. If we are PALEO, then we are presumably using PALEO as a guide to what is a natural human diet. – Mike Jun 22 2012 at 17:33
7 
 1. If someone isn't thriving on low carb, they shouldn't eat low carb. And I don't know anyone advocating "kids" eat low carb, which is something you failed to mention in your original post. 2. If someone isn't losing weight on moderate carb, perhaps they should adjust either their macros or their intake or activity levels. 3. Many folks who came to this forum have taken Paleo as the "base" for their own diets. Many folks here don't even consider their diets "paleo" anymore, although they may remain "ancestral" in one way or another. – Joshua Jun 22 2012 at 17:38
4 
 In what way is telling people who are undereating to eat more bad advice? – PrimalDanny Jun 22 2012 at 17:53
3 
 yes, there's twice as much energy in fat, why wouldn't you eat more if you're low on energy and malnourished? – PrimalDanny Jun 22 2012 at 18:33
2 
 So we're talking about obese people who are struggling for energy, and you are dead set against advising them to consume more energy but want them to eat nutritionally empty carbs for some reason? Just who do you work for again? – PrimalDanny Jun 22 2012 at 19:15
show 45 more comments
10

This isn't a trend. This is normal. You don't have any idea what the carb levels in the paleolithic were. We are guessing. We've got some good, researched, educated guesses that it was less than 150g, but it is a guess. When people (newbies) say they need to lose weight, many of us- who have already lost weight- know that reasonable levels of carb restriction will help them with the goal. You are free to chime in with your own advice.
People can figure out pretty quickly what works and what doesn't for them, so focus on presenting your best argument rather than fussing about the fact that there are people who are advising things you don't agree with.

link|flag
We do know, we can observe what remains of hunter-gatherers. – Mike Jun 22 2012 at 18:18
1 
 That doesn't make sense. Cordian and other researchers are suggesting the 'below 150g' thing, you are suggesting something else. Are you talking about hunter-gatherers now, who are not our ancestors, but our contemporaries? Their diet is undeniably changed by modernity- their ability to move is greatly restricted, for instance- an impediment to a more nomadic meat eating lifestyle. – August Jun 22 2012 at 18:31
Ah, I do see you are talking about our contemporaries. You are displaying extremely faulty logic. Listen to Joshua, and try to remember this diet is within the framework of evolutionary theory, not based on whatever random group you come across. – August Jun 22 2012 at 19:27
"Cordian and other researchers are suggesting the 'below 150g' thing, you are suggesting something else." Nope I'm suggesting the same: "Paleo" Modernity is an issue, but there;s PLENTY we know, we know enough to draw general trends, types of foods and approximate macronutrient ratios. There's plenty to nail down for sure, but the big stuff, we know. – Mike Jun 22 2012 at 19:50
@August. Where is my faulty logic, perhaps you will enlighten me? – Mike Jun 22 2012 at 19:51
2

I see nothing wrong with low-carb for either general living purposes or for weight loss.

I don't, however, agree with NO Carb.

link|flag
4

I am more concerned with the parents here who starve their kids feeding them paleo, and then come asking for advice when their kids are hungry, there has been so many examples of this here.

The advice they get is crappy as well sometimes, luckily some people have been vocal about not starving your kids by feeding them LC etc.

It's never a good idea to think that you have found the ultimate human diet, and then force your kids on it too, vegans do this too, and they get so much shit for it, but when someone starves their kid on LC paleo it's somehow all different because paleo is "right".

link|flag
1 
 Say what? My kid thrives on paleo, it was never forced on him, I just refuse to have crap food in my house. Are you suggesting that people who find their health through paleo continue to feed their kids shit "just because"? Sure, my kid isn't low carb - but he enjoys his whole foods and his life is better because of it. – Joshua Jun 22 2012 at 17:31
This whole should I feed my kid just doritos and coke, or just meat and veggies is ridiculous, it's the same false dichotomy used by vegans, oh I feed my kid just pure vegan food, not that nasty dirty animal secretion called milk, or a chickens periods etc. There are options between the false black and white which is so loved by food purists who have found the "only right diet". – mM Jun 22 2012 at 17:36
3 
 Could you post a link to a couple of examples of parents with these questions? I haven't looked that closely, but don't recall ever seeing one. – Kelly B Jun 22 2012 at 17:43
3 
 You bet I forced my real food diet on my kids. I buy the groceries and prepare the meals. There are no grains, the only sugar is honey, and we have lots of fresh veggies and meats. No one is starving and the only ones losing weight are the ones with weight to lose. I am VLC, but my kids are not. – MathGirl72 Jun 22 2012 at 19:33
7

The solution for all of these issues about which is "better" or "right" is all a huge N=1 situation. The only way to find the answer for any given individual is to experiment on your own body and see what works and what doesn't.

The problem, I think, is that instead of thinking and experiencing, everyone wants someone els to give them a "Magic Solution" that is going to work every time, for every person.

It's been my experience that PH is a valuable open forum - and it IS such for me because I read the information and use it as a TOOL to help me figure out how things are working in my own body -- not as a BIBLE from which I can't deviate.

link|flag
4

If you have ever tried true low-carbing (and no 150 g is not it) then you would understand that someone shifting from a high-carb SAD diet will go through a fairly significant adjustment period where you feel like crap. (You also feel like crap when you quit smoking, so don't bother telling me that's an indication that you're doing something that's inherently "bad") Giving them some helpful tips to work through that process and get to the other side where they will start to feel really good is NOT bad advice. It is known as being helful.

Telling someone who has decided to try low-carbing but is having some difficulty that they are doing it all wrong and need to do what works for you is bad advice. People need to find their own way.

Most obese people are not going to thrive on fruit and nuts. I'm glad it worked for you, but you need to chill.

link|flag
I'm not suggesting anyone eat JUST fruit and nuts... that's what I did back then. And it felt good, and I healed, beginning with a water only fast for 11 days. Not suggesting anyone do that either. – Mike Jun 22 2012 at 18:02
Again, ur looking through your own lens. You might interpret that as a low carb flu but it just might be glucose deficiency. The problems of glucose deficiency are serious and dangerous. Just because you didn't experience them doesn't mean others don't. Stop looking through the end of the telescope. Low carb is not for everyone. – Mambo Jun 22 2012 at 18:13
2 
 Mambo, I don't know where you get your information but unless you are a Type 1 diabetic, "glucose defiency" isn't a problem for anyone. In fact, I don't even know where you got that term - the closest thing would be hypoglycemia. And a healthy person doesn't get hypoglycemia because they can make their own glucose. – Kelly Jun 22 2012 at 18:28
2 
 Well, Mike and Mambo, I think there are a lot of people here who's experience contradicts yours, and who have lost weight through carbohydrate reduction. And both Robb Wolf and Mark Sisson state that your carboydrate intake should be geared to your weight loss needs and activity level. So no, it's not for everyone. Nothing is. But as it does go along with experience of many of the members here as well as the advice of some very learned people means it is more than a "fad" and perhaps you should allow for individual differences. – Kelly Jun 22 2012 at 18:33
1 
 Restating it doesn't make it any more true. Is this your first day on the internet? – PrimalDanny Jun 22 at 22:34
show 11 more comments
4

I used to think Paleo was low carb but reading many of these threads has opened my eyes to the wide variety of diets practiced here. The only things I know for sure about Paleo are: no highly processed "foods", no gluten, no industrial oils, no GMO's (if one can help it), and no HFCS and white sugar (and agave--gee, I keep thinking of more things!). I'm sure someone will have an exception to something on this list!

Everyone will have different goals and different tolerances so it's really unrealistic to think Paleo will be one-size-fits-all. I feel fortunate to have found this site where there are so many differences of opinion and usually with some science to back it up. However, any opinions given here have to be weighed against what is best for you, or as they say, YMMV.

link|flag
3 
 Even if we use modern Hunter-Gatherers as an example, we still won't nail down a specific macronutrient level. Kitavans and starch, Innuit and fats, etc... Paleo is, inherently "lower carb" than a processed food diet. That being said, your summary is pretty much what I tell people when they ask "what is paleo?" I tell them it's a diet devoid of grains, refined sugars, processed foods, processed oils, and chemically-enhanced foods. I don't mention carbs. Before I get hate from WAPF or PHD folks - I still consider those to be ancestral, just not "Paleo" in the authored sense. – Joshua Jun 22 2012 at 17:56
I agree 100%... – MiMintzer Jun 22 2012 at 18:17
2

I think "EatLessMoveMoore" is now trolling as "Mike".

Get a life, man.

link|flag
1 
 Being concerned about low carb advice given to young people means I have no life? – Mike Jun 22 2012 at 18:29
6 
 No, trolling on PaleoHacks means you have no life. – Sam Knox Jun 22 2012 at 18:45
2 
 This is a forum for free exchange of ideas.To suggest censorship beyond the moderators is silly. Low carb does not mean starvation from a calorie stand point.0+0= pointless drama. – Jeff Jun 22 2012 at 19:23
1 
 There have been some good answers to this question so far. Your unsupported accusations are not one. -1. – Mscott Jun 22 2012 at 19:34
No... I asked a question, and everyone got hot. Not my fault. I have genuine concerns. – Mike Jun 22 2012 at 19:53
show 5 more comments
3

I agree!! Fruit is such a great source of energy. Same with sweet potatoes, beets, squash and people are so afraid of this..

link|flag
1

Either carbs are good for you or bad for you. There is no in between. Join one side or the other, and face the consequences.

link|flag
1 
 Your only concern Danny, is making sure you don;t lose that superiority complex... Ciao! And thanks for being you. :-) – Mike Jun 23 at 0:48
1 
 Show me YOUR data to support low carb as good paleo advice, or admit you are wrong :-) – Mike Jun 24 at 23:21
1 
 There are lots of potential red flags for low carb diets Danny, and it's simply not necessary... A TO Z "Akins" was actually 30^. Potential problems long-term include deficiency due to low water soluble vitamins, too much protein, increased likelihood of organ failure, osteoporosis from too much acid-forming foods, etc. It's just not necessary to eat low carb, even for weight loss and all of these problems can be avoided by eating at least 100g carbs. At 2000 calories that would be 20% only. That same 100g carb would be 27% of a 1500 calorie diet. A TO Z was 30% carb. – Mike Jun 25 at 22:13
1 
 And you've just changed your tune to "weight loss." That's the first you've mentioned of it. The question was about off pat low carb advice on a paleo forum, general carb phobia etc. – Mike Jun 25 at 22:16
1 
 Hey Mike, I was reading this discussion and felt like saying: meat may be an "acid forming" food, but it doesn't appear to induce osteoporosis. And there are tons of water soluble vitamins in organ meats and seafood. I'm not the biggest fan of low carb diets, but those aren't very good arguements. – Mscott Jun 28 at 6:09
show 50 more comments
5

Disturbed? No. There's no gatekeeper of "Paleo". Present your evidence and let's discuss civilly.

Pardon the pun, it evolves, unlike nearly every other lifestyle movements.

link|flag
1 
 I'm presenting my evidence here, in this thread; for NOT making VLC the default advice because that is bad advice. – Mike Jun 22 2012 at 20:02
It's not the default advice, a range of opinions are presented for most questions, and it's not typically bad advice. HTH – PrimalDanny Jun 22 2012 at 20:43
Yeah typically a range of CONFUSING, often totally contradictory options are given. Some of those options I consider very bad advice. Where does that leave a newbie? Confused and lost. – Mike Jun 22 2012 at 22:30
Yes, so let's elect you sole arbiter of TRUTH on the internet and it'll all be fine. Continue your campaign, I think you're almost there. And in the mean time continue (neglecting) to give generic nonspecific and meaningless advice to people. – PrimalDanny Jun 22 at 22:49
Twisting again Danny, Generic advice is the best advice in a generic situation. And that;s the situation I'm talking about. – Mike Jun 22 at 23:04
show 10 more comments

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.