Blog

15

2

I may have overplayed it with the title a bit, but I think the most dramatic hack would probably solve over 90% of the problems people face in these forums.

The paleo diet is usually presented with foods that can be eaten ad libitum, like meat, seafood, veggies, nuts, and fruit; followed by foods to consume in moderation/at only certain times such as tubers. I think by replacing the nuts ad libitum with tubers ad libitum and limiting/eliminating the nuts we would solve a lot of peoples malaise and support the macro agnostic sentiment (which is backed by lots of research).

flag
2 
What was the question? – JayJay Aug 13 at 20:31
3 
Yes tubers ad libitum is the way to go. Woman were probably able to gather much more calories from tubers, then men could from hunting. – ROB Aug 13 at 20:37
1 
@ Jackson. Change it to "would you agree with this revision to substitute ad libitum nuts in favor of ad libitum tubers?" so that your thread does not get closed. – foreveryoung Aug 13 at 20:43
I think for most people that are fat or have ever been fat then ad libitum is just not in the cards. – Paleo2.0 Aug 14 at 13:48

11 Answers

15

If I had any up-votes left, I'd upvote this right now. In 5 hours or so, I will.

The demonization of carbs by gurus, and the resultant fear of them by followers is, IMHO, the worst and most obnoxious thing about the movement.

This is likely the cause of "weight loss" but poor body composition, lack of weight loss, food guilt, binge eating, "cravings," "adrenal fatige," hypo-thyrpoid, etc you name it- all the most frequently complained about issues on this board. It is no coincidence that every single elite athlete, and every single lean person virtually without exception consumes some starch. If you want to be fit, healthy, and lean there is an optimal amount of carbs you should be consuming, and the number is virtually always above 70g a day (not counting green vegetables).

If you need to eliminate insulin resistance, a low calorie, reduced carb diet will work. People don't like hearing they have to deal with uncomfortable hunger pain to get better, and like hearing they can eat as much fatty animal prodcuts as they desire without ever feeling hungry. Yeah you might reduce blood glucose eating that way, but you certainly will not become insulin sensitive or even eliminate insulin resistance by doing so. Jimmy Moore still can't even eat a sweet potato without resulting diabetic hyperglycemia.

link|flag
8 
The funniest part of it is how a movement that claimed to be contrary to mainstream dietary advice has become stuck in the same exact problems as its predecessor. Observe: Vegetarian/vegan is plagued by problems (e.g. fatigue, insomnia, headaches..etc), sees meat and is instantly attracted--I WANT SOME! Doctor/mystic diet guru says NO, your problem is you're not exercising/eating enough fruit...etc. Person is denied, continues to suffer..blah blah blah. Paleo diet follower is plagued by insomnia, fatigue, stalls..etc, sees a potato and desperately wants it. Researcher/MD/diet guru says – jackson Aug 13 at 20:36
7 
NO, your problem is you're exercising too much/not eating enough fat..etc. Person is denied, continues to suffer..blah blah blah. The attraction of paleo came from it's reaffirmation of our natural bodily cues. We always thought meat looked scrumptious, it's time to trust your body. And now we are just another version of the bigots we have tried to replace. Just a tad humorous, no? – jackson Aug 13 at 20:38
1 
"Some starch" is different than tubers ad libitum. Gorging on ANY food can be detrimental to the body, period. – MathGirl72 Aug 14 at 0:07
4 
I was always kind of curious how someone goes from eating copious amounts of little debbies cakes and sugary soda on a daily basis, to now believing a baked tuber is going to bowl him over. – James Aug 14 at 9:42
4 
Jimmy said that he used to drink 16 cans of coke a day. 16 effing cans. But he didn't get diabetes. Now low-carb dieting has effed up his body so much that a half a tuber is a huge worry? But this is also the same guy that went to Washington DC to testify before the USDA that the food pyramid made him fat. Not the 16 effing cans of coke per day, but the food pyramid. – Paleo2.0 Aug 14 at 13:45
show 10 more comments
5

What kind(s) of "malaise" are you referring to? Weight? Athletic performance? Health issues? Satiety/cravings? Blood results?

Also, I think this is kind of a 'straw man' argument in that I don't think I've ever seen anyone on this site recommending nuts ad libitum.

However, I generally do follow your formula (although frankly I don't eat large quantities of either, as tubers can be gassy for me too). Still hasn't solved my chronic IBS, so I may be in that 10% who don't benefit from your theory.

link|flag
IBS means you cannot digest fiber. This means meat + rice + ghee, and vegetables you can digest. Vegetables would more likely be white potatoes, gourd family, as they are low in insoluble fibers. It definitely does not mean eating meat and greens. Do not think of diets in absolute terms. Think about your problem and design a diet that will work for you. Why Rice: You need some carbs. Why ghee: You need the short chain fatty acids (SCFA) for gut healing. Meat does not have much SCFA. Vegetables for getting plant nutrients. – anand srivastava Aug 14 at 5:06
You definitely can replace the carbs from rice, with carbs from veggies, but only if you can handle them. – anand srivastava Aug 14 at 5:08
Being a humans means you can't digest fiber, not IBS. – Mscott Aug 14 at 20:13
5

Yeah, basically nobody does what the OP suggests we do. Nuts, fruit, tators, and dairy ALL have always fallen into the moderation OR YMMV category ever since I can remember. I see nothing wrong with that, nor a need to change it.

link|flag
6 
It is actually true that if you look at the paleo/primal food pyramid, nuts are not on the bottom- meat is. But I think what the OP is getting at is that people look for every way to add calories to their diet besides starch, which causes people to add unnatural amounts of fats to their diet in the form of butter/ghee, nuts/nut-butters, coconut oil/coconut butter, etc. When in reality, it should be eat meat and fish and vegetables, and add in starch before adding in oils/extra fats. – foreveryoung Aug 13 at 21:15
1 
I'm out of up votes but will get you later. – foreveryoung Aug 13 at 21:16
5 
Actually, re-reading this, A LOT of people do what the OP suggests. I read on here all the time about people bingeing on nuts- eating up to a lb at a time and an entire tub of almond butter. I assume they do this because they are feeling deprived of carbohydrates, and nuts contain some carbs, but you have to eat A LOT of them to get any appreciable amount. If they'd just eat a roasted sweet potato instead, they'd save themselves hundreds of calories. – foreveryoung Aug 14 at 0:45
3 
The same can be said for coconut butter/mana as well. – foreveryoung Aug 14 at 0:46
You gotta get your energy from somewhere. I like fat. I only do HIT 1-2x/week with a lot of regular daily movement. You like to get your energy from carbs? Have at it. But there are plenty of people that can attest to overindulging on mashed potatoes too. – JayJay Aug 14 at 2:25
show 1 more comment
4

Interesting question. I want to briefly address weight loss, since that's a pretty common reason why people drop carbs like they're hot. While many believe Stephan Guyenet slew the carb-insulin-obesity beast long ago, people can still gain weight when they increase the carbohydrates in their diet. But context is everything.

A few studies have examined the effect of nuts like almonds on appetite and thus weight gain/loss. Compared to carb rich foods, nuts have typically been shown to either not increase weight gain (1) or to increase weight loss (2,3). But these studies were nuts vs. grains. I think at paleohacks of all places people would agree: tubers and grains are not the same.

One cool study which gained some popularity after Stephan Guyenet blogged about it measured the satiating effects of a number of different foods (4). It found boiled potatoes to be the most satiating and I think this lines up with a lot of people's experiences. A baked potato fills me up pretty well, while a big handful of almonds doesn't, despite both being about the same amount calories.

Still, here in paleoland we love our fat. And many people who eat tubers don't eat them plain; they add some oil from their arsenal of fancy fats. Maybe they salt em' too. Now you have a tasty carb+fat combo that's much more appetizing.

My point is, recommending ad libitum tubers in place of nuts while giving people the free pass to drown em in fat? I'll make the bet right now, some people would gain weight.

link|flag
1 
but yeah, for non-weight related issues though I think the effect of such a revision would be positive. – Mscott Aug 13 at 22:50
1 
Not everyone on Paleo is a fatty. – Nemesis Aug 14 at 11:16
And to those people I say get your tater on. – Mscott Aug 14 at 20:56
3

I think what would help the vast majority of people who have issues with being paleo is for them to accept that this is a lifestyle and not a macro nutrient profile (i.e. a rigid diet).

This whole one size fits all myth is more prevalent on this site then I have seen in many other places and causes many of the problems. Your description of eating all you want of nuts and fruit is only the opinion of specific gurus who push that view of being paleo. The very few I listen to say fruit and nuts in moderation. Depending on what site you go to, and who you listen to, you will get different "Opinions" on what paleo is.

link|flag
2

The concept of ad libitum intake of anything is entirely foreign to me, having lost over 80 lbs and consciously maintained at least some level of externally-imposed control for over 2 years.

With that said, nuts seem way easier to overeat in the acute than tubers. I wonder how they would compare with regards to long-term satiety, though...

link|flag
Especially pistachios. – Dave S. Aug 14 at 18:16
Actually, now that I think about it, nuts in their natural state - encased in a hard shell - wouldn't be very accessible. I figure satiety would kick in before you could plow through enough of them to do harm. – Matthius Aug 15 at 0:46
2

Ad libitum tubers instead of nuts is a great idea. Baked potatoes have an extremely high satiety level so it's kind of hard to over consume them in one sitting. Besides, there's even a lot of theories that tubers played a significant role in our evolution, perhaps even more so than meat.

link|flag
2

Good points all around.

High fat paleo made me flabby, tired and I did crave nuts like a nut crazed person!

I don't believe the insulin hypothesis of weight gain at all.

I was obese most of my life - age 9 to 24, eating LOTS of SAD carbs. Some might have said my metabolism was "deranged" by carb damage and a lifetime of LC was in order! I lost about 60lbs over two years and kept it off for 3 years (5 since weight loss started) eating high carb whole foods with nutritious animal foods (brief LC paleo stint notwithstanding). I'm 5'7" and was 198LBS at age 24, am now 135-141 depending on my where I am in my cycle.

I believe obesity is largely caused by malnutrition. If your food isn't giving you what you need, then you'll continue to be hungry no matter how many calories you eat. There's no way Jimmmy Moore could have downed 16 sodas if this weren't true. I once ate 4 bags of miniature chocolates in a day. Even if I had an iota of desire to do this now, it would be physically impossible. I try to tell this to thin people who complain about obese people having no self control when there's no way they can understand what it feels like to have that kind of insatiable hunger.

I also remember as a kid drinking so much milk that it would run out of my mouth, because there was no physical room for it in my stomach (I had undiagnosed celiac disease for over 20 years, so I was very malnourished due to intestinal damage as well as poor food quality).

Today, I love eating lots of fruits, potatoes and big scoops of plain white rice - really starchy and sticky and glue-like. I pair those foods with nutritious stewed meats with bone broths and marrow, eggs and fish. With my digestion improving I've been eating dates (oh, no! sugar bombs!) again every day, and drinking goat's milk kefir. This diet keeps me full, lean, healthy and happy.

link|flag
This: "This diet keeps me full, lean, healthy and happy." x 1,000,000. Everyone should aim for that, no matter what macronutrient ratios or food choices that includes. (Well, unless those food choices are human. I'm kind of categorically against modern cannibalism.) – Potato Avenger Aug 14 at 18:09
I'm pretty sure cannabalism is paleo. So is eating a lot of insects. Well, I was never REALLY paleo anyways... – Dave S. Aug 14 at 18:18
I agree that there is a massive link between obesity and malnutrition and true cravings are the body's attempt to obtain what is is just not getting. True nourishment has to be there before a person has a shot in hell at healthy, lifelong weight loss/maintenance, IMVHO. Unfortunately, there are countless roadblocks to nutrition that often need to be sorted out, such as malabsorption, etc. It requires a lot of research and self experimentation, not to mention time and money. "Going on a diet" just doesn't cut it! Eventually, health needs to be the focus, but vanity usually kicks it off... – happycamper Aug 15 at 23:43
1

Nuts are nutrient dense. Tubers are not.

Re nuts: Some are lower in omega-6 than others. Its worth remembering that animal meat has omega-6, and so do most plants. If you avoid the higher omega-6 ones, favour walnuts, almonds and macadamias, and soak, sproat or ferment some, I dont see the problem.

Almond milk is very low o-6, and high in calcium, which can be low on dairy free diets. Theres an issue with high meat diets, in screwing the copper to zinc ratio up, if you dont eat organ meats. Things like nuts (high in copper) help mitigate this.

Ratio for women is supposed to be 5:1, men 10:1. If you want to get copper from whole foods, without high levels of zinc or iron, your options are pretty limited - liver, nuts, seeds, or cacao.

So I disagree entirely. I dont think anything should be eaten in excess, but I think its a very bad idea discouraging people away from one of the rare high copper foods, when they are eating a high zinc diet most likely without any beef or venison liver involved.

If people find they have weight issues, or are eating too many of the higher o-6 nuts, sure they might want to cut back, and exercise some willpower.

I am personally not sure I see any real benefit in starchy tubers if one isnt very active and particularly doing regular anerobic exercise like weightlifting and sprinting.

I certainly cant see any merit in eating as much of them as people eat rice or pasta. I used to eat under calories, very little sugar, in a mostly carb diet. I was overweight. My metabolism was screwed.

Now I eat over calories often, in a low carb diet, and I am still losing weight (I found my xyiphoid process the other day). Admitedly my thyroid has been slightly overactive due to excess iodine and perhaps not enough copper food. But I think this suggests that more inactive people should moderate carb/starch intake. Even active people seem to do well with only moderate carbs.

How optimal your diet is, is something people should figure out on there own, by reveiwing various peoples cases.

I have reservations about the wholesale banning in paleo of large numbers of food groups. Once youve cut out eggs, nuts, nightshades, fruits, carbs, dairy, oxalate plants, legumes etc etc etc and you havent got the assistance of a skilled nutritionist or are being very careful, chances are good your deficient in something, or your risking an imbalance. Its a bit OTT sometimes.

These HG diets are high refined to obtain proper nutrients from the local foods. Doing such a diet, totally ad hoc, in the modern era can be problematic.

So: I say start with just cutting out wheat/grains, vege oils, probably legumes, definately refined sugar, and processed foods (ie roughly paleo 2.0).

Leave everything else up to individuals own interpretations of various informations (Carbs, eggs, dairy, nightshades, oxalate plants , ra ra radi rah).

Add to that if your losing weight, you probably want to keep carbs under at leats 150 grams, if not under 100 grams.

And if your problem solving autoimmune or gut or other health issues, you may trial eliminating ONE group at a time of the above mega-list, while being careful to replace missing nutrients.

Theres plenty of variants and information out there. I think the best thing we can do as a community is disagree vehemently about every one of those other details, so that people do look into things themselves, and shock horror, think for themselves and drop the group think mentality that pervades our modern society.

link|flag
1 
"Nuts are nutrient dense. Tubers are not". Well, you know, that's just like...your opinion, man. – Mscott Aug 31 at 8:36
0

Too many nuts isn't that great for gut issues. And can throw off Omega 6 levels in the body quickly. I have trouble just eating a small amount of them myself. So I try not to get almond butter that often.

link|flag
0

I hate nuts.. TUBERS FOR THE WIN! They're also absolutely full of phytonutrients.. take that vegetables!

link|flag

Your Answer

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