Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

12

3

Following up on my potato question, it seemed to me like many paleos out there eat quite a bit of starchy tubers and fruit. This leads me to another question: should low-carb be deemphasized as part of the paleo diet?

There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that the carbohydrate hypothesis is false: carbohydrates as such do not cause obesity, diebetes, etc. Rather the cause may lie with gluten grains and/or fructose consumed regularly in large quantities.

If this is true, it seems like we're unnecessarily associating paleo with low-carb in way that keeps lots of people from taking it up. People think they can't do it, or they try it, get the "carb flu" and give it up. And it seems like, based on the accounts of many folks here, that many people just function better with some starchy foods in their diet.

It's often said in paleo circles that low-carb is necessary for weight loss/restoring a healthy metabolism. I'm not saying this is wrong, but is the evidence for this actually that strong? What if you just cut junk, grains, legumes, and refined sugar? Has low-carb been compared to this scenario?

I don't mean to dismiss the experience of those who do well with VLC. I'm just suggesting that it should be made very clear that paleo is not necessarily low-carb. It seems like most folks around here accept this already, but many new to the diet still think they need to go low-carb to see the real benefits. And folks like Kurt Harris and Mark Sisson push this position (all due respect- and it's a lot- to those guys).

So should we sever our spiritual bonds with low-carbers, or am I missing something?

flag	asked Dec 13 2010 at 0:12 Nico 2,218●3●17

4

Well, one of the things that happens when you take out grains, legumes, dairy, and refined sugar, is that the carbohydrate content of the diet dramatically drops. Unless you purposefully replace this with copious amounts of fruits and starches, you'll probably wind up with a diet like Mark Sisson recommends, which really isn't all that low-carb (100g/day). It does seem important to let people know that it doesn't HAVE to be low-carb, that it's more a focus on food quality than quantity. – Drew aka CrossFit Junkie Dec 13 2010 at 0:40

400 calories per day form carbs is pretty low carb in my book. – Jay Dec 13 2010 at 1:13

Drew- your point is well taken. Many Americans are consuming so much sugar and white flour that going off of that would probably already by much lower carb. – Nico Dec 13 2010 at 3:19

Paul · Accepted Answer · 2010-12-13 02:26:22Z UTC

This is how I see it these days.

ZC/VLC, on the order of 0% (if 0 were possible) to 5-10% of calories from carbohydrate: Will leave most people with somewhat less energy because of the extra burden of converting protein for the body's glucose needs, etc. Usually more difficult to do serious strength training. But many people take to it like a duck to water. Many people take to it after a period of adjustment.
LC, on the order or 5-10% to 10-15% of calories from carbohydrate: Getting enough glucose to avoid the potential problems of the first category. But for many people (half? most?) going above this level makes it difficult to avoid the "up and down" feeling of rising and falling blood sugar, and makes it more difficult to fast. Some people might feel the chronically low energy at this level, and not just the next level down.
Paleo, but not necessarily LC, on the order of 10-15% of calories to 30-45% (?) of calories from carbohydrate: Many people do just fine at this level, as long as they're avoiding gluten, dairy, seed oils, and whatever else plagues them. I would guess that people who eat at this level eat more meals per day than at the next level down, but this probably doesn't bother them. Many people cannot lose weight at this level.
HC (high carb) on the order of 30-45% of calories to 90% of calories. At this level we either have i. good reason to believe that carbohydrate is being consumed at levels inappropriate for most bodies, or at least, more conservatively, ii. no good reason to believe that eating this much carbohydrate is in any way particularly beneficial. On both views, the only thing the Kitavans show is that if you have all the rest of your dietary affairs in order you can get away with eating a high percentage of your calories from carbohydrate. (In other words, it might also be the case that a culture eating low-carb without gluten, without high fructose, etc., but still eating lots of vegetable oil would be just as healthy.) On this see Kurt Harris.

Notes: i. The boundaries between the categories are intentionally vague, but particularly the boundary between the third and fourth. ii. Really we might do better thinking about percentage of carbohydrate consumed over an entire year and not over a single day, to account for seasonal variation and to account for the presumption that the real culprit is probably chronic hyperinsulinemia.

Conclusion: I don't think paleo is necessarily low carb (certainly not VLC), but I do think that paleo is necessarily not high carb. I think there is often confusion about this because people who say "paleo is not necessarily low carb" often mean by this: "paleo is not necessarily below 100g of carbohydrate a day" (or whatever the limit would be). And the members of the other camp who say "paleo is necessarily low carb" often mean by this: "paleo is necessarily below 60% of your calories from carbohydrate a day, which is what the idiot dietary 'authorities' have been telling us to eat." So the two sides are speaking past each other. But I in any event stick to the conclusion, for the time being, that paleo is necessarily not high carb, as I have defined the terms above.

Carl_Stawicki · Answer 2 · 2010-12-13 02:07:46Z UTC

I tell people my diet has no processed carbs or sugar. That means no bread, pasta, Capt'n Crunch, etc. All my carbs come in their original form from nature (well ok, domesticated nature anyway.) I don't keep track of numbers, but vegetation is a large part of my diet.

haig · Answer 3 · 2010-12-13 01:42:44Z UTC

5

It depends on how damaged your metabolism is. If you are obese or metabolically deranged, controlling your blood glucose by minimizing all sugars including carbohydrates from your diet is a necessity until you heal. Diabetics who self-test for feedback regularly know this already, as do bodybuilders who mostly have an empirically developed consensus on limiting carbs when 'cutting' and adding them back (and then some) when 'bulking'.

I think the first priority should be optimizing for maximum micronutrients & minimum toxins through natural, whole foods. Once you've got that down, then you can focus priority on macronutrient ratios if necessary.

answered Dec 13 2010 at 1:42

haig
1,314●1●4●13

1

I have to say that low carb is not a "necessity" if you are obese. I lost 100lbs counting calories and was never low carb. – sherpamelissa Dec 13 2010 at 2:17

Melissa- Thanks for the info. Did you restrict calories? – Nico Dec 13 2010 at 3:24

1

Of course a low-calorie diet is often also a low-carbohydrate diet: if you restrict calories you will often, effectively, be restricting carbohydrates, even if you're not intentionally going low-carb. Though of course you can lose weight by restricting calories in general, that shouldn't be denied. – Paul Dec 13 2010 at 6:04

Yes, I restricted calories. I was essentially high protein, high fiber. I watched my ratios more than grams of carbs, but I tried to get 75/80 grams of protein and keep my carbs around 50% of my daily total. I ate a lot of whole grains and black beans. I never looked at fat. It was my own weird system, but it worked. – sherpamelissa Dec 13 2010 at 13:44

wjones3044 · Answer 4 · 2010-12-13 01:48:29Z UTC

5

I can only speak for myself that the lower carb I go, the better.

I started by eliminating gluten. Then eliminated all grains. Then came to the realization that vegetables simply don't agree with me. I'll use onions here and there and the occasional piece of fruit. But vegetables and fruits just rub me the wrong way.

If it's "work" to eliminate them, then don't. For me, it's the opposite.

answered Dec 13 2010 at 1:48

wjones3044
10k●19●56

1

It's almost the same with me: my only (moderat) sources of carbs are onions, salad greens, and a tiny littel bit of fruit and berrys. – Kikilula Dec 13 2010 at 6:29

1

I love fruit. This summer I ate a big bowl of cherries every day plus bananas etc. I could not lose any further weight. I was going by glycemic index. Cherries are the lowest. When I gave up the fruit--Boom! the weight fell off. I now eat mostly frozen Maine blueberries and rasberries from Chile (both frozen from Wyman). Right now I am indulging in apples, but only eat 1/2 every once in awhile. Sure enough, my weight loss has stalled. I know what to do. I do eat salads, avocados, brocolli and cauliflower. – Doris Dec 13 2010 at 15:30

Same here. Not just for my weight, but my whole well-being. Even the difference between VLC and ZC is enormous for me. – Ambimorph Dec 13 2010 at 20:30

Eva · Answer 5 · 2010-12-13 03:58:04Z UTC

If your insulin production and useage are not working properly, then you can't handle carbs well. For those people, even a few bites of potato can cause blood sugar to go too high. Those people need to be quite low carb at least until or if the body can somewhat heal itself. Lowcarb is also good for weight loss, although many do not need to go very low carb. However, VLC will take the weight off faster. The thing is, so many people these days are either overweight or have blood sugar problems. THe end result is a lot of people need to go lowcarb.

Stancel · Answer 6 · 2010-12-13 04:21:59Z UTC

I'm not against low-carb diets. I just don't like how many low-carbers feel it necessary to blame carbs for obesity in order to feel good that they are following the right path. Taubes wrote a whole book around that idea, it seems his book is treated like the Holy Bible of low-carb. I just think it's ridiculous how so many people just deny the role of calories. Clearly these people have no other reason to be low-carb than weight loss. If they do low-carb because they believe it makes them healthy, and they find it easier to lose weight, those are good reasons. If they do low-carb because they think "carbs make you fat, calories don't matter, I can eat all I want" they are not being that smart, IMO.

Some people on the other side (30 Bananas a Day, low-fat, high carb) think the same way. That they can eat all the fruit they want and never gain fat. And when they do, they're not eating enough fruit, or they still eat a little avocado, so that's why. Sound familiar? It's like when they say you're not losing weight because you're still eating carbs and you need to lower it.

When we see people intake a lot of calories and stay slim and fit, it's because they're athletic, they're active. Not sedentary like most people who go on a diet.

If you are obese or overweight, you likely got there by indulging in a lot of high calorie stuff. The average diet of an obese person is certainly not low-carb OR low-fat. It's both high in fat and carbs. There are millions of people who lose weight on low-fat, low-carb, moderate-fat/moderate-carb, etc. If carbs were the demon sabotaging so many people, it would be self-evident by the results. We would know, in books and papers other than Taubes (who is biased to his own diet.) that it was carbs not calories that made people fat.

Nasty Brutish and Short · Answer 7 · 2010-12-13 06:17:46Z UTC

3

From my research I'd say that the Carbohydrate Hypothesis is beginning to look as intellectually bankrupt as the Lipid Hypothesis.

Take a look at James Kreiger's 5-part series on insulin that debunks virtually all of the popular low-carb tenets:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=459

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=536

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=571

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=690

answered Dec 13 2010 at 6:17

Nasty Brutish and Short
723●3●5

1

Those are really great posts, but I don't think it's a conclusive debunking. Or maybe it is, as you say, a debunking of all the popular low-carb tenets. But I think some of the carbohydrate hypothesis is still around when all is said and done, or some more subtle, modified version of the hypothesis. I think the comment exchange between Krieger and the commenter named Todd (his avatar is a bust of some classical figure or other) is really good. – Paul Dec 13 2010 at 7:32

3

Intellectual masturbation. Clearly some degree of calorie restriction is necessary to facilitate weight loss. Carb reduction facilitates this. Sure, we know that protein stimulates insulin. But reducing carbs and increasing fat tends to reduce blood sugar levels which, in turn, reduces insulin levels. Is this, definitively, the cause of weight loss? I have no idea. But people who do it lose weight. The correlation is damn strong. – wjones3044 Dec 13 2010 at 13:48

I agree that reducing carbohydrates is an effective method for weight loss. I just think that the reasons commonly cited for low-carb diets (carbs drive insulin secretion, insulin drives hunger, etc.) are largely bullshit. – Nasty Brutish and Short Dec 13 2010 at 19:29

And are we sure we're not conflating all carbs with just high doses of fructose? Or with wheat? That's what I've been wondering recently. – Nico Dec 14 2010 at 13:57

That's some of the worst writing I've ever seen. The bias is palpable, and the honesty is questionable. " In fact, if you truly wanted to keep insulin as low as possible, then you wouldn’t eat a high protein diet…you would eat a low protein, low carbohydrate, high fat diet. However, I don’t see anybody recommending that." Although I'm not a fan of his bars, shakes and all that I do believe this is precisely what Dr. Atkins suggested. As a matter of fact it's what EVERY low-carber I personally know does. This guy is a jack-ass... – Mike Nov 13 2011 at 5:53

David Leitner · Answer 8 · 2010-12-13 13:28:57Z UTC

Obviously grains and legumes and most dairy needs to be cut out. I feel better on low-carb (around 50g/ day) but many people don't need to worry about gram counting-- I "estimate" :). I think a lot of people have tried low-carb and had little long term success because they cut carbs too severely too quickly. After all if you go zero carb, what else are you going to cut? If you want to make weight loss sustainable long-term, a better start would be cutting carbs slowly, and then reintroducing them slowly when goal weight is achieved.

Atkins followers have what they call the "golden shot." It refers to the first time a person restricts carbs and loses weight quickly and effortlessly. It never seems to work as well again.

Is very low-carb overrated?

8 Answers