After finding low-carb paleo diet to be perfect for me and my lifestyle I am so dissapointed to hear Matt Stone at 180-degree health refute what I beleive. Stone use to be low-carb paleo and suffered several health problems and talks about his client with the lowest body temperature being a guy after he went LC paleo. I understand people gaining weight after stopping LC paleo bc I beleive they shouldnt be eating foods that aren't LC paleo. But Stone says LC paleo ruins metabolisms. What do you think?
He has no qualifications. He is the glenn beck of paleo/health blogs
I'm not sure Matt's experience on low carb paleo is a good example of it. From the sounds of it he was exercising heavily at the same time and not eating enough. I read his excerpt of the time he went off into the woods on his own. Doesn't sound paleo to me to be all alone hiking for days on end without enough food. I would be interested to see him try a lazier paleo approach. Sit around most of the time and do small bursts of activity infrequently, and eat more, all in the company of family and friends. Stress, lack of food, the elements, can all be very detrimental to anyone's health regardless of what macro-nutrient ratio they are eating.
Also realize people can be low-carb paleo and still not get enough nutrients. I see it all the time, people eating meat and fat. What about eating all the organ meats, most raw (vit c), seafood, etc. I'd be curious to see someone on low carb paleo who is technically getting enough nutrients, but is still having health issues.
Low carb paleo/primal (off and on, with mod-carb in between) helped me tremendously and gave me more energy than I've ever had. Others have reported the same. I don't think that alone can be the single cause of the problems some people have on this diet. If you learn anything from Matt Stone, it's to experiment. It really takes some trial and error to figure out what style of eating makes you feel the best.
Well, i would say that just about every other nutrition person i can think of (as well as any medical doctor I've asked) says that Stone's entire raison, the body temperature idea, is antiquated. That really does form the basis of almost every argument he makes so i take him with a big grain of sea salt.
Actually, calories in and calories out is debatable...very. I'm quoting Gary Taubes here in his new book:
"Describing what he calls “the 20-calorie paradox,’’ [Taubes] points out that for a lean 25- year-old to gain 50 pounds by the time he is 50, all that is needed is to consume exactly 20 calories more that he burns per day, every day. This is “less than a single bite of a . . . hamburger or croissant. Less than 2 ounces of [soft drink] or the typical beer. Less than three potato chips.’’ If calories in-calories out was all there was to it, “you [would] need only to rein yourself in by this amount — undereat by 20 calories a day — to undo it.’’
I can tell you from my own experience that weight loss is much more complex than simply creating a calorie deficit. If that was the case programs like Weight Watchers wouldn't have a 99% failure rate. I believe the truth lies in nutrient deficiencies and imflamation of the gut and hormonal imbalances caused by low-level toxins from environmental factors and highly processed foods like gluten and industrial oils.
I have been unable to lose weight for years despite increasing exercise and decreasing calories. Now that I've eliminated gluten and switched to good quality foods and eliminated everything processed I'm finally able to lose weight - and am eating more calories than I ever was before.
Disclaimer: I've only read Stone's free eBook. Maybe his evidence is stronger and his ideas better substantiated in his other eBooks (as he claims).
While Stone claims to be basing his ideas on scientific evidence, his dislike for low-carb seems to be based on anecodatal evidence--his own experience of eating moderate carb (100g/day) and anecdotal experiences of friends/acquaintances. As others have said, someone can eat low/mod carb (or paleo) and eat badly. And exercise too much, eat too much/little, sleep too little etc.; it's the whole picture that makes a difference. His experience doesn't mean that LC/paleo won't work for you CarnivorePrincess.
Two of the main differences I picked up bewteen his approach and paleo were 1/ the addition on vegetable starches such as potato, which he is a big fan of and 2/ the phase of weight-loss he advocates where you eat a lot of 'everything'. To deal with these two points individually: 1/ his 'scientific evidence' for this appears to be based on a fairly simplistic analysis of the change in diet of the Pima Indians and its affect on them (from 70% carb to 44% carb--in a different form; from no diabetes and obesity to very high rates of both). His take home message form this is that carbs (starchy vegies in particular) are OK, something else must be the enemy. On the surface this looks likew a reasonable argument, but there are a lot of other factors that could come into play. And who's to say that their previous diet was actually good for them, apart from the stated low diabetes and obesity? So his 'eat starchy vegies' message does not appear well substantiated.
2/ the 'high eveything diet' (HED) that he pushes as a first stage at first glance sounds ridiculous, but on further thought I'm coming around to the idea, at least for some people. Remember he's not advocating eating sugars, fructose, omega 6s, grains etc. it's really on the starchy vegies where his ideas about diet deviate from LC and paleo. So the eat everything actually means eat lots of (what he defines as) good stuff to get past the 'starvation mentality' that our brains can get into when we start to feel that food is scarce (e.g. afetr we go on a low calorie diet). As a cure for starvation brain, this might actually work for some people. I see the goal with eating as to eat 'naturally', including knowing what feels good, the amount that we need, etc. without needing to be preoccupied with eating too much or too little. If the HED gets one to that state of mind and body than that would be a good thing.
Remember that study where they took a bunch of healthy, active young men, put them on a low-calorie diet for a while, and they turned into wrecks? After the diet they became obsessed with food, found it hard to regulate their eating, and just couldn't get back to the state of mind (or body) where they were before: eating to live and enjoying it without being preoccupied. Instead they were living to eat, metabolism was messed up, stress hormones high etc. in short they developed 'starvation brain'. So for those of us who have experieinced starvatin brain, maybe the HED would help--dunno.
As for Stone himself, I support anyone who has a genuinely open mind and keeps learning and refining their ideas. Now that Stone has a vested interest in a particular paradigm (i.e. he has put down recommendations in eBooks, into which he has put time and hopes to make money), he now has a vested interest in that status quo. Most of us will tend to take in new info with blnkiers on once we have reached that stage. Let's see if that happens to Stone.
When I read some of his writing, I felt his main interest was generating controversy. Also, he likes to talk about how others are wrong, but on key points, he fails to give any solutions of his own, but instead gets vague and belittling. I find that to be a turnoff. There are many who disagree with paleo more than him whom I actually have much more respect for. Because I respect those who I feel are sharing honestly and doing their best. I don't feel Stone is doing that.
Matt Stone is a quak, an annoying voice in the comments of Dr David's HeartScan Blog who is simply trying to make a name for himself by being controversial. He is a troll. The ancestral diet was NOT high-carb, it was low-carb, without agriculture and farming, there is no natural high/moderate carb diet, it's that simple. Please ignore him, we don't want him coming here and spamming everything with his irrelevant crap!
Matt doesn't push paleo, because if he did he wouldn't have anything to sell, he has to be "different" to be able to trick people into giving him money.
I don't really like bashing people. He's no fructose, which I can see as it doesn't agree with me... He low O6 which I think is accurate, he anti processed, which is good but we already know that...
He selling vastly overeat, followed by cutting... Funny thing... This works fine without the overeat...
High carb all the time isn't really good, refeeds have benefits for extremely active people.
Best Matt Stone piece EVER: http://180degreehealth.com/2010/03/poor-poor-jimmy-moore.
Written a couple years ago, it's more relevant than ever now with Jimmy's latest absurd experiment in 'nutritional ketosis' (http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/jimmy-moores-n1-experiments-nutritional-ketosis-day-61-90/15125).
And how is this paleo, exactly?
Remember, this is the guy AHS considered qualified to moderate a panel on safe starches (and define the term, no less). And people honestly wonder why Kurt Harris took off.
I've been doing a little n=1 this past week, adding a lot of fat into mmy diet WITHOUT reducing calories or other macronutrients (my usual diet is VLC paleo) or activity level. This is adding 500 or more calories per day, at least (I haven't done the math, to be really honest).
Under CICO, I should be gaining weight, but that's not the case. I've lost 4 lbs in the past week, after stalling at the same weight for over 2 months. Now I'm not ready to say that increasing fat leads to weight loss all other things being equal--not enough data to form any n=1 conclusion. But if CICO was true, the scale should definitely be going in the OTHER direction.
I am not diabetic but as close as you can be to it without the actual diagnosis. On SAD I was constantly going hypoglycemic multiple times a day. I'd wake up, eat my carby (but low fat and low calorie) breakfast, and within 2 hours I'd be shaky and agitated unless I ate something else (usually something carby and sweet, but low fat and low cal). By noon the symptoms of hypoglycemia would be baaaaack. I was working a health fair once and since they were testing blood sugars I got mine tested right before lunch when I was feeling pretty shaky and agitated, and it was 55! When I spoke to my doctor about it, "smaller, more frequent meals" was the suggestion. no help at all!
On low carb, my blood sugars are rock steady even, running in the 80's and low 90's all the time. I never have hypoglycemic symptoms (except when my non-paleo DH forgot to tell me he loaded some zucchini pancakes with flour because the batter was too wet!). I feel great all the time, no longer riding the blood sugar rollercoaster. If this is dangerous, then I guess I love to live dangerously.