Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

3

1

And if so, am I basically killing myself with it? If not, what DOES constitute a high fat/high carb diet?

[Try to stick with me here, and let me know if it gets too confusing!] I've read through a ton of paleohacks threads (I can't seem to find ANY of the threads I reference herein, so I hope you all know what I'm talking about) and the general consensus seems to be that a diet both high in fat and high in carbs means trouble. This has led to more confusion regarding my diet than normal.

I realize a similar question has been asked previously (somewhat recently, I believe, concerning the parameters for high fat/high carb), but I'd like to expand on the question.

What are the parameters that quantify what is high carb and what is high fat? Having been a calorie-counter in the past, I've tended toward a focus on macronutrient percentages rather than grams. I see this on many paleo websites as well, which typically advocate for around 65% of calories or more consumed as fat, something like 10% as carbs, and 25% as protein.

(In this next part I'm assuming you all know that carbs are 4 calories per gram, protein grams are 4 calories as well, and fat grams are 9.) Let me try to explain with the appropriate amount of detail: I generally consume around 100 grams of protein a day. (This isn't based on any calculations regarding my lean body mass, btw--it's just the number to which I've been naturally inclined to over the years.) Since I consume about 1600 calories a day (maintenance; not much exercise), this keeps the percentage of protein I consume fixed at 400 calories: 25%. That leaves 1200 calories for myself to consume of fat and carbs.

Now, I could potentially consume 1200 (and 75% of my) calories as carbs--300 grams. Okay, that's a little 'high' even away from the paleo context. What happens if we shift that and I consume, say, 55% as carbs and 20% as fat? That's 220 grams of carbs--high by most paleo standards (I think) but not grossly high otherwise. It also allows for 35 grams of fat--most certainly not high by paleo standards.

Now let's say I want to fall within paleo-friendly carbohydrate ranges and limit my intake of carbs to 150g per day--a moderately high (?) approach. 150g of carbs provide 600 calories, so about 38% of my calories would come from carbs. That leaves 600 calories for me to consume from fat - about 38% of my caloric intake. So I'm not consuming high carbs by any means, but I'm also not consuming a high amount of fat--not 'high' by the paleo definition I've recognized, anyway. But I AM consuming the same amount of fat and carbs, which I think equals a recipe for disaster. Or sudden death.

If I were to consume a more paleotically-correct amount of carbohydrates--say, 100g--that means I'm getting 400 calories from carbs, or 25%. This leaves 800 calories to consume as fat, or 50%. To me, 25% isn't low-carb, and it isn't within the generally-accepted paleo parameters either. The fact that I don't eat very many calories could also be skewing the numbers here.

On a personal note, it's a little silly to me that there seems to exist a set limit on amount of carbohydrates consumed that takes neither age, weight, nor lean body mass into account in its being determined. All that seems to matter is activity level, and this doesn't make sense to me. How is it logical that both a lightly active, 115-pound, 20-year-old female and a lightly active 170-pound, 50-year-old male should limit their carbohydrate intake to 100-150 (or whatever seemingly arbitrary number) grams per day?

This is all just theoretical, of course.. And I agree with most paleohackers who hold the notion that most vegans have gotten into trouble for doing what 'seems' right ;p

The thing is, I'm really struggling when it comes to finding what's right for me. I was feeling okay on ~38% carbs, ~38% fat, and ~25% protein (the example I used earlier), but then I got ultra sick and switched to high carb out of fear that because I was battling an infection, I had high inflammation, and as such should not have been consuming a high amount of saturated fat (a fear which stemmed from reading a thread about how saturated fat causes atherosclerosis, but heart disease and attacks are caused by inflammation, which can arise due to reasons unrelated to diet). I know that KGH doesn't buy into the belief that saturated fat causes atherosclerosis no matter what--but again, I can't find the thread about inflammation, [EDIT: this one ] so I don't remember why people were coming to that conclusion. (Sorry! :p )

I tend to feel shitty on anything less than 100 grams of carbs, and I felt the best in my life when I was basically eating a vegan diet supplemented with animal products. However, since venturing into the paleo realm I've come to think of this way of eating as suboptimal.

There's a chance that since I'm focusing on percentages instead of grams, I'm under the impression that my diet is both high in carbs when it is neither. There's also a chance that I'm consuming too much protein, and as such most of my number-tweaking is pretty much invalidated.

I don't even know if I've made my own confusion clear here. But I've done my best given my current frantic state. The question remains: Am I doing damage by eating the same amount of carbs and fat?

edited Dec 18 2011 at 6:47

asked Dec 18 2011 at 6:08

Mick Jagger
571●3●13

1

I've heard multiple people on this website say that high-fat and high-carb is incompatible, but I don't see why either. – Korion Dec 18 2011 at 14:04

1

Not going to read that novel, but if you are not getting fatter, then it's fine. If you're getting fatter, consider lowering your fat intake or increasing activity. If the fat and carbs are from legitimate sources, there's no problem outside of an energetic overage. – Travis Culp♦ Dec 19 2011 at 0:50

1

Alternatively, having actually been respectful enough to read your question before commenting on it, concentrate on not being in a frantic state. And if you're getting fatter, consider lowering your carb intake and increasing activity :) – AndyM Dec 19 2011 at 0:59

1

Thanks for the answers, everyone! This kind of discussion is exactly what I was looking for. @AndyM and @Travis, I appreciate that you seem to have opposing viewpoints. That displays to me that either option is viable, and confirms what I've heard from others: do what's best for me. If I start getting fat, there will most certainly be a change (: – Mick Jagger Dec 19 2011 at 2:14

1

Lower carb intake and increase activity? Your trolling right? – cliff Dec 19 2011 at 12:09

show 11 more comments

animalcule · Accepted Answer · 2011-12-18 15:36:33Z UTC

There's no one right way to eat. People really are very different, and self-experimentation is key in finding what works best for you.

Personally I eat over 200g of fat and about 200g of carbs most days. I also prefer to eat my carbs with lots and lots of dairy fat. I feel great, my health and looks have improved vastly, my lipid profile is amazing (but then it was when I ate SAD/vegetarian too), and this is about the only thing ever which has raised my body weight set-point a few much-needed pounds. On low-carb I ate higher in calories but my weight was still too low plus I had some unpleasant issues. On true high-carb I feel crappy because I have blood sugar problems which paleo has not eradicated. I need to eat very high in calories, so lots and lots of fat is really my only choice.

Bread-Eating Beelzebub · Answer 2 · 2011-12-18 13:44:31Z UTC

18

"I tend to feel shitty on anything less than 100 grams of carbs, and I felt the best in my life when I was basically eating a vegan diet supplemented with animal products. However, since venturing into the paleo realm I've come to think of this way of eating as suboptimal."

Whhhhhhhyyyy?? Denise Minger does fine on this diet and has for years, as do many other people. Honestly, it seems paleohacks has done far more harm than good in this case (and many other cases). Stop overthinking things and do what works for you.

answered Dec 18 2011 at 13:44

Bread-Eating Beelzebub
55.6k●9●62●236

2

+1................... – cliff Dec 18 2011 at 13:57

I agree with this point. A Paleo-centric diet has worked for me but don't let this site be your main source of information. It will obviously be biased to Paleo. The best source of information is the classic "n=1" personal experimenation. – Tom R. Dec 18 2011 at 14:19

2

I think the main point is a almost vegan diet can be paleo compatible, the problem is that most people act like paleo is low carb. – cliff Dec 18 2011 at 14:43

+1 Melissa and Cliff – JRAC Dec 18 2011 at 14:55

Thanks, Melissa. I can actually credit Denise for exposing me to paleo in the first place, and I took interest in her diet for sure. I guess I get caught up in macronutrient ratios a bit much, and since a higher carb/lower fat diet, when implemented at different times in my life and with different foods, both made me feel awesome AND totally crappy, I can't figure out whether it was the quality of the food I ate or my macronutrients that mattered more. I'm leaning toward the former. – Mick Jagger Dec 19 2011 at 2:17

show 1 more comment

JRAC · Answer 3 · 2011-12-18 13:38:20Z UTC

7

Nothing wrong with carbs and fat together.

I eat about 40% carbs and 40% fat (of which the majority is saturated).

The only combination of fat and carbs that is bad is PUFA with fructose... but seeing as PUFA is horrible for you anyway; that makes fructose perfectly fine by itself (especially if the quality of foods is good).

answered Dec 18 2011 at 13:38

JRAC
1,464●2●5

I second that. I have had similar results in cooked and raw paleo. I think the main reason is giving up highly processed foods and bad quality oils. I can eat from 50 - 150gr of carbs with great weight loss results, whilst following a paleo diet. – MarcelaTizo Dec 18 2011 at 16:26

1

Yeah, I don't think macros matter much. Quality matters most. Perhaps a theory is that highly palatable over stimulating foods are making people fat and that the PUFAs coupled with a lack of nutrition are doing the real damage? – JRAC Dec 18 2011 at 17:12

No. Quantity trumps quality. I like quality, but mass quantities are what made me fat. I could do it on Kerrygold or Blue Bonnet, though I prefer the butter. They're close substutes both in calories and reward. – thhq Dec 18 2011 at 18:36

Yes exactly; the highly stimulating food made you eat more... – JRAC Dec 18 2011 at 18:58

1

:-) Cordain thinks saturated fat (palmitic acid) is inflammatory in the presence on carbs because palmitic acid is the fat that made by the liver when glycogen stores are supersaturated so he figured it would be too much for the body to handle. At the end of the day calories count but I think a healthy metabolism should self regulate intake, expenditure and tend to put excess calories into heat, muscle and fat tissue (but to a lesser degree than most people experience); but we can fool the body by superstimulating the brain (like fast food snacks do). – JRAC Dec 19 2011 at 10:05

show 1 more comment

cliff · Answer 4 · 2011-12-18 13:39:14Z UTC

3

According to the data we have on hunter gatherers the majority of them eat more than 150g of carbs.. Your paleo-friendly range of carbs is based on low carb parameters not actual evolutionary amount of carbs.

Most fat sources are basically empty calories so if it were me i would eat the 55% carbs. Granted I don't think you'll do that much damage eating equal amounts of carbs and fat considering you don't necessarily eat a whole lot.

answered Dec 18 2011 at 13:39

cliff
13.4k●1●9●28

Sorry, but I don't think many of the animals that are the source of my fat are 'empty calories'. I mean, I wouldn't even call a coconut empty calories. You can get some handy micronutrients from those sources honest. Hell, you can even get some calories, which are a handy part of the diet for some. – AndyM Dec 18 2011 at 15:43

1

I'd hardly call a carb an empty calorie. Some here consider them poisons. Paleo-wise I consider cars to be more a poison, and I strive to follow a low-car diet. – thhq Dec 18 2011 at 17:42

2

Liver is quite lean, actually. – Erik Cisler Dec 19 2011 at 1:03

1

Depends how much of a boozer the animal was. Still, if 25-30% fat is lean meat then great. It's still a source of fat though. – AndyM Dec 19 2011 at 1:08

1

@andy Fat contains little nutrition, the nutrition is in the meat. You could eat lean meat with carbs and get way more nutrition than you ever could with lean meat +fat, you also get nutrients that animal foods lack. – cliff Dec 19 2011 at 12:07

show 14 more comments

annamalia · Answer 5 · 2011-12-18 14:17:17Z UTC

Don't worry, I eat high carb and don't measure my fat intake either. I eat as much fat as I want to. And since starch satiates me well, I can't seem to overdo it with the fat anyway. You won't drop dead tomorrow, believe me.

"If I were to consume a more paleotically-correct amount of carbohydrates--say, 100g..." .....seriously? There is nothing correct about that number. 300 g isn't correct either. There is no wrong or right. Your diet seems to work for you, that's all that matters.

Rhubarb · Answer 6 · 2011-12-19 00:11:09Z UTC

Paleo is carb agnostic, focus on food quality.

~~Mark Sisson eats about 200g of carbs a day.~~

EDIT: I'm sure I read one of Mark's posts where he stated he was eating ~200g of carbs, I remember it because someone commented on how he gets that many carb if he is only eating leafy greens and what not as a carb source. Anyway I couldn't find it, but I did find a post where he said he ate ~100g of carb per day, so I'll stand corrected.

My point I wanted to make to the OP was that if your food quality is good macro ratios really shouldn't matter - unless you have some metabolic 'derangement' - however the OP sounds in good shape.

AndyM · Answer 7 · 2011-12-18 11:11:15Z UTC

I don't see any need to tweak your protein if you're comfortable with it. Equal amounts of carb and fat would be moderate both. Neither's high, and if it's in the form of real food it's perfectly sustainable. It may not be optimal, but you're welcome to eat it. I don't think many would consider 25% carb, 50% fat as anything other than pretty standard. It's relatively high fat. If you're not doing much exercise some might wonder what benefit there is from the carbs for the inconvenience they may cause in causing hunger, but that may not be an issue for you. If you feel bad with fewer carbs then that might suggest things aren't running as smoothly as they could, which, as always, means we come back to asking how long you tried with low-carb (such as 70g or less).

It should only ever be a guide though, getting bogged down in the numbers is rarely helpful.

Does my diet constitute as both high fat and high carb?

7 Answers