How to Change Diet

[XRe]

Now i eat as good as i can with the available foods at hand and do not sweat the small stuff, I still find myself eating about 90-95% paleo.

Exactly what I do myself The only thing I'm at all "religious" about with it is gluten and whole dairy - both of them cause issues for me (though I don't test out as celiac). I can eat cheese successfully in moderation and I use whey protein isolate, but other dairy puts a hurtin' on me...

[Leozinho]

Someone mentioned Paleo being an unsustainable fad diet. I agree you could call it a fad because it has caught on very quickly, but I don't agree that it's unsustainable. I found it fairly easy to sustain, especially if you invoke the 90% compliance rule. I would imagine it's much easier than a calorie restrictive diet that often leaves you hungry.

Another note – Lots of mention of Mark's Daily Apple or DA. Just so people know, that's Mark Sisson, and his book is The Primal Blueprint. It's a very accessible approach to a "caveman" way of eating and training.

(I'm not completely onboard with his take on cholesterol and heart disease. Seems like a leap of faith to think that Mark Sisson has it all figured out and the thousands of cardiologists that prescribe statins are all deluded. Possible, but not convinced yet.)

[XRe]

(I'm not completely onboard with his take on cholesterol and heart disease. Seems like a leap of faith to think that Mark Sisson has it all figured out and the thousands of cardiologists that prescribe statins are all deluded. Possible, but not convinced yet.)

I haven't read Mark's stuff talking about statin drugs, so I can't explain the research that he's got or the arguments that he makes... After some ... negative ... experiences at a couple of doctors dealing with the subject, however, and subsequent deep research on the subject of my own, I won't be taking a statin - and certainly not based on the extremely primitive bloodwork numbers that most docs want to base their prescription on. Keep your inflammation levels low (ie, eat grass fed, if you can, and take some good fish oil), keep your carb intake low (kinda hard to get AGEs if you don't have a surplus of glucose in the system), get some exercise in, and, unless you have some severely bad genetics, you shouldn't be in any danger of atherosclerosis (or the other constituent parts of metabolic syndrome). (of course, I'm not offering anyone medical advice, and I'm not a doctor... research on your own... just telling you what I found ).

[Tizzo]

(I'm not completely onboard with his take on cholesterol and heart disease. Seems like a leap of faith to think that Mark Sisson has it all figured out and the thousands of cardiologists that prescribe statins are all deluded. Possible, but not convinced yet.)

I haven't read Mark's stuff talking about statin drugs, so I can't explain the research that he's got or the arguments that he makes... After some ... negative ... experiences at a couple of doctors dealing with the subject, however, and subsequent deep research on the subject of my own, I won't be taking a statin - and certainly not based on the extremely primitive bloodwork numbers that most docs want to base their prescription on. Keep your inflammation levels low (ie, eat grass fed, if you can, and take some good fish oil), keep your carb intake low (kinda hard to get AGEs if you don't have a surplus of glucose in the system), get some exercise in, and, unless you have some severely bad genetics, you shouldn't be in any danger of atherosclerosis (or the other constituent parts of metabolic syndrome). (of course, I'm not offering anyone medical advice, and I'm not a doctor... research on your own... just telling you what I found ).

I would think any change in behavior/diet would be better than just taking some drugs. It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if some doctors out there are just pushers for the drugs.

[Leozinho]

(I'm not completely onboard with his take on cholesterol and heart disease. Seems like a leap of faith to think that Mark Sisson has it all figured out and the thousands of cardiologists that prescribe statins are all deluded. Possible, but not convinced yet.)

I haven't read Mark's stuff talking about statin drugs, so I can't explain the research that he's got or the arguments that he makes... After some ... negative ... experiences at a couple of doctors dealing with the subject, however, and subsequent deep research on the subject of my own, I won't be taking a statin - and certainly not based on the extremely primitive bloodwork numbers that most docs want to base their prescription on. Keep your inflammation levels low (ie, eat grass fed, if you can, and take some good fish oil), keep your carb intake low (kinda hard to get AGEs if you don't have a surplus of glucose in the system), get some exercise in, and, unless you have some severely bad genetics, you shouldn't be in any danger of atherosclerosis (or the other constituent parts of metabolic syndrome). (of course, I'm not offering anyone medical advice, and I'm not a doctor... research on your own... just telling you what I found ).

I would think any change in behavior/diet would be better than just taking some drugs. It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if some doctors out there are just pushers for the drugs.

First, you have to keep in mind that, from my understanding, Sisson is even less of a "lean meats" guy than some of the other Paleo experts and has no problem with saturated fats. He says that's what people have the most trouble "buying into" when considering a Paleo diet.

And I don't doubt some doctors prefer to prescribe a drug rather than trust someone will make a lifestyle change, or even prefer to push a drug for unethical reasons.

But my comment isn't about statins per se, but rather the idea that Mark Sisson (or another paleo blogger) has discovered the secret to heart health, a secret that has eluded cardiologists (those would be the ones who'd be prescribing statins or telling you to go on the American Heart Association-approved diet, or follow some other conventional heart-health wisdom). (I don't know Sisson's views on statins either, so "doctors prescribing statins" was my stand in for doctors following conventional heart health wisdon.)

For a while Sisson was promoting the more advanced bloodwork tests that measure sizes of platelets, and seemed to downplay the risk of higher LDL numbers. Recently he wrote that now it appears those advanced test are not accurate enough to use. Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but basically he said (or used to say) don't worry about your LDL number if the advanced tests show your particle sizes to be large and fluffy. Now he says those advance tests are NOT reliable. What else will we be wrong about? (edited to add NOT reliable.)

Maybe time will prove that Sisson is right (after all, it took a long time for people to realize that fat doesn't make you fat), but the cost of being wrong could be high.

This is all from memory, so I may have gotten the details of Sisson's views wrong.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Leozinho

[rgkeller]

What science supports eating grains to promote heart health?

[Leozinho]

Are you asking me?

[rgkeller]

anyone who has the answer

[Leozinho]

I'm asked if you were talking to me, since I never said to eat grains or follow the AHA diet.

I'm questioning whether you can let your cholesterol numbers go through the roof without concern because you are on the paleo diet. Conventional wisdom may be wrong, but there's a lot of ground in between Sisson and conventional wisdom on this issue. The correct way could be somewhere in the middle.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Leozinho

[rgkeller]

I know no one who says to ignore cholesterol readings, certainly not Sisson.

"Substantially “elevated” cholesterol, low HDL or high LDL might be reason to give you pause, but not for the reason you might think. The number can tell you that something is amiss, but they’re a symptom of the larger concern rather than the main issue itself. Cholesterol profile can be impacted by other conditions such as hypothyroidism, untreated diabetes or pre-diabetes, pregnancy (surprise!), lactation, stress, liver conditions, heart disease (symptom, not cause of), etc. Talk to your doctor about what your numbers mean in the grand scheme of your health. And see if you can get a read on other markers, like C-reactive protein (an inflammatory indicator) and those small particle LDL numbers."

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/cholesterol/#axzz1l5spNwqK

[XRe]

But my comment isn't about statins per se, but rather the idea that Mark Sisson (or another paleo blogger) has discovered the secret to heart health, a secret that has eluded cardiologists (those would be the ones who'd be prescribing statins or telling you to go on the American Heart Association-approved diet, or follow some other conventional heart-health wisdom). (I don't know Sisson's views on statins either, so "doctors prescribing statins" was my stand in for doctors following conventional heart health wisdon.)

That'd be kind of a silly idea, anyway, wouldn't it? I'd start looking at snake oil, if I thought one particular guy was the only guy that got it right... There's a large and skilled community out there, though, that's done a lot of research on the matter and has a pretty strong command of the current research, etc - and they all seem to agree that the current AHA/cardiologist/endocrinologist (in my case) solution is not the path to get on, unless you fit a certain, specific pattern of health already...

Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but basically he said (or used to say) don't worry about your LDL number if the advanced tests show your particle sizes to be large and fluffy. Now he says those advance tests are reliable.

You mean "not reliable" in that sentence, right? Do you have a pointer? I've not read anything that suggests the more advanced versions of the tests are not reliable? They are just a point in time - you have to keep that in mind, and those levels can fluctuate throughout the day, etc. Really, you need multiple tests to get a more accurate picture, but...

In my case it was, "Gee, we know the advanced blood work says that you have pattern-A, large fluffy LDL, but we're going to ignore those numbers because your LDL count is still higher than we'd like to see it" (where my LDL number is 150-ish?) Ignoring the fact that I was in a hideous metabolic state with a huge case of adrenal fatigue going on (which means that I'll have lower HDL and slightly elevated LDL to begin with)...

Maybe time will prove that Sisson is right (after all, it took a long time for people to realize that fat doesn't make you fat), but the cost of being wrong could be high.

Thing is, he's not the only one saying it... Have you read Taubes' book, yet? Good lay out of all the science in that one...

I'm questioning whether you can let your cholesterol numbers go through the roof without concern because you are on the paleo diet.

It's a complex issue - genetics do play a role, and there are a number of other factors to consider other than just an LDL number... For instance, what rgkeller posts:

I know no one who says to ignore cholesterol readings, certainly not Sisson.

"Substantially "elevated" cholesterol, low HDL or high LDL might be reason to give you pause, but not for the reason you might think. The number can tell you that something is amiss, but they're a symptom of the larger concern rather than the main issue itself. Cholesterol profile can be impacted by other conditions such as hypothyroidism, untreated diabetes or pre-diabetes, pregnancy (surprise!), lactation, stress, liver conditions, heart disease (symptom, not cause of), etc. Talk to your doctor about what your numbers mean in the grand scheme of your health. And see if you can get a read on other markers, like C-reactive protein (an inflammatory indicator) and those small particle LDL numbers."

http://www.marksdail.../#axzz1l5spNwqK

... is a much more nuanced response and he details a number of the other factors that come into play. C-rp is a huge one as a marker of overall inflammation, and has been linked much more directly to CAD and heart attack than cholesterol ever has been. If you're worried about it, C-rp is a great number to keep track of in addition to anything else...

Think about this, in relation to statins (and apologies for getting so far off topic...) - you need cholesterol in the body to perform import functions, like, say... sex hormone synthesis. Ask your doctor to explain the risk to your testosterone levels if you go on a statin, and what the resulting side effects of that look like. Trust me, you do not want a low-T situation. If needed, the lifestyle change is much more fun, and far easier to deal with.

Leozinho, don't get me wrong at all - I totally think you have the right, skeptical attitude towards things I question pretty much everything dealing with these subjects myself, and set about to learn as much as I could about them. Just sharing what I've learned above, not calling you out or anything like that The situation I've gone through was highly frustrating, and could've taken me down a really bad path had I chosen to just blindly follow the pat medical answer (ie, "get on a statin now or you're going to have a heart attack")... I fired three different doctors along the way Doing a lot better, now that I've found someone competent

Edited February 1, 2012 by XRe

[XRe]

I would like to add (because I think it's fair to mention this) - the docs that are just blindly prescribing statins are not doing so out of malice or lack of care for their patients, typically. There's an awful lot to stay up on in terms of research, new information, etc, and frequently they're unable to stay abreast of the latest research on every little thing, unless it happens to be a pet subject of theirs. So, they fall back on what they were taught in school (which is still the lipid hypothesis). In addition, if they go out of the narrow boundaries of "standards of care", they might end up out on a limb legally and professionally if something bad were to happen (like, they get sued). Guess what the current standard of care is for a patient that comes back with bloodwork showing TCL levels above 200 and LDL above 130? (even though, as pointed out above, those are primitive - and calculated, not measured - values).

Some folks think most doctors are shills for drug companies, and that might be the case with a few - I don't feel that's the case with most. But, when it comes to things like actually taking those drugs, I'm very, very careful about which route I take, and make sure that I'm informed on them fully - and unfortunately, that tends to expose the holes in their current training, etc...

[Leozinho]

You mean "not reliable" in that sentence, right? Do you have a pointer? I've not read anything that suggests the more advanced versions of the tests are not reliable? They are just a point in time - you have to keep that in mind, and those levels can fluctuate throughout the day, etc. Really, you need multiple tests to get a more accurate picture, but...

Yes, I meant NOT reliable. Thanks for catching that. I'll change it in original post.

I appreciate the responses.

Here's the link to Sisson's recent post about advanced bloodwork tests.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-interpret-advanced-cholesterol-test-results/#axzz1l8dSiooC

Here's an excerpt:

How to Interpret Advanced Cholesterol Test Results

After last week’s post on interpreting traditional lipid tests, I promised a follow-up post on interpreting the advanced VAP and NMR Lipoprofile tests that provide measurements of particle size and all the various sub-fractions of HDL and LDL particles. I even hinted that it might be worth bypassing the traditional test entirely and going straight to the advanced stuff if you were going to get your cholesterol measured anyway, because of the greater accuracy and more detailed picture of your lipids the VAP and NMR tests provide.

Well, I’m going to have to reevaluate my stance on the matter and rethink that original suggestion. Recent evidence shows and commentary from researchers concludes that the various advanced lipoprotein particle classification tests can produce wildly disparate results on the same samples to the point of rendering them unreliable (sound familiar?), especially if we’re going to be evaluating our health based on the results. A 2009 systematic review found that the available LDL subfraction literature ”does not provide adequate data about comparability in terms of test performance to choose one or another method to serve as a standard nor are data on comparability in terms of predicting CVD outcomes.” In short, it could – and probably does – have diagnostic value, but there are no real standards for measurement or analysis that would allow us to use the information. Yet.

(Post continues at the above link.)

Edited February 1, 2012 by Leozinho

[XRe]

Here's the link to Sisson's recent post about advanced bloodwork tests.

Thanks for that - more reading to do... but, failing that stuff, one could still fall back to C reactive protein as a predictor, as well (Crp shows overall inflammation level in the body), as a sort of gross indicator anyway. It's kind of disconcerting that this one thing (cholesterol panel levels) that gets used to recommend a treatment path with a lot of potential side effects is so variable and misunderstood... Hrmmm....

[seanmc]

I have to give you guys a lot of credit - this discussion is a LOT more techincal than most of the boards I have been on over the years. Good stuff here.

I think we are getting a little off topic though. My understanding is that basically everybody who posts here has two goals:

1) Find a sustainable nutrition plan that is going to promote good health for a long time.

2) Ensure that the nutrition plan makes us all better athletes and better shooters.

So that said, I'm going to start another thread where we can dig into the topic a lot more.

Again, great stuff here guys.

Sean

[XRe]

I think we are getting a little off topic though.

Absolutely right - apologies to the OP

My understanding is that basically everybody who posts here has two goals:

1) Find a sustainable nutrition plan that is going to promote good health for a long time.

2) Ensure that the nutrition plan makes us all better athletes and better shooters.

I haven't found anything better than what I'm doing right now for either of those two things - but I have to admit, I wish that a person could subsist on ice cream and pizza long term...

[Tizzo]

I think we are getting a little off topic though.

Absolutely right - apologies to the OP

No issues here, very informative and entertaining posts.

[Tizzo]

I wanted to bring this thread back. I'm getting closer to adopting Paleo for all my food choices. I'm doing it gradually. I have also successfully stopped drinking soda. I haven't had a can of soda in a week, hopefully I can continue (still drinking coffee).

Can anyone give me advice, or a source that would tell me, what I should be doing if anything as far as supplements (vitamins/minerals)?

Thanks

[bbbean]

I wanted to bring this thread back. I'm getting closer to adopting Paleo for all my food choices. I'm doing it gradually. I have also successfully stopped drinking soda. I haven't had a can of soda in a week, hopefully I can continue (still drinking coffee).

Congrats. Kicking the sodas is tough. I felt like crap for about 10 days-2 weeks, but within a month I was feeling like I had a lot more energy, and my energy was more consistent throughout the day.

Keep up the good work!

BB

[spanky]

I wanted to bring this thread back. I'm getting closer to adopting Paleo for all my food choices. I'm doing it gradually. I have also successfully stopped drinking soda. I haven't had a can of soda in a week, hopefully I can continue (still drinking coffee).

Can anyone give me advice, or a source that would tell me, what I should be doing if anything as far as supplements (vitamins/minerals)?

Thanks

Just find a good vitamin (ex men's 1 a day) and fish oil with some good dha/epa numbers.

[XRe]

Ditto on the fish oil - unless you're able to eat completely Paleo using grass fed meats Everything just sort of depends on your goals and needs... I'm taking some things right now that are helping with some metabolic problems I developed, but I'll be back off of them at some point. Outside of that, I take some whey protein isolate just to help get some extra protein in the tank (tough to eat enough - protein and fat are super filling...)

[kiloindiatango]

I went paleo on May 8, 2011. I had tried doing it two times before that, and each time I caved after only 72 hours. 72 hours was like this big wall I just couldn't breach. I didn't realize at the time just how addicted I was to sugar. I mean SERIOUSLY addicted. I was drinking 4 to 6 Mountain Dews a day.

But I went cold, hard, Whole30 (google it - I still can't post links here yet). I did it because my Crossfit trainer peer presssured all of us into joining a nutrition challenge where we all did Whole30 for 30 days. We each put $10 into a pot, and anyone who completed the challenge got to split the pot. The "support group" at my gym, combined with having money at stake, finally made me push through those barriers. We had to give him a weekly food log to show we weren't cheating. But I'm not kidding, there was one day around Day 7 that I was in the grocery store nearly in tears staring at a container of sour cream because I wanted it SO BADLY.

For me, cold turkey was necessary. It's just too easy to backslide into bad habits and never pull your way out. I had lots of opportunities for cheating, too - I was on travel for two of the four weeks. But I packed a cooler and took it with me. On my blog I have a post up about once a week cooking and how "failing to plan is planning to fail" where a good diet is concerned - so I make sure now that I always have good food/snacks on hand. I do eat non-paleo stuff from time to time, but I make sure it's something I REALLY love, and I savor it. I don't feel guilty about it - I *choose* to make an exception because I now have a mindful, thoughtful approach to eating (not an obsession).

Something about that 30-day challenge broke whatever food addictions I had. Now I can drink a soda if I want - and not drink another one for weeks. I never went back to Mountain Dew, though. I like to say Coca-Cola is the marijuana I occasionally smoke to avoid the temptation of the Mountain Dew/heroin. I've also read that it takes about two weeks for your taste buds to change, so the 30-day challenge also helps you get over liking the taste of "bad" foods and start preferring the "good" foods. I did notice meats and veggies that I used to sauce to death now taste fantastic with nothing more than salt and pepper. It helps if you buy high quality meats and vegetables, too.

So back to your question - I'd cite Whole30 as a valuable resource. But if cold turkey is not for you, a more gradual approach can be found on Stumptuous under "how to go primal without really trying." Others have already recommended Mark's Daily Apple and Robb Wolf's excellent book "The Paleo Solution." There's also some great podcasts/recipe sites out there. I love Everyday Paleo and the Food Lover's Primal Palate. The Food Lovers has TONS of free recipes and I have never made one from them that was not amazing.

The other happy side effect of paleo eating is that your cooking times decrease. Everything is so easy to make you'll have more time for dry fire practice.

Going paleo slimmed me down considerably (20 pounds and three sizes - I wasn't ever fat, but now I'm very healthy and lean), stopped the up-and-down mood swings that came with sugar crashes, helped me stay alert all day long, and best of all, when I go to bed? I am asleep in 5 minutes or less, whereas I used to lay awake with my brain running wild for an hour before I could finally fall asleep.

I don't think it's easy any more than giving up any addiction is easy. But once you realize you don't really LOVE processed, preservativized, sugar-filled food - you're just addicted to it - it gets better. You just have to make it past the first 7 or 10 or 14 days that it takes your body to pull out of the addictive phase and stop craving

Almost forgot - this video is an hour long but VERY worth it - look up "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Dr. Robert Lustig on youtube. You won't regret it.

[Wild Gene]

whole grains help reduce cholesterol because of the fiber. (didn't see anyone address that).

I think it basically breaks down to tracking your calories and eating good foods while maintaing some sort of activity level.

If nothing else the simple rule "if it tastes good, spit it out, it's bad for you" works.

wg

[spanky]

I went paleo on May 8, 2011. I had tried doing it two times before that, and each time I caved after only 72 hours. 72 hours was like this big wall I just couldn't breach. I didn't realize at the time just how addicted I was to sugar. I mean SERIOUSLY addicted. I was drinking 4 to 6 Mountain Dews a day.

But I went cold, hard, Whole30 (google it - I still can't post links here yet). I did it because my Crossfit trainer peer presssured all of us into joining a nutrition challenge where we all did Whole30 for 30 days. We each put $10 into a pot, and anyone who completed the challenge got to split the pot. The "support group" at my gym, combined with having money at stake, finally made me push through those barriers. We had to give him a weekly food log to show we weren't cheating. But I'm not kidding, there was one day around Day 7 that I was in the grocery store nearly in tears staring at a container of sour cream because I wanted it SO BADLY.

For me, cold turkey was necessary. It's just too easy to backslide into bad habits and never pull your way out. I had lots of opportunities for cheating, too - I was on travel for two of the four weeks. But I packed a cooler and took it with me. On my blog I have a post up about once a week cooking and how "failing to plan is planning to fail" where a good diet is concerned - so I make sure now that I always have good food/snacks on hand. I do eat non-paleo stuff from time to time, but I make sure it's something I REALLY love, and I savor it. I don't feel guilty about it - I *choose* to make an exception because I now have a mindful, thoughtful approach to eating (not an obsession).

Something about that 30-day challenge broke whatever food addictions I had. Now I can drink a soda if I want - and not drink another one for weeks. I never went back to Mountain Dew, though. I like to say Coca-Cola is the marijuana I occasionally smoke to avoid the temptation of the Mountain Dew/heroin. I've also read that it takes about two weeks for your taste buds to change, so the 30-day challenge also helps you get over liking the taste of "bad" foods and start preferring the "good" foods. I did notice meats and veggies that I used to sauce to death now taste fantastic with nothing more than salt and pepper. It helps if you buy high quality meats and vegetables, too.

So back to your question - I'd cite Whole30 as a valuable resource. But if cold turkey is not for you, a more gradual approach can be found on Stumptuous under "how to go primal without really trying." Others have already recommended Mark's Daily Apple and Robb Wolf's excellent book "The Paleo Solution." There's also some great podcasts/recipe sites out there. I love Everyday Paleo and the Food Lover's Primal Palate. The Food Lovers has TONS of free recipes and I have never made one from them that was not amazing.

The other happy side effect of paleo eating is that your cooking times decrease. Everything is so easy to make you'll have more time for dry fire practice.

Going paleo slimmed me down considerably (20 pounds and three sizes - I wasn't ever fat, but now I'm very healthy and lean), stopped the up-and-down mood swings that came with sugar crashes, helped me stay alert all day long, and best of all, when I go to bed? I am asleep in 5 minutes or less, whereas I used to lay awake with my brain running wild for an hour before I could finally fall asleep.

I don't think it's easy any more than giving up any addiction is easy. But once you realize you don't really LOVE processed, preservativized, sugar-filled food - you're just addicted to it - it gets better. You just have to make it past the first 7 or 10 or 14 days that it takes your body to pull out of the addictive phase and stop craving

Almost forgot - this video is an hour long but VERY worth it - look up "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" by Dr. Robert Lustig on youtube. You won't regret it.

great post. I had to miss a whole9 seminar due to work.

whole grains help reduce cholesterol because of the fiber. (didn't see anyone address that).

I think it basically breaks down to tracking your calories and eating good foods while maintaing some sort of activity level.

If nothing else the simple rule "if it tastes good, spit it out, it's bad for you" works.

wg

Everyone has a different view on the appropriate approach. I've not counted calories nor eaten anything I didn't like the taste of. Well, except a few veggies when expiramenting because I'm not much of a veggie person and I have a bit of a pickup palate.

[XRe]

whole grains help reduce cholesterol because of the fiber. (didn't see anyone address that).

You can get fiber intake in a lot of different ways. Grains - especially whole grains - have a ton of antinutrient properties that are more negative for your health than the benefits you derive from fiber intake (just Google "leaky gut" and start reading...). Some are better than others, but none of them are great for you...