or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Traditional Foods › Can you explain to me the rationale of paleo/primal diets?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can you explain to me the rationale of paleo/primal diets? - Page 3

post #41 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by savithny View Post

And then, when all the nutrient-dense prey in your area was hunted out, what would you do?  

 


If I were hungry enough, I'd overcome my culturally induced squeamishness (I hope!) and start eating bugs and grubs.

 

post #42 of 83

I found this thread fascinating. I am an Anthropologist and also practice many aspects of attachment parenting. The term "paleo diet' makes perfect sense to me BUT I've always been curious about what this modern "diet" looks like in practice. One thing I've also been curious about is it's implications for extended breastfeeding.

 

As I understand it, the so-called "Paleo Diet" strives to mimic the diet of humans followed for most of the Paleolitic era, and before the "Neolithic Evolution." The argument would be something like this: primates have been around millions of years before agriculture, so for most of "our" history we've been eating a pre-agricultural diet, our bodies are best adapted to it. On the other hand, humans have only been eating refined grain crops about 15 thousand years max. That's a tiny blink of an eye within the blink of an eye when you bear in mind that the first human ancestors appearing 3-5 million years ago.

 

So what changed in our diet? The "Neolithic Revolution" is a term that describes a period of dramatic transformation in the archaeological record in the Middle East, especially with regards to food and settlement patterns. In the Middle East, during the "Upper Paleolithic" period or about 14-10kya (thousand years ago) (another way to write this is: 10,000 BP/BCE, before present/before common era)  we see the first evidence of domesticated plants (i.e. "agriculture") and, a little later, animals. This also coincides with changes in settlement patterns, i.e. emergence of permanent villages, etc. (the idea is that if people were harvesting crops, they'd need to store them, so they'd need to permanently protect those stores). Now remember, this makes the most sense if you are talking about the Middle East - the archaeologists who were originally categorizing this period were NOT working in Asia and Latin America. The time lines for those regions - and even the crops that they cultivated there - are a little different.

 

So what foods were prominent after the Neolithic Revolution but not before? Grains and dairy. Notice I say prominent, not entirely absent. We have no idea if people were sampling wild grasses that the later used for grains or if they were sneaking milk from wild goats. It's just that there is no evidence of wide scale production and the technology to make it happen before then. (If you are really interested in this, google "sickle marks" and "wheat domestication.")

 

As for raw? Well, people had fire LONG before the Neolithic Revolution. So, I'm pretty sure that the raw vs. cooked discussion is one that would only have to do with the modern diet. It's not a question that makes sense from an evolutionary perspective when we are talking about this period.

 

Honey and berries? Of course! Concentrated carbs are a gold mine for a hunter gatherer. That's one (theoretical) explanation for humans natural inclination towards sugar.

 

One of my VERY favorite arguments about this diet, at least that I'd make, is that (in theory) in strengthens the case for extended breastfeeding. A few colleagues of mine have actually been doing some groundbreaking research on this. When they compare dietary patterns and life cycle time-lines with other mammals and paleo humans, one thing it suggests is that before the advent of appropriate weaning foods (e.g. soft grains, rice, etc.) humans were not weaned until they were 2 to 7 years old. That means that we are best adapted or perfectly evolved for extended nursing. Wow! Put that in your hat and smoke it! 

post #43 of 83

Susun Weed put it this way regarding wild foods:  for example the spelt (a wilder type of wheat) to domesticated wheat equation is like a game of telephone.  Spelt tells your body "Your mother's blue bandana" but by the time the message gets to modern domesticated wheat the message is more like "Monkey takes banana"   So eating wild food can kind of "reset" your cells at a micro level (mitochondria, etc.) so that they realize the message is "Your mother's blue bandana"  That's part of the premise behind a paleo or primal diet I would imagine.

 

It must have been nice to live in a time when you could just eat something when you were hungry and not have a bazillion implications behind ever morsel of food that enters your mouth.

 

And BTW Olive oil is not a vegetable oil.  An Olive is a fruit so it's actually a fruit oil. I would imagine every people would've had their preferred cure all fat.  Italians (in my family) use Olive oil for everything from cooking, to medicine making, to beauty aids, to curing an ear ache.  The Eastern Coast Native American tribes often kept a bag of bear grease in the teepee for the same reasons and many more. I'm sure there are little nuances to eating Paleo or Primal that not everyone does. Some think legumes are too new to eat and some eat bean soup with their chicken feet. 

 

No matter what you eat or how healthful you are we're all gonna die eventually. If a Paleo diet makes you feel better.. great!  If eating twinkie wiener sandwiches and smoking makes you feel good... fine! Just don't smoke around me please.

post #44 of 83

If you are interested in more info check our Everyday Paleo and Robb Wolf's websites.

Robb Wolf is a biochemist and a hoot to listen to on his podcasts. A bit technically scientific and on the cutting edge of the ancestral science stuff.

Everyday Paleo is Sarah Fragoso, a real life Mom with 3 boys and a hubby she feeds Paleo and has awesome, delicious, easy recipes. Good for Paleo and Non Paleo alike.

 

Basically from a biochemical standpoint, grains are toxic to our bodies. They cause leaky gut syndrome which is being linked to the cause of most of the illnesses of modern day (autoimmune diseases, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc). (Don't believe in "leaky gut" or haven't heard of it? You will soon, the drug companies are developing meds that take advantage of the phenomenon to deliver their drugs to the body. Really a sick and wrong thing!! ) The Paleo "diet" shows people actually being cured of these diseases when adhered to. On a recent podcast Robb Wolf said if we ate raw grains we wouldn't have lived long enough to pass on our genes, now that we can cook them we live long enough to pass on our genes, we just get sick on them. The other thing about grains is, until recently people soaked their grains over night. They cook faster that way, that process also dissolves the phytic acid coating on the grain that acts as and anti-nutrient and binds to the nutrients in the grain. Quaker Oats even used to have 'soak overnight' on the directions.

 

Nuts are part of the Paleo diet, but there are other parts to it besides just eliminating grains, Nuts and grain fed meat are loaded with Omega 6 fatty acids. In an effort to move our Omega 6/3 ratio back into balance that favors the Omega 3 they suggest limiting nuts to a couple of handfuls a week. Or having to up your fish intake to balance the Omega 6's in the nuts.

 

As for fruit, fruit was available in limited quantity during certain times of the year. It has to do with over abundance and overindulgence. Fruit and nuts are easy go to foods when you stop snacking on crackers and bread. It's an awareness of the sugars and insulin spikes that cause inflammation our bodies are not designed to deal with chronically.

 

Legumes have there own toxic compounds I can't tell you about off the top of my head.

 

We personally have a friend in his 40's who had a stroke in his eye. After doing the paleo diet for 30 days his labs were all within normal range and his doctor took him off all his blood pressure and cholesterol meds. There are tons and tons of these anecdotal stories with the scientific information to back it up. I don't know why main stream media poo-poos the Paleo diet  so much other than, it flies in the face of all the mass agricultural practices we have in this country right now. And, no one is going to get rich selling anything related to it! 

 

post #45 of 83

Check out Dr. Dadamo's massive research on diet and blood type. www.dadamo.com

 

 

post #46 of 83


Quote:

Originally Posted by PennyP View Post

Just noting that peas, fava beans, chickpeas, and string beans are all legumes that can be and often are eaten raw. 

So that wouldn't seem to fit that theory.

 

Young legumes haven't developed the toxins that are a problem in older, dried beans (this is well-established, not just Paleo Propoganda), and can be eaten in their raw state. Some beans also contain more of these toxic compounds than others.

 

One thing you'll find is that there isn't one interpretation of a paleolithic diet, and a lot comes down to the individual's goals and tolerances - someone trying to lose weight isn't going to eat exactly the same as someone at an optimal weight. And there are a lot of people out there saying some variation of "I can't tolerate such-and-such food, so obviously no one should be eating it" very vocally and vehemently. 

 

Eating strict paleo/primal for a while helps you feel what effects various foods have on your body, and helps you decide what foods work for you. We tried legumes (the dried, soaked kind), but when intestinal gas isn't a normal, everyday thing, it sadly doesn't feel worth the side effects (even with properly prepared beans).

 

We choose to eat green beans and corn (in the quantities we get from the plants we grow ourselves - we don't buy them) because we can eat them raw without obvious ill effect. We also choose to use sugar in very limited quantities because I don't feel that there's a significant health difference between that and other sweeteners in the quantities that we're using it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by crunchy_mama View Post

I won't argue evidence, I don't care to, but for those who are skeptical I challenge them to try it a month.  Many that try it continue because the difference they feel is so amazing they won't go back and evidence or history doesn't matter one lick in comparison to that.


I agree with this. Follow an anti-inflammatory diet for a month (whether it be strict paleo, GAPS, or whatnot) and figure out what really works for *your* body. If, after that point, you feel like you tolerate grains, dairy, legumes, processed sugar, whatever well, by all means add them back in. 

post #47 of 83

This is such a cool discussion, considering I got my BA in Biological Anthropology (from UCSD...woot woot!).  As an undergraduate, I did an original research project in human diet and migration in an independent study program (part of a mentoring program to help underrepresented students go to graduate school).  As part of my degree I took one course in particular --dun-dun-da!-- in Human Diet and Evolution.

 

So, in short, a paleo diet I am assuming would be food we ate in the last 50,000 years, since that is when anthropologists are assuming our brains reached that pivotal change in abstract and higher level thinking.  Or any time during the Pleistocene, really, since we are only assuming the brain change occurred around that time.  As a side note, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens had about the same brain size during that time...which was bigger than we have now.  But we know size doesn't always matter ;)  

 

And we definitely used fire.  And stone mortars...making little grains of stone get into your food and grind down your teeth as well.  And grains, and anything else they could have found, grown, collected, or found edible.  There are stable isotope analyses of bone collagen of both neandethals and sapiens that shows they had a varied diet.  They ate anything that was good probably, just like we do today.  The difference is, we are eating a bunch of processed items that contain chemicals rather than real food.

 

Also, although humans have big brains that need lots of protein, we also have long digestive tracts like herbivores.  The important thing to remember is that we don't need to find a diet that will make us live to 101 without a heart attack or stroke, we need to find a subsistence strategy that will get our offspring to successfully reproduce.  So, the healthiest diet for us probably is a varied diet of any whole foods grown locally without pesticides or chemical fertilizers and everything in moderation.  As a side note, a pescatarian diet is healthier for the heart than eating animals with legs.  

 

I hope my post helps some mamas out there understand the idea behind a "paleo diet" and I encourage anyone who can to take a course in it at their local university (or just audit the course).

 

p.s. sorry for any grammatical errors, I'm in a hurry ;)

post #48 of 83

 

 

Quote:
We choose to eat green beans and corn (in the quantities we get from the plants we grow ourselves - we don't buy them) because we can eat them raw without obvious ill effect. We also choose to use sugar in very limited quantities because I don't feel that there's a significant health difference between that and other sweeteners in the quantities that we're using it.

we do as well, it is simply impossible to eat a paleo/primal diet in my area- we are unwilling first of all, we have no desire to give up our olive "fruit" oil and our love of nightshades, not to mention my local grass-fed is really being feed on legumes (certain times of the year) because we simply do not have a year round summer, same goes for the pastured raised foul who wonder into corn and grain fields and if I wanted to eat only native to my area-CLO would be out of the questions as well as Brazilian nuts and so many other items

 

IRL those who I have meet who say they are on a paleo/primal diet really are not even coming close to achieving these diets are not able to avoid getting grains in their diet via the "meats" they are eating

 

If one is trying that is wonderful for them- does it really mean you are living longer and not going to have an issue of some type that ends up killing you and that have reversed your genetic make-up, I see no evidence of this happening. I see several people that have not eaten these type of diets and are living strong by 100+.

 

I feel so much is very physiological for many irregardless of diet. I know many vegans/vegetarians that think that is the only way-until they start eating meat and than it's the greatest thing.

 

 

 

 

post #49 of 83

There are two branches of the Paleo diet. Raw, and rare. If you can't eat it raw, we weren't biologically designed to eat it. There's a lot of information out there about how bad grains and legumes are for us, because they're toxic raw, and dietary ailments that they cause. As far as dairy goes, the human being was only designed to drink mother's milk, not the milk of other animals. Also, the Paleo diet is different than the Neolithic Diet, which did include grains as it was after the Agricultural Revolution.


Edited by EchoSoul - 8/23/11 at 10:54am
post #50 of 83

All of this is very interesting to me.  One side of my family has become Paleo dieters.  I don't want to make them feel defensive, so I've avoided asking them about their diet in detail.  I am wondering two things, and I'm hoping to ask these questions online to avoid bad feelings in my family.

 

1.  How is it sustainable to eat this much meat?  Maybe it is good for individuals, but can the planet support 7 billion people on a Paleo diet?  In most places, animals can't be pasture-fed year-round.  They require lots of stored food and water in the winter months, not to mention the large water consumption (and pollution) in the summer months.... 

Is this diet simply a healthy diet for the individual, not taking sustainablity into account?

 

2.  Proponents of the paleo diet assert that we have not evolved to eat grains and legumes because people only began farming such foods tens of thousands of years ago.  There is a large body of evidence which indicates that evolution does not happen gradually and smoothly over millenia.  It happens in fits and starts - evolutionary changes happen quickly in response to environmental and cultural pressure (it's called "punctuated equilibrium").  It seems that the agricultural revolution would cause such a rapid evolutionary change to occur in humans.  Over a relatively short period, humans figured out how to farm grains and raise animals instead of hunting. Wouldn't a change in our food supply system cause a complementary change in our bodies?  It seems we would quickly evolve to digest grains and legumes as a protien source.

 

Thank you in advance for your thoughts. 

post #51 of 83

Most eating a paleo diet work to search out local sources as they can afford it.  As to whether a diet w/ meat is sustainable that is no different (to me) than the usual vegetarian argument against eating meat, others have already answered that.  I also think it is good to store things up for hard times, regardless of what you eat.  Humans have always looked at ways to preserve and keep food longer.  To really answer that would start a debate.  Or perhaps someone else is better skilled at tactful comments than me.  

 

Removing gluten and grains meant that I was able to get off the couch and actually interact with my kids, the depression lifted.  Being off of grains gives me the energy and mental clarity to really be there for them and so much more active in life.  It helps me be a more patient and loving mother.  Really, it can be life changing.  My digestion works absolutely perfectly while adhering to the diet.  My cycles are textbook, great milk supply and being able to get back into the groove of life so much faster.  Other people may be able to thrive on a vegetarian diet, some of us cannot, thus why people all over the world evolved eating various diets.

post #52 of 83

http://lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm Talks about the un-sustainability of a vegan diet and agriculture in general. Agriculture destroyed the planet in a nut shell...

post #53 of 83

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dovey View Post

All of this is very interesting to me.  One side of my family has become Paleo dieters.  I don't want to make them feel defensive, so I've avoided asking them about their diet in detail.  I am wondering two things, and I'm hoping to ask these questions online to avoid bad feelings in my family.

 

1.  How is it sustainable to eat this much meat?  Maybe it is good for individuals, but can the planet support 7 billion people on a Paleo diet?  In most places, animals can't be pasture-fed year-round.  They require lots of stored food and water in the winter months, not to mention the large water consumption (and pollution) in the summer months.... 

Is this diet simply a healthy diet for the individual, not taking sustainablity into account?

 

2.  Proponents of the paleo diet assert that we have not evolved to eat grains and legumes because people only began farming such foods tens of thousands of years ago.  There is a large body of evidence which indicates that evolution does not happen gradually and smoothly over millenia.  It happens in fits and starts - evolutionary changes happen quickly in response to environmental and cultural pressure (it's called "punctuated equilibrium").  It seems that the agricultural revolution would cause such a rapid evolutionary change to occur in humans.  Over a relatively short period, humans figured out how to farm grains and raise animals instead of hunting. Wouldn't a change in our food supply system cause a complementary change in our bodies?  It seems we would quickly evolve to digest grains and legumes as a protien source.

 

 

1. The short answer - yes. Paleo involves putting individual health above eating in a manner that could more readily sustain our current planetary population.

 

However, when asked in a judgmental manner rather than as an intellectual exercise, this question is pretty much inherently throwing stones in a glass house. We all make decisions that put the needs and desires of our family above the good of others. Our planet can't support 7 billion people with a technological lifestyle (even a relatively environmentally responsible one), regardless of whether they eat paleo or strict vegan. Would you be wondering the same (of them specifically, that is) if they ate a conventional omnivorous diet? 

 

Highly processed, packaged food isn't sustainable. The amount of medication and equipment needed to support those with nutrition-based illnesses isn't sustainable. This conversation, taking place via computers, isn't sustainable. A diet that encourages exponential population growth isn't sustainable.

 

Paleo encourages eating in a relatively environmentally conscious manner - seasonal produce, using up as much of the animal as possible (through consumption of organ meats, bone broths, fat, etc.), food that is generally low in packaging, lower consumption of dairy (which is pretty horrible environmentally) and so forth. I can't see how pastured meat could possibly be less environmentally responsible than getting the equivalent in feedlot meat. The problem is that paleo-eating people who can't afford pastured meat tend to turn to feedlot meat instead of a vegetable-based alternative. This is already true, and would likely be moreso if demand for pastured meat increased, because it's difficult to increase the supply significantly.

 

Can something be a responsible choice without being reasonable or sustainable for the population as a whole? We moved out to the country, are raising goats and chickens and have a large garden, and hope to eventually do solar/wind power. I think we've made a positive move and are reducing our overall environmental impact, but it's not an option that's sustainable for the entire population. My understanding is that the most environmentally friendly option would be for the vast majority of the population to live in multi-family dwellings in contained urban areas.

 

2. I can't answer this. I'm not sure anyone can at this point. I can say that my moods are much more stable (which greatly improves my quality of life) when I avoid grains and large amounts of sugar, legumes make my intestines feel bad to the extent that I choose to avoid them even though I like them, my weight is easier to control, the kids have less behavioral issues, and my immune system seems stronger. And those are things that matter to me more than the exact details of what I may theoretically be adapted to.

post #54 of 83
fwiw many people answered the sustainability argument in the Primal Family thread.
post #55 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post




Probably because most people do not raise their own food, and cannot be sure that the food they buy won't kill them with bacteria or parasites. Just today, 60,000 lbs. of ground beef was recalled due to E. Coli.

 

And yes, meat can taste good with a sweetener. However, I doubt that people who hadn't yet learned to cook over a fire would bother marinating their meat. Somehow, the idea of maple monkey brains or honey-coated entrails seem unlikely. People like to sweeten their salads in present day because modern people have largely been raised on sugar.

 

Those are my theories.

 

 

 



I can only imagine that the recalled beef was factory farmed.

Grass fed animals likely taste better.  The fat is better for you, and all in all likely doesn't need sweetners.  Grass makes them sweet. (and aside from the fact that we've become sugar addicts.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by nmelanson View Post

Ummmm....think there is actually a lot of scientific evidence to show that eating paleo is better for the human body than grain-filled diets in general. First of all, the advent of agriculture brought us a whole store of new diseases and a SHORTER life expectancy than pre-ag peoples. Rotten teeth, osteoporosis, cancer and diabetes are side-effects of grain-filled diets. Grains are not nutrient dense foods - they are fillers and they allow us to feel full without receiving enough nutrition. Grains also lower the pH of our bodies which necessitates that our bodies release calcium in order to buffer the acidity, causing skeletal degeneration. Oils rendered from vegetable sources (except olive oil) are high in Omega 6s, which actually cause infammation in our bodies. Omega 3s, mostly from animal sources reduce inflammation. There is so much other scientific backing to show the healthful qualities of this type of diet - it isn't only that some people happen to believe it.

 



Weston A Price has done some fantastic research on teeth, and I have read a few studies on Native Americans, tribes living side by side, the grain growers had heart disease and teeth decay.  Their hunter gatherer neighbours did not.

 

(FWIW: olives are a fruit, not a vegetable (oil).)



Quote:
Originally Posted by suzukiaustin View Post





AMEN TO THIS.

 

Sometimes I cannot believe how fantastic I feel.  And my kids are healthy, have great teeth, sleep through the night.  I sleep like a rock, I'm happy, I look freaking fantastic...and I don't even exercise!  Seriously...I'm hot.  :)

 

I was vegetarian for 13 years...part of that time vegan.  And I went to the 2nd largest macrobiotic cooking school in the nation and learned how to cook real foods...I looked and felt terrible and my son was sick all of the time.

 

OP - read Mark's Daily Apple for a few months and try to get your answers there.  He's researched this night and day and has great advice about this diet.

 

I'm one who limits fruits...some of us are just sugar sensitive and cannot eat food that has been cultivated to be sweeter and sweeter over the years.  My kids and I are happy with our berries and occasional low sugar fruit.  We do well with root veggies, though.  We're all different and that's OK!

 

Try the diet.  You won't be sorry!!

 

 

Yes, try the diet, but be prepared for grain withdrawl, cravings, etc.  It takes nearly two months to get past the cravings.
 

 

We've come to eat this way simply because it works for us.  For years, I've struggled to include grains, non gluten grains, etc. etc.. trying all kinds of tricks: Eating grains with probiotics or enzymes.  Yadda yadda.  They are addicting!  Once eliminated, me and the kids had a lessening of food allergies, my irritable bowl disappears.  Give us grains, and we go crazy!  We all want more and more, irritable bowl rears.  Yikes. 

 

Not to mention, my state of health decline (thyroid disorder, high allergies, and loads of food intolerances) was due to years of vegetarianism - which an ND labeled as really grainatarinaism.  No kidding.  Its the bulk of the diet.  Pick up any Moosewood Cookbook: all grains and cheese sprinkled on veggies. My ND had said, "don't let your philosophy kill you."

 

It took *awhile* to come to terms with this, and 15 years later, I can only say that our health has improved due to the elimination of grains: they seriously irritate the intestines, and I am sure they are pushed on us from political avenues, including corporations (like Monsanto), the various grain boards in bed with the government issued food pyramids.  Add in addiction, and presto, you've got a heavy agriculture base.

 

 

 

And while there has been mention of the hybridization of fruit to make it sweeter and grains to make them glue-ier, I'd have to add that modern living has complicated our digestion further.  So even if we were to try to be 'pure' with a paleo-type diet for an ideal health, we have a continual onslaught of pollution that has to be procesed by our liver and that sits in our tissues.  Furthermore, our soils are depleted due to modern farming and lack a great deal of trace minerals. In this sense, I find it then hard to compare us with earlier peoples. 

 

 

On another note, there were some comments about food storage.  Recently, I heard that Native folks used smoking techniques for meat and fish, as well the fermentation of meats and fish, and then burying them underground.  Nuts and seeds can also be kept.   We should not underestimate the historical storage of food based on our own lack of knowledge of it. 

post #56 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by darbycrash View Post

And BTW Olive oil is not a vegetable oil.  An Olive is a fruit so it's actually a fruit oil.


"Vegetable oil" simply means oil obtained from plants rather than from animals or minerals. By definition, olive oil is a vegetable oil. So are corn oil and coconut oil.

post #57 of 83

This is a great thread.  I have just started getting into a Paleo Diet and this thread has answered many of my questions. 

 

Any other good website suggestions??

post #58 of 83

I don't understand how a paleo diet would include "lots" of meat.  Pleistocene Humans were gatherer-hunters, probably eating a lot more plant matter & insects than meat (depending on the local conditions of course) and only eating meat when they could catch it, which wouldn't be that often (this assumption is based on modern gatherer-hunters). 

 

  

 

post #59 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by EchoSoul View Post

There are two branches of the Paleo diet. Raw, and rare. If you can't eat it raw, we weren't biologically designed to eat it. There's a lot of information out there about how bad grains and legumes are for us, because they're toxic raw, and dietary ailments that they cause. As far as dairy goes, the human being was only designed to drink mother's milk, not the milk of other animals. Also, the Paleo diet is different than the Neolithic Diet, which did include grains as it was after the Agricultural Revolution.


I have not read any peer reviewed research to suggest that if we can not eat something raw we aren't "biologically designed" to eat it.  Perhaps you can include your source.  People eat what is available and does not kill them immediately.  I can see how cooking food perhaps can have deleterious effects upon the body over a lifetime, but so do many other things, like sunshine.  The amazing thing about humans is our ability to eat almost anything and create reproductively viable offspring.  I think you are probably right, EchoSoul, its just that the term "biologically designed" could be replaced with a better term.  Btw, I am a big proponent of gluten-free, limited meat diet....but unfortunately I am addicted to bread like its crack and I love In-n-Out burgers too much.  

 

post #60 of 83

What an interesting discussion!! I have nothing to add, as all the thoughts and questions I've had about it have been better represented at this point. I'm just glad to read along! I was GAPS/Paleo/Primal for about six weeks and then had to stop (long story), and felt the same sort of well-being that others describe. Now, I have added back in rice and oats and legumes. Still no gluten, because it very clearly causes emotional issues for me. My skin doesn't have the glow that it did when I ate no grains at all, but it's much easier for me to eat this way, or at least to be able to eat flexibly.

 

So I guess my curiosity about it all comes from my appreciation of flexibility, and thinking that flexibility should be OK, especially in ye olde eat-or-be-eaten world. But at the same time, I can't deny how great I felt and looked while eating no grains at all. Interesting.

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Traditional Foods
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Nutrition and Good Eating › Traditional Foods › Can you explain to me the rationale of paleo/primal diets?