Soooo guyz I'm still confused as to why the Atkins diet is different from Paleo. What major guidelines do they differ on? I have no interest in reading the Atkins and Paleo books and I assume people here have already read them. I know they're both ketogenic so I can't see what any big differences would be.
Also, is there a difference between "Paleo" and "Primal" ?? And do both, or either, advocate eating raw meat, all of the time, or some of the time?
All of a sudden, Paleo people are showing up on my facebook so I need some ammo. Thanks folks!
The first difference is the goal of each diet, Atkins claims losing weight fast, and with Paleo diet, their supporters claim they are getting the best nutrition for health.
Also. I think that on the Atkins diet, the less vegetables eaten, the faster the weight is lost. And on the first phase of the diet fruits are not alowed at all.
Thanks for the reply. One issue, though - there IS science behind 811, but not necessarily 811RV. The Drs. promoting cooked 811 (and similar ratios - McDougal, Barnard, Esselstyn, etc) have countless studies showing the effects of a high-carb low-fat diet on diabetes, heart disease, etc etc etc. 811 is not a ratio made up by doug graham with no science behind it, as some people think. A high-carb low-fat diet has been proven to be the most effective in battling major illnesses. As far as I know, nothing like that exists in the scientific literature for the Paleo crew.
Not to mention there are the classic studies of caloronutrient ratios for the longest-lived civilizations on earth. They are all pretty close to 80-10-10. There's plenty of science behind the ratio.
I'm sure there is some science behind paleo but from what I've seen it's pretty sketchy. I haven't seen any large conclusive long-term studies, or even any populations studied for their outstanding health and longevity that eat a paleo diet. I would disagree with your assumption that there is "less" science behind 811.
I did not perceive your reply as an attack. I just wanted to clarify that there was, indeed, science behind the caloronutrient ratio of 811 and even a vegan 811. Thank you for correcting me, you didn't quite make an assumption there, that was me just "assuming." Lolz. Now, via conjecture (nutritional analysis) we see that 811"r"v is superior, but no studies have been done on this as of late so you are right in that if we are referring to HCRV strictly, there aren't any specific studies done on fruitarian sample groups.
I have IBD (ulcerative colitis) and it feels pretty major. I would like to see more studies specifically on the fruitarian 811 diet as it affects IBD.
Interesting. Many studies have been done on what I call "Miscellaneous Bowel Disease" (there's a whole collection of them) and an attempt by modern doctors to link it (and colon cancer) to a low-fiber diet, with little success. Not very strong correlations. Based on what I have read on this subject, a higher-fiber diet such as HCRV will have some effect on these types of diseases but the most effect can be had by eliminating in the squatting position, which I am sure you have heard about before.
http://naturesplatform.com/health_benefits.html The chart at the very end shows a study in which nearly every participant completely reversed their disease by adopting this practice.
I wish I could say HCRV will give you results by itself but based on my [limited] knowledge of the subject, this is not the case. I will assume that the participants in that study were not fruitarians.
I did paleo for a long time before 811, and my whole family is on the paleo diet (they will never go vegan, and I feel like this is a better option than SAD). In addition to Jamie's points, it's important to note that paleo eaters try to balance their omega 6/3 ratio by emphasizing fish and fish oil to balance all of the omega 6's they get from chicken, pork, and nuts. They claim the omega-3's in flaxseeds and other plant sources is inferior. They feel better than people on SAD because they balance the excess omega-6's in their diet. Atkins folks don't even think about that.
Primal differs from paleo as it allows full fat dairy. Both camps (paleo and primal) consider saturated fat to be a good alternative to omega-6's.
Neither party thinks of soluble fiber as an essential nutrient. Many paleo folks are not low carb at all, and they prefer to get their carbs from starch because they think that fructose will cause non-alcoholic liver disease. Vegetables are absolutely essential on paleo, and fruit is allowed but discouraged for weight loss purposes.
Many paleo folks consider 811 to be paleo because we don't eat grains, dairy, or legumes either. While 811 is better, my parents look a hell of a lot better on paleo than on atkins or SAD. I think it can be a good first step into 811 if someone is completely opposed to giving up meat.
Not to be a dick, or anything (I know I can come across as one :D) but if the ultimate diet turned out to be human babies and human colostrum, would you do that for the rest of your life?
I only ask because I read an interesting quote from Gautama Buddha the other day regarding killing other beings for sustenance, and he seemed to imply that even if one were starving, one should not kill to eat as that is an selfish intention for one's ego to survive which is against Buddhist teachings. (Note the direct contradiction to other quotes in which he supposedly approves monks eating meat if it is offered to them. I can only assume that the quotes which are in line with Buddhist principles are the correct ones, and the contradictory ones must have been attributed to him by butthurt Paleo buddhists =D)
So then I began thinking: If for some reason, it turned out that Paleo was the "way to go," would I kill animals for my own survival?
My exercise in reasoning/ethics ended pretty abruptly when I decided that it was not worth even asking because I had done so much research on the human body and nutrition that there was no way in hell Paleo could possibly be the "way to go." I remember posing this question to myself a while ago, before I was this learned (and therefore certain) and I didn't want to give myself an answer, because it troubled me too much.
Fish oil can be an irritant to someone with severe autoimmune problems. (I have very severe celiac disease, I was pre-diabetic, and I have a host of autoimmune problems as a result of eating an improper diet my entire life). The way I think about it, and note that I did not come to veganism because of ethics, is that if a food is a common allergen, it probably wasn't intended for human consumption. The top 8 allergens in the US are: dairy, egg, soy, peanuts, tree nuts, and seafood. We know that all of those allergens are harmful to the body.
If you have an autoimmune disease that affects your gastrointestinal tract, it is of utter importance that you avoid allergens as any physical damage to your gastrointestinal tract will allow allergens into the rest of your body. When this happens, your immune system begins to recognize foods that you otherwise would not be allergic to as invaders, and you can develop allergies.
I personally cannot tolerate flaxeeds, but I do really well with chia seeds. You may also have some weird sensitivities due to your UC, so experiment and see what works for you.
Also, Jamie, I see your from Philly. I am from Cherry Hill. It's nice to see that HCRV is catching on there.
Protip for researching fructose: Use scientific literacy. People will describe metabolic processes without talking about rates, amounts, etc. So someone will say "fructose is converted to triglycerides in the liver" (or something like that) and you will freak out and automatically assume that
(1) A LOT is converted, or
(2) A significant amount is converted, or
(3) Enough to make you get REALLY FAT AND UNHEALTHY is converted.
When no mention of quantity or conversion efficiency was even made. Truth is, you cannot make ANY assumption at ALL from that with no quantitative values given. I could say "lettuce converts to cyanide and arsenic in the gall bladder" which would make no sense but even if it did, no amounts given means you really haven't learned anything useful at all.
So, in your fructose quest, make sure you actually learn something useful and not just a bunch of random observations of biochemical processes.
Very interesting. Would love to see some research on this re: fructose.
Great details, Julie, thanks.