Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
Research Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsResearch Chemical SciencesUGFREAKeudomestic

The Paleo Diet

-SD-

EXT ELITE ROB
Chairman Member
My jiu-jitsu instructor swears by it so Im thinking about trying it but wanted to get the trusty opinions of the EF bors. Your thoughts?
 
Its based on evolution along the same principles of the atkins diet, eat like a caveman because thats the way evolutionary the human animal diet consists of. Its just a repackaged atkins plan, same as protein power, the south beach diet, sugarbusters etc... Just a copy cat diet.
If you think low carbs diet works then you'll like this. Just depends on if you can handle not eating carbs then go for it.
I think they work, but thats just me, low carb diets help me cut up fast and Ive tried all kinds of diets, lowfat, zone etc... Just whatever works for the individual and if they can stick with it.
Of course, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie some people to say. But I beleive in the insulin/glucagon ratios. Insulin is the fat storage hormone, glucagon is the the fat liberator hormone. Carbs stimulate insulin and helps store energy as fat. Insulin overides glucagon. Lower the carbs, lower the insulin production and a more favorable insulin/glucagon ratio is present.
Insulin is as deadly as cholesterol levels according to the American Heart Association. I work in cardiac medicine and I see the damaging effects of insulin on angiograms of coronary arteries in diabetic patients. In addition to doing exams on diabetic patients who have had limbs amputated. It looks like someone shot crap in the arterial linings of the arteries.
Studies have been done in dogs where they injected small amounts of insulin into the arteries and then examined them and they were able to recreate the damaging effects to the arterial linings similar to that which predisposes people to heart attacks according to the plaque rupture theory.
Im getting a lil far afield. but I think that anything processed is bad for you b/c you break down the cell walls and allow for instant absorption of the cellular contents. This is what raises the glycemic index.
Anyhow, it works for me and my knowledge of biology and best of all it works in real life experience. But whatever works is the best diet. lol
 
Thanks bor, lots of info. I actually dont want just a diet, I want something I can use long term without any long term negative side effects. I would think paleo diet fits for that but wanted to get opinions before jumping in.
 
strangebrew said:
I grew a 4th penis after 6 months on the paleo diet.
So if you put them all together that would give you a 8 incher now huh.
 
bran987 said:
lucias, so do you do low carb, or zero carb?

I basically try to not eat carbs when I really want to drop weight but I try and find a balance. Its too hard to not eat carbs so I eat it when I want. The fastest way to lose weight is to eat a 90% fat/10% protein diet, you lose more weight than total starvation b/c of the process of neoglucogenesis. I made a post about it awhile back. Ill dig it up and paste it here in a sec.

Here it is, just a thought, I havent expanded that much on the gluconeogenis thinking but its an interesting thought. I just basically try to limit my intake of processed carbs, thats all.

Here's what I posted awhile back conjecturing on it.
hey I posted this last night on the diet board for aggresive weight loss, its a hypothesis on the fastest way to lose weight, wonder what ya think, not enough members over there for any feedback. Started it today, not too bad so far, 1000cals 90% fat, 10% protein.

The fastest data for fat loss Ive seen is referred to in the Atkins book called the fat fast. In a nutshell two groups of individuals at a naval hospital where one ate nothing and lost 21lbs, if I remember correctly about only 7 lbs was fat the rest was lbm. THe second group consumed 90%fat 10% protein they lost 15lbs by hydro testing and 14.5lbs were fat with s slight loss of lbm at 0.5 lbs. I have done this with great results although I didnt weigh myself, the weight loss was dramatic.

Ive postulated a theory and thought and researched metabolism and how this seeming counterintuitive result could occur as I stated in an earlier thread. My hypothesis is this:

A medical fact is that insulin is the storage hormone and glucagon is the releasing hormone, they work in opposing regulation. Insulin overrides glucagon and makes it hard to release fat from cells when present so the key is to raise glucagon levels while keeping insulin to a minimum. This allows for ketosis where fat is broken down into ketone bodies and used for fuel. THat is one form of energy production and one route for the body to make energy. THe debate rages whether carbs are a better source energy source or are ketones and its route. Some studies suggest that they (ketone bodies) are in fact preferred by the brain than glucose as studied in epilepsy research. For sake of this theory I shall use this to explain my hypothesis. I think that if one was to seriously research the literature they would come to the same conclusion. SO in a nutshell, fat and later its derivatives ARE the preferred energy source for the human body. This seems counterintuitive as this whole hypothesis and fasting data suggest but Ive researched the hell out of metabolism and its pathways. I have alot of internet surfing to do so I have a requisite knowledge and understanding on how to read medical literature and research and how to interpret it. So back to my hypothesis; we shall state as one point of my thesis(I know theres plenty of room for debate) that fat is the preferred energy route. I know counterintuitive as it sounds, but think simply: if evolutionarily speaking we would evolve the most efficient route for energy storage for the inevitable caveman famines, we dont store it as carbs. We store only a few thousand calories of glucose in our muscles, presumably for fight for flight response. That is quick energy needed to outrun a sabretooth tiger attack, but shortlived energy with cardiovascular results. I believe that is where the great myth of carbs being the preferred energy source. If it fuels us in quick burst, it must be the best fuel. But that doesnt mean its the preferred energy source as most draw as a conclusion. Again I point to the fact that we dont store glucose for energy purposes in caloric deprivation situation faced by cavemen. In times of lack of food sources fat is used as an energy, it packs more energy per gram and we have adapted a mechanism that is quite natural and evoltionary in nature. So that is a simple argument for the fat being better than carbs for energy although it is quite a complex theory, but I wont get too deep, nor cite for sake of brevity. The fight or flight response legacy of evolution has now in modern human lifestyles is a leftover and not as necessary and has damaging effects to the cardiovascular system when we are in state of stress. THat is the theory behind why a stressed out person is at a higher risk for heart attack which is a quite lengthy explanation I dont want to get too deep in. But in short insulin is very damaging to the endothelial cells lining causing fatty streaks moving on to calcification and in diabetics peripheral arterial disease where they amputate body parts in late stage. Diabetic angiograms, which is where we shoot a dye into the coronary arteries(heart arteries) and then fluoroscoped (xrayed) and there is a significant greater chance of damaged arteries, it looks like someone sprayed crap in a tube and it scatters along the walls. Im getting way off track, but if those plaques rupture a clot will form just like when you get a scrape, your body doesnt know the difference they just sense the release of rupture and send clotting factors blocking blood flow. Instant heart attack, the heart muscle downstream from the newly formed clot doesnt get blood and just as important waste products are not carried away resulting in muscle necrosis or myocardial infarction or simply known as a heart attack (this differs from electrical heart attacks, but that commonly occurs as a resulted of muscle irritation whre electricity flow of the heart is altered causing energy loops and a fatal arrythmia). So there is ample medical facts about the negative effects of insulin. And what causes insulin release, carbs and sugars. Hardly an argument for carbs being the best energy source since it encourages heart disease. Now of course many will never have a heart attack some would say, but in Vietnam autopsies of young men killed revealed that even at early age it was seen that fatty growths had already formed. Many experts say that this is response to refined foods such as pasta, bread anything that breaks down the cell walls of plants making the carbs easier to be digest being introduced into the modern human diet. This is indexed by whats called the glycemic number, the higher the number the faster its absorbed, the faster the blood sugar rises, the faster insulin is released and to a greater amount with obvious negative cardiovascular effects. Insulin is doubly dubious as it also stimulates hunger even after eating. Just think about how easy it is to overeat pasta and then raid the fridge for more. Again evolutionary relic, but think about, when a caveman finds a bunch of fruit in season he must eat as much as possible before it rots. SO insulin stimulates more eating and some have postulated that alcoholism may be traced to fermented fruit as it rots, logical but debatable as most things are. So as logic dictates excess insulin is bad, it follows that a high carb diet is bad especially processed carbs (breads and pasta) and is not necessary if your muscle is tanked already with the few thousand calories of glucose needed for the fight or flight response. Again many would argue that exercise depletes the glucose and that we need carbs for that reason. THat is in my mind a myth because one important metabolic pathway rarely known to the great majority of people. ITs called NEOGLUCOGENESIS. The word broken down neo (new) gluco (glucose) and finally genesis (creation of). This pathway is glucose production based on protein breakdown and is central to my theory as to why the participants lost twice as much fat on 1000cal day 90% fat 10% protein diet(modified fast) as did the group who ate nothing over the ten day period. Again think that caveman relied mainly on animals and their natural fat and protein. This is still true in modern times with cultures in artic regions that survive just fine without carbs, in fact with less cardiovascular disease than cultures where carbs have been introduced. They say it takes about twenty years for a culture to exhibit the same rate of disease once sugars and processed carbs are introduced.
So what have I said so far:
1. fat is the preferred energy source not carbs.
2. carbs are not needed for glucose storage after exercise b/c of a metabolic pathway of NEOGLUCOGENESIS.

Simply put most carb proponents are not even aware of that metabolic pathway and it doesnt figure into their thinking, so any of their theories arguing for carbs leaves out an important piece of the puzzle. We dont need processed carbs period.

So fat is like metabolic gold for the caveman and is the difference between survival in times of famine. They just didnt have the opportunity to store as much as modern human with supermarkets and year round fruit and carbs galore. They unlocked the key to fat loss as an energy source quite easily as this why it evolved that way. SO how do we take advantage of this and how do we explain the amount of fat doubled to with the 1000 cal day 90% fat and 10% (15 lbs on average with 14.5 lbs of fat loss with only 0.5% of lbm) versus the complete starvation (no calories over the ten day study with 21 lbs lost and only 7lbs fat the rest lbm/muscle)???? My hypothesis is it is due to largely overlooked processed of neoglucgenesis ( again production of glucose from protein) or in this case from lbm/muscle. Logic dictates that this metabolic pathway also allows for insulin production. Thats the key you see the muscle being burned hampers the glucagon (energy release hormone; insulin storage hormone and insulin overides glucagon) ratio, thus consuming the fat diet alters the insulin/glucagon ratio to a more favorable environment for fat loss. So you may try that diet and those principles and compare your results with other diets as you progress with weight loss. I think the results will speak for themselves. Ive rambled too long. I know this controversial, but its damn interesting to think about even if you dont believe it!!

Anyhow, it was a long time ago, havent thought about it much since then Bran
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom