You aren't kidding. That's why our BS Detector went berzerk.



Show me? http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

Sure. http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=NutritionData%3F

Still not seeing it.

Hi Caveman,

Sorry I forgot to reply to your questions. I did start looking into them a few days ago, but got sidetracked. Here goes. (My copy of Homo Optimus seems to have gone walkabout, so I'm just going to tell you what's in Optimal Nutrition.)


The excess amino acids get turned into carbohydrate. I guess any excess carbs could then be turned into fat, but it doesn't seem as if that's likely to be a big issue in itself. In fact, I don't know of anywhere that JK has actually talked about this. It's not mentioned in ON.

What he does say is that the excess protein is going to have to be broken down, and the disposal of the nitrogen puts a strain on the kidneys and liver. This will be most obvious with protein consumption above 120-150 g per day. This is pretty much the same as the mainstream view.

Aside from that, he just thinks it's wasteful and inefficient to consume more protein than your body needs. The process of breaking down excess protein consumes a lot of hydrogen, which is an excellent fuel. If it's going to get turned into carbohydrate anyway, why not just eat the carbs? They're much cheaper and more convenient. (He's very frugal that way. )


Excess carbohydrate is certainly turned into fat, but JK doesn't believe that the amounts allowed on the diet constitute "excess." He says that our bodies need a small amount of carbohydrate (about 50 g), and it makes sense to get that from carbs rather than protein, to avoid making your body deal with ketosis. However, he clearly states that you can get by without eating any carbohydrate at all. He doesn't recommend this, because he considers that it's not optimal, and thus it has no place on the "Optimal Diet." (He's very straightforward that way. )


Absolutely, yes. See answer #2. It's a low-carbohydrate diet, by any ordinary standards.

The major differences from other LC plans are:

1) very high fat intake, and restriction of protein to an "adequate" level
2) recommendation of certain high-quality animal fats and proteins
3) not really caring much where your carbs come from (pure starch is actually preferred, as it's highly refined, and carbs are basically just considered a fuel source anyway)

I'll try to answer the other questions in a separate post.

Nutrition data states that 1oz is 15 berries, so by the site you are referring to, 50gm of carbs would be 206 berries (averaged between 100gm each of the two types listed).
USDA states approx 220 raw berries for 50gm of carbs. As the Nutritiondata numbers come from the USDA, I'm not surprised they are the same (accounting for rounding).

So it looks like you are both wrong...


Some of the people here who actually eat paleo glaze over anything to do with dairy. I got sick of pipping in with "dairy isn't paleo" and "butter is dairy too".

One day these people will realize that dairy causes problems and that doing high fat with dairy will not give the same results as high fat paleo. High fat with dairy can stall weight loss.

The OD diet (or should it be ON as Dr. K himself stated in a prior quote?) can be paleo, but not by eating any lean meat. Those of us that eat great cuts like pork belly and only occasional seasonal fruit would probably be eating close to the stated numbers anyway. This does provide great muscle building fuel and a decent rate of fat loss.

Those 'paleo' eaters that regularly consume honey, agave, masses of fruit and veg, or lean meat won't come close.

The premise is that when you're optimally nourished -- i.e., eating the right types of food, in the right ratios -- your body will be a lean, mean, fat burning machine. All your problems will melt away, along with the excess pounds. You'll be free from all mental and physical ailments, your teeth will be whiter, your feet won't stink, you'll solve all of society's problems, and you'll be dancin' on the ceiling.

Seriously, though... the strict number-crunching is just for the time when you're becoming adjusted to the diet (which can take weeks to months). After that, you're supposed to be able to self-regulate to a great extent, so -- with a little guidance from your brain, in terms of what to eat -- your body can in turn guide you regarding when, and how much to eat. Once your body has adapted to "optimal nutrition," there should be no inclination to overeat, no cravings, and no hunger between meals... and you can enjoy a little dessert, or a little alcohol, without being tempted to overdo it. From my own experience, the stories I've heard from people online (like Peter of Hyperlipid), and all the printed testimonials from Dr. K's fans, I'm inclined to think that this is actually true.


He came up with the basic theory when he was working as a dietician at at a military hospital, and he decided to analyze the properties of all the "raw materials" at his disposal. From that, he realized that the foods found in nature fall into two basic categories: high carb/low fat (plant foods), and low carb/high fat (animal foods). He decided that the animal foods were the better way to go, because fat is a much more efficient energy source than carbs, and animal proteins are much better quality than plant proteins. And you should avoid combining the two, because mixing fuels is bad for the engine. It's kind of like powering a rocket, LOL.

He tested the specific ratio on his wife and son, who were both in poor health at the time (arthritis/migraines & dental problems, respectively), and found that it was extremely successful. He's since refined it through decades of clinical experience.

The ratio isn't as rigid as some make it out to be. The general rule for beginners is 1:2.5-3.5:0.8, but it can be different in some situations, such as obesity or certain medical conditions. For instance, in the early months of rapid weight loss, people who are very overweight should reduce their fat intake to 1 or 2 times their protein intake (since they have their own body fat to use as fuel). And in the long term, since we all have unique protein and energy needs, everyone's ratio will likely turn out to be a bit different.

By the way, I'm not really here. I just came back because I wanted to answer The Caveman's questions. But you guys are really tempting me with all the interesting discussions on this board. Ancestral diets... pork blood... nightshades... raising grain-free kids... Anthony Bourdain eating unmentionable parts of a warthog... all the stuff that I find entertaining, but that isn't considered fit to mention in polite society. (I was at a bridal shower on the weekend, and let me tell you, none of those topics would have gone over well. )

I've tried a few semi-paleo plans in the past, for health reasons, and I generally felt great on them. The problem at the time was that I actually lost too much weight, and had to increase the carbohydrates and dairy lest I disappear entirely. So I have a lot of respect for your way of eating.

Hi Caveman!

Nobody ever called it a paleo diet.

Have you ever heard of the Kitavans, by the way? They, and other traditional cultures that live in the vicinity, eat an astronomical number of carbs by your standards, but, when they were "discovered" they still ate as they did in paleo times.

Weston A Price could also have testified that more recently discovered diets could also ensure people remained healthy, had good teeth etc, and still ate a lot of carbs (the Irish with their oats, the Swiss with their rye bread).

It's not the carbs per se that make a diet unhealthy; a combination of a huge number of factors ensured that these people remained healthy, whereas as people today who eat lots of carbs don't. Why the Irish and Swiss and Kitavans could eat quite a few carbs and remain healthy is not known, and maybe never will be.

And nobody really knows for sure what a "paleo diet" is anyway. It's all conjecture mostly, surely it must have been vastly different from one region to the next, depending on climate, vegetation etc. To talk of "a paleo diet" as if all Cavepeople went to the same canteen is a bit simplistic to my mind.

The people who have chosen to follow the OD diet are not doing so for ideological reasons, as far as I can tell, but are doing so simply to break a stall, or to try out a new weight-loss plan because other "standard" LC methods have failed them.

I am not really sure what you are trying to achieve with this thread, to be honest.

amanda

There's nothing explicitly in a paleo diet to limit carbs from paleo sources. It'd be pretty easy to hit 50 carb, and exceed it, on a Paleo diet. Depending on your interpretation of course. Frankly's version of paleo, perhaps not.

So... is anyone curious if this OD diet is working?

I was just kidding around with Lisa when she realized she was wrong, but Tarlach, hmm. Gotta give a pure paleo like him a very good answer! Okay, let's get out the cavecalculator instead of doing this on my fingers, eh?

"Raspberries, raw" search for that http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

Returns four measurement types. Put 60 into the box with the description "10 raspberries". (To calculate the value for 600 raspberries.) Submit.

Now, I see "Sugars, total" equals "50.39"

?

Hi pangolina, thanks for responding with what appears to be some excellent info! (Wish I could read it at the moment, but later. Just wanted to quick welcome and thanks you!)

I think you're deceiving yourself. It doesn't take much meat, even fatty meat like bacon, to make a daily goal of 66g protein.
Pork shoulder, very fatty stuff, 3 oz is around 26 grams. Pork belly, raw, is better, 9g protein. But a lot of that fat gets cooked off, unless you pour it over your meat.

Anyway, you can't be eating big servings of meat on this diet. You certainly wouldn't be having lots of steaks.

Pate though works nicely.

how much fat percent is your diet? and carbs

Sorry but the quotes all referred to carbohydrates, not sugar. I think you will find that my maths is sound.