I didn't frankly know much about appetite hormones when I started in May. I just knew for me that carbs led to more carbs. And of course I had heard about blood sugar spikes.

So I tried for me lowering non veggie carbs especially bread, pasta, and potatoes. For me it worked after a transition period. Then I started running. A few months after starting that I was telling my wife, you should try this, I am never really hungry anymore.

Well two articles seem to explain this. One on appetite and running. Other more about leptin overall. Lots of new research coming out grains can mess with leptin.

And yes individuals will I am sure vary with this info.


But the big takeaway to me is you can get leptin in your body working properly again. And that is very hopeful.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/well...ype=blogs&_r=0

http://nutritionwonderland.com/2009/...lness-hormone/

I would theorize that your appetite has more to do with protein fat and fiber being more satiating than the SAD you were following before but I am glad you made this post because I hadn't see that exercise study and it is interesting. I'd love to see a similar study where they compare the results of cardio vs weight lifting but still thanks for posting.

The "Leptin Article" as you call it is pretty horrible in my opinion because it uses a rodent study that has zero application to humans. I've seen it before as a big part of demonizing fructose but in my opininion it's a worthless study because:

A) It's a rodent study

B) It's not hard to imagine that your hormones would get screwed up if you made pure fructose 60% of your consumed calories for seven years straight.

If you want to learn more about leptin here is a six part article I would suggest.

First part here.

Thanks. What do you think of Mark's Daily Apple John? That's where I was getting most of my leptin stuff.

I haven't read much on his site but the articles I have read were similar to other Paleo sites meaning that some information was not accurate, some was written in a sensational manner, and there is a good amount of stretching what we actually know vs what Paleo proponents say is true.

I think Paleo is a great way for most to lose weight and some will be able to make it a healthy lifestyle. My major problem is the unfounded health claims.

I find that there is a part of the Paleo community tends to do things just because GROK did it, or refrains from some things because GROK would not have access to it, whether it is healthy for them or not, but refraining from doing healthy things because GROK doesn't have a plane to import some sort of food or access to this or that takes away the whole purpose of changing to Paleo in the first place (for ME anyways, if I were to subscribe to Paleo it'd be for health reasons). Also subsequently causes a headache.

Diamond, are you doing Paleo or what?

What is GROK?

I have been reading so much I"m going to have to digest before I tackle these articles or Mark's Daily Apple? Is this a lot of reading?

Here is a link to what GROK is -
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/about...#axzz2tQaESm5s

This image on that site pretty much explains it all lol

Said I was going to take a week away from posting but because Mad asked. Unlike JohnP's view I think Mark Sisson is incredibly evidence based, much like JohnP.

I also think he is open to challenging ALL his own assumptions. He is one of the most self-enlightened posters I have ever found on the internet. He always challenges Paleo beliefs I find.

And no I am not Paleo. As I am evolving I guess you can say I am whole foods, avoid grains, don't be afraid of fat guy. I have been able to give up Claritin and my back pain has gone away. Ok I am also carrying much less weight.

There are always so many confounding factors with nutrition exercise diet weight loss, I am also getting baffled Mad.

For me though I am becoming more and more convinced grains are just plain bad for me. From an evolutionary perspective they 'don't want to be eaten'. This means they have developed a lot of stuff in them that should say to humans....hey don't eat me.

And then on saturated fat. America has done a low fat experiment and replaced go old saturated fats with unsaturated fats and heart disease goes up and up and up and up. And there are more confounding factors in play so I can't say causation.

And then it gets even more complicated. People that eat more saturated fats can have LDL go up. But guess what? It is LARGE PARTICLE LDL. Why is this important? It is benign. But insurance companies wont pay for the test. Probably because they would find people eating saturated fat are fine.

So what can we say? Well when Americans eat butter and lard instead of corn, soy, canola oil and margarine, heart disease was much less. But then we have so many confounding factors..you actually can't say much. Except you certainly can NOT say saturated fat is bad.

Sweden has recently just said the heck with it we are going to eat butter. Heart attacks in Sweden are going down. Make of that what you will, probably confounding factors there also.

http://www.dietdoctor.com/real-assoc...disease-sweden

I'm completely willing to concede that Mark's daily Apple may be better than other paleo sites because I haven't read enough to know one way or the other.

Is Paleo evidence based? Sure if you ignore the information that doesn't agree with their theories. It's called cherry picking when you do it on purpose or confirmation bias when you do it on accident. Either way, you use the evidence that supports your view point and ignore evidence that refutes it wouldn't be what I would call "evidence based".

I remember reading an article on his cite that excess carbs are turned into fat in humans. This is not true. I remember reading an article making health claims about Primal (Paleo) eating. Well - all of those same health benefits come when you lose weight regardless of diet. It's just over stating what we do and don't know that turned me off. Again, nothing against Paleo eating I often reccomend people try it because you simply can't help but lose weight folowing strict Paelo.

Also, I get it. Telling people half facts about amazing health benefits helps with compliance. Sure enough, someone who is overweight and following the SAD and starts eating Paleo is going to become healthier. They could follow literally ANY diet other than the SAD and they would become healthier. That is why just about every diet book spends the first couple chapters talking about why their diet is special and life changing. If you believe a particular diet is special and life changing you're more likely to stick with it.

This leads me to my last issue with Mark's Daily apple - it's the dogma of "This is the way". It's not THE way it's one way of eating. Ever hear of CRONies? They think they have he optimal diet. Of course, originally based on rodent studies. There are ongoing studies with monkeys that were looking quite promising but overall it looks like while the CHON diet might be good at warding off disease it isn't extending life as hoped (at least not in monkeys)

I personally intermittently fast. People make all kinds of claims about the health benefits of intermittent fasting and there is some early evidence that it may be true in the way that it mimics calorie restriction. Still, the primary reason I intermittent fast is it makes restricting calories easier and until there is more evidence I always will correct people who taut the health benefits of intermittent fasting.

By the way, on your point of low fat dieting, the studies showing that carbs don't turn into fat is one reason the low fat craze began in the first place. Carbs aren't turned into fat, fat is stored. Thus, low fat craze came into existance. However, people never actually ate low fat and we all got fatter.

If you're still reading this, my suggestion is to read from guys who are truly evidenced based and recognize the importance of context. Lyle McDonald, Alan Aragon, James Kreiger and others are out there but most have never heard of them because evidence and context based advice doesn't make for good headlines which means fewer books and magazines sold. Good headlines are good for web hits but only adds to the average person's confusion.

Finally, wheat. Yes, we can't just eat wheat it must be treated first. Yes, the food pyramid is terrible and used to be worse. This doesn't mean that wheat is bad for everyone. Some people are gluten intollerant. Fewer people have celiac disease but gluten is the new fructose. I think sugar is next. It's just a merry go round of half truths that keep people buying books, magazinea and driving web traffic.

I really love your enthusiasm. I just urge you to check out the guys I mentioned. In particular Alan Aragon for $10 offers so much information through his research review series it is rediculous and Lyle McDonald has hundreds of free articles on his web site.

It's going to take me a week just to get through this thread and all the reading and, pardon the pun, "digesting" the info. I started out just wanting to keep it simple and not get inundated with too many different plans, info, technical jargon. I love "Diet Doctor's" videos on youtube and watched several videos of Dr. William Davis (Wheat Belly), David Perlmutter, M.D. (Grain Brain), and just saw a few with Mark Sisson (which is what got me newly interested in paleo. I haven't started reading his blog yet which is why I was unfamiliar with GROK) and there's some others. The info's running together but getting somewhat clearer.

I have to say I eat how I intend to always eat from now on pretty much so I'm not looking for changes or tweaks per se, but I want to be able to explain intelligently to people WHY I believe there is so much disinformation out there that is actually HARMFUL.

I've decided since I've posted today already, I'll start not posting tomorrow. Everyone needs to go through their own info process and listen to their bodies. For me I am absolutely comfortable with, after eating way more whole foods including more veggies, going grain free and not being afraid of saturated fats.

Lets take grain free. There are very few agreements on food. But one agreement is grains are not essential. Now the conventional wisdom is that whole grains are good. For me they were not good. High glycemic index was a big reason for my weight. But I also learned they were making me sick....literally. My allergies and back pain, common denominator, inflammation have gone away. I feel a million times stronger off grains. There is abundant evidence grains are 'anti-nutrients'. They have stuff that prevents your body from absorbing nutrients.

So much happier off grains. It is just an added bonus that it keeps me away from many sweets. We use coconut flour at home though and have plenty of yummy things.

Then fats. Wow have I been on an amazing journey of discovery. Not saying I am 'right' but I am VERY comfortable with where I am now. Butter has been used for millennia. We switch to margarine and vegetable oils and heart disease skyrockets. Even before fast food and more TV and more sedentary jobs. Perhaps among the worst science ever done was Ancel Keys 7 country study one of the big foundations of fats are bad. First he had 22 countries but cherry picked 7.

But beyond studies just look at the world. Plenty of confounding factors so I admit I can't be sure. But this has happened at least: Americans have cut saturated fat and American health has gotten worse.

Confounding factors are a dizzy though. I thought I was having back pain from running. It turns out it was my last grain to give up: corn. We eat Mexican food a lot so I was having corn chips and tortillas. Was it a severe reaction? Well it was enough to cause enough inflammation my back hurt. I went on the Net and plenty of people reporting the same.

For my body though I am completely happy going grain free and bringing butter back. These people make no bones they are pro butter but I found this article very informative.
http://www.westonaprice.org/food-fea...tter-is-better

You said it on the cherry picking. We're all prone to do that because we have to commit to something and it's completely understandable that we're not only looking for information, but we're also looking for validation that what we're doing is the right thing. Sometimes people need a pat on the back, they need someone to tell them they're doing a good job and surrounding ourselves with sources that validate our actions is the only way to do that. I'm following my own plan and I don't have much need to convince that what I'm doing is the right way because it's not the right way, what you eat is really none of my business, it just happens to work for me. As long as you feel good that's all that matters right?

I think that the results will show in the numbers. Not only on the scale, but with the standard blood work, blood pressure, ekg. Too many folks convince themselves they "feel fine" when in reality they are not, they are either starving themselves, or making themselves obese. If your skin is flaky and dry, if you stop menstruating, if your hair falls out in clumps, these are all signals that our bodies send us that everything is no ok, that many choose to ignore.

Bottom line, instead of getting advice from strangers on the internet, each of us needs to take control of their own health and get the data from their health care provider. (off my soapbox now)

Wow those are extreme symptoms and I would agree that medical intervention is needed in cases like that. I'm simply too vain to ignore symptoms like that personal hehe.

On the other hand I'm not easily suaded by what doctors tell me. I've had doctors say some pretty nutty things to me that made me go whaaaa? To fully trust doctors. And many docs simply don't believe that BED is a real eating disorder to fully address my concerns.

I am low carb and not Paleo specifically because of the evidence issues. Too much unsubstantiated woo and moralizing food, not enough endocrinology. So straight up low carb, high fat, whole foods with some smart substitutes and treat for me when it comes to maintenance. And weightloss is this or something equally effective with my endocrinology.