I was searching for info on this when I ran across this in Wikipedia.
A ranking by U.S. News & World Report, involving a panel of experts, evaluated based on factors including health, weight loss, and ease of following. In 2014, it tied for last place out of 32 with the Dukan Diet.[65]
Evidence for the effect of the switch to agriculture on general life expectancy is mixed, with some populations exhibiting an apparent decrease in life expectancy and others an apparent increase.[66] And according to S. Jay Olshansky and Bruce Carnes, "there is neither convincing evidence nor scientific logic to support the claim that adherence to a Paleolithic diet provides a longevity benefit."[67]
According to the British Dietetic Association the diet excludes key food groups, raising the potential for nutritional deficiencies.[9]
Nutritionists have pointed out that there is no scientific evidence to support the diet.[68]
The problem with trying to evaluate and rank Paleo as a diet, is that it isn't a diet, it's a philosophy. An almost infinite number of diets can fall under the rubrik of Paleo. Which Paleo diet did US News and World Report use in their ranking? A meat-based paleo diet? A plant-based paleo diet? A fat-based paleo diet? A combination-based diet? One that stresses nutrition and is based on science or one that stresses adherence to a list of arbitrary rules?
Is "vegetarianism" in this ranking? I would doubt it, because it too is a food philosophy, not a diet. How can you fairly rank vegetarianism if you don't distinguish between the many, many types of vegetarians.
A strict veg*n may, relying on solid nutritional science, could carefully balance his/her diet - or could (just as strictly veg*n) eat nothing but potato chips and slurpees.
There are many healthy paleo diets, and many unhealthy paleo diets, just as there are healthy and unhealthy vegan/vegetarian/pescatarian/low-carb/high-carb/moderate-carb.... diets.
Interesting, I'd be interested in seeing this wiki article for the sake of seeing how the other diets rank. Can you post it?
I think we may need to redefine what diet means in this thread. Are we talking about "method employed to lose weight" or "what one eats" as the definition?
To me a paleo diet is defined more about what it excludes than what it includes. In that respect they're all pretty much the same. The only thing that matters in the long run is how a person feels on their diet and if they are able to get sustainable results. Only time will tell.
Vegetarianism is ranked 11, without clarification, and that seems a bit ridiculous, considering one can be a twinkie and chips vegetarian.
I found this comment most telling:
“A true Paleo diet might be a great option: very lean, pure meats, lots of wild plants,” said one expert – quickly adding, however, that duplicating such a regimen in modern times would be difficult."
So, we should dismiss a "great option" because it will be difficult? Well, in that case let's dismiss weight loss altogether, because it is damned difficult no matter how one chooses to accomplish it.
Also, "lean meat, and wild plants" is a gross and unfair oversimplification, and betrays an ignorance of the actual diet.
Yes, lean and wild plants are the ideal, but paleo acknowledges that we must shop in the grocery store, not the forest. Most paleo dieters are eating beef, chicken, and broccoli, and (if they're not strictly dieting) sweet potato - NOT moose, rabbit, chicory and acorns.
Yes, Paleo requires quite a bit of self-education to do it soundly, both for weight loss and for nutrition, but the same HAS TO BE SAID of any type of vegetarian or flexitarian lifestyle.
In fact, I'm confident that there are far more people doing vegetarianism poorly than Paleo, if only because there are far more vegetarians than Paleos.
If you read about Paleo from the Paleo experts (the true experts, those with degrees and experience in experimental nutrition, ethnobiology... and other hard sciences - not glorified personal trainers) the emphasis is bot on trying to eat paleo foods, but to eat modern foods that are most like paleo foods (eating the widest possible variation of unprocessed, fairly lean meats, fish, and vegetables that are high in fiber and low in sugar and starch, and since farm meats are low in omega 3's compensate with fats high in Omega 3's and/or with an Omega 3 supplement).
Even my clarification of paleo is a gross oversimplification. You need to really reasearch nutrition and paleo principles (reading far, far, far more than just one book) to do it well, so yeah, if you wan't to do absolutely no "homework" then Paleo is not for you, but really, almost none of the others are either, unless they provide the food for you, or give you a daily menu.
I can see why the article's expert panel rated most of the diets as they did. They largely assumed the average person would be unable, or too lazy to self-educate.
Paleo has many faults, but the largest is that it is not for anyone unable to self-educate. It is not for someone who wants only a list of foods they can eat from without any other limits.
Paleo is no more the chicken and spinache diet as vegetarianism is the macaroni diet, even though I have had paleos and veg*ns in my life who thought so.
I know the only way I ever lost weight and didn't gain it back was eating between hunger and satisfaction ...........intuitive eating. I lost forty lb and kept it off. If I wanted to be at my hs weight I would have to lose another thirty but I can't complain.
Last edited by carolr3639; 12-18-2014 at 03:31 PM.
For me, intuitive eating doesn't work at all, except when I'm eating moderately low-carb (Atkins post-induction, Paleo...)
Too low-carb and I don't experience hunger until I feel ill. My husband will recognize and "feel" my hunger before I do, because irratibility is the first symptom. Headache, nausea, lightheadedness...
Too high carb, especially sugar carbs, and I am fiercely hungry, no matter how much I eat.
As to who is right for Paleo - there are no specific crieria, because there are so many kinds of Paleo. The simplest are the two list varieties - the "allowed" and "not allowed, or eat sparingly" lists.
Even the two list Paleo can work well, but only if the "allowed" list includes a large variety of plant and animal (especially plant) foods, and you eat a wide variety from the list. "No veggie" paleo is generally a bad idea.
The most common mistakes with Paleo are
1. Eating too little Omega 3 fats, and too much of other fats.
2. Not eating enough plant foods
3. Eating too many sugary/starchy paleo foods
4. Eating too few foods (not enough variety)
5. Eating too much (paleo foods still contain calories, and for weight loss, calories always count, even if you don't count them).
6. Doing paleo without any exercise (being a couch potatoes isn't paleo).
8. Following the most extreme ("and least research-supported) forms of Paleo. Be suspicious of those that allow the fewest number of foods.
Another thing to keep in mind with paleo, is that for Paleo newer isn't necessarilly better. The earlier books written in the 70's and 80's (before Paleo became a "hot trend") are actually some of the best (and most research-supported).
Neanderthin
The Paleolithic Prescription
The Paleo Diet
I follow paleo as closely as I can and I've had great success with weight loss, mood stabilization, help with my eczema, my cholesterol and sugar levels are spot on, and more. I think it's less about trying to pigeon-hole it into a "diet", as some have said, and more about realizing it's a lifestyle change.
A lot of times, people confuse paleo for low-carb or even NO carb and that's not the case at all. I make sure to eat fruits, nuts, and starchy vegetables at almost every meal and I don't think that my lack of processed grains, breads, and sugars is leaving me with any nutritional deficiencies.
When it comes down it, if the research out there puts you off, don't follow it. You need to follow a plan that makes you comfortable. But honestly, there's just as much researching supporting paleo as there is poo-pooing it.
The paleo community is fairly split on this. Generally, raw organic honey is accepted as paleo but some research, even Cordain's, points out that sugar is sugar (fructose in this case).
I'll add raw honey to recipes here and there but it's not something I try to make a habit of.
The paleo community is fairly split on this. Generally, raw organic honey is accepted as paleo but some research, even Cordain's, points out that sugar is sugar (fructose in this case).
I'll add raw honey to recipes here and there but it's not something I try to make a habit of.
What does the paleo community say about starchy vegetables? Because if how you eat is considered paleo then I would say that on a day to day basis I eat the way you describe. Grains is lowest on my list of necessities, can very well do without it with a few exceptions.
Paleo diet
