No comment needed, right?
First of all....WOW, that's quite a heated debate going on there!
I think that both the Doc and Mark are great...they have the courage to publically share their own journeys and ideas, try to show people the benefits of Paleo/Primal and that eating and excersising well is key to great overall health and importantly, happiness.
Whether people are 80/20, 100% or just a bit Paleo..or even have an occasional potato and..OMG...might still like to carry on towards good health, just shouldn't matter.
If people are trying Paleo/Primal/the occasional Potato, there is just one thing of upmost importance; we all care about our health a great deal and are ON THE SAME SIDE dude!
Keep up whatever good work you are personally doing, judge others a little less, smile and be happy that people are so passionate about health - its really not that common in the western world! 😉
Sorry, I'm confused by this. Paleo isn't low-carb; lots of paleo people eat potatoes. It's probably the majority position now, to eat potatoes and rice both. On Paleohacks you'll see more and more people also adding back small amounts of sugar, often in the form of orange juice, honey, or maple syrup.
The only problem with the picture above would be the canola oil in which McDonald's fries made, altho' McDonald's swears it's trans-fat free. Still those folks who are doing Mark Sisson Primal could definitely eat them on their designated "cheat day" under his 80/20 rule.
Now that you've kind of made the switch from an more Atkins type of plan to a real Paleo plan, why would potatoes be "Death?"
Not to mention, most fast food fries are coated in wheat before frying. Not to mention, paleo people don't advocate fast food.
I dont know about the part of the world you come from Confused - but in my part of the world we call french fries "raped potatoes"....
Like your nic though CONFUSED.. it says it all!
If you see nothing wrong with a giant pile of processed glycemic load, á la McDonalds, then you do seem "Confused". And anyone at Paleohacks who thinks it's fine is likely confused too.
Confused is a perfect nickname for someone who is trying to spread confusion and dissent, perhaps someone who is in the habit of hiding behind aliases to spread her venom... or if not her then one of her cronies -- oh another "C" word!
As an aside I'd add that when eating LCHF I really find no need to have a "designated cheat day"... that would suggest that I think there is something abnormal or false about the way I eat the rest of the time -- which I don't.
My diet is tasty, satisfying, varied and does not require the kind of discipline often seen with more traditional diets; such as weighing and measuring everything into precise portions.
I eat when I am hungry, stop when I am satisfied and I enjoy my diet.
I could not stick with a diet (simply what I eat) that required disciplines such as I mentioned above. I think that is why so many fail on traditional "diets" which are not sustainable and everyone recognises that they are just a short term weight-loss measure, to be temporarily endured.
If my diet is not a temporary trial of endurance, but rather a sustainable way of life, then why on earth would I need a "cheat day" away from it?
"Confused is a perfect nickname for someone who is trying to spread confusion and dissent, perhaps someone who is in the habit of hiding behind aliases to spread her venom..."
Any particular reason why you adress Confused as a "her"?
But on the other hand - why not - I look forward to see the buzzz in the waspnest LOL 😀
What part of LOW CARB high fat is unclear??? Whether a paleo diet allows potatoes or not, they don't fit into a low carb diet, unless you're the ADA (smirk).
SOME (not all) people who follow a paleo diet feel it's OK to eat "safe" starches, but not everyone agrees. And even the proponents of safe starches agree that individuals who are insulin resistant/pre-diabetic/diabetic and who are seriously overweight should probably avoid the "safe" starches as well.
Are McDonalds french fries a "safe" starch? Hardly.
We just have to eccuse people like Confuced to be confused -because it is not so easy to understand for some..
BtW can someone tell me about safe starch,,, have never heard about it... Im just a LCHF-eater who avoid any kind of starch... Are "safe starche" some kind of USA-people trying to escape the problem...?
The kind of diet we can eat is an individual thing but if you are scoffing down McDonalds fries I'd hardly call that paleo! I myself am prediabetic and stay well clear of potato as it has a very bad effect on my blood sugar. Others can have potato and good on them - just don't get processed, industrialised rubbish like these fries!
If you are not diabetic or prediabetic then sure, a little starch may be OK for you. Safe starches are sweet potatoes (which I have) and a little rice. I've not heard that ordinary potatoes are included in this but if you don't have blood sugar problems I see no reason to not have them occasionally.
Thanks for your answer - but why not just stay better safe than sorry and avoid all starches? I dont know about you all but I can do witout sweet potato (have accutally never tryed it) feel no need for toeing the line...
But in the end of the day it depends on each and everyones personal situation - if you are slim and dont need to loose any weight - yes maybe you can allow yourself the little extras - but if you want to loose weigt - better stay away from it.
Good for you if it works for you - for me it would not work att all if I want to kontinue to loose weight.
We are all different
There's a big difference between a potato and refined carbs like sugar and white flour. A potato is a natural, nutrient-rich whole food and those others are processed garbage stripped of nutrition. I think it's unfortunate that the LCHF community lumps all of those in the same category. Besides that, I think they're spot on about most of the rest.
@ Maggan, I agree. I'm not diabetic or pre diabetic, but as a rule, I avoid all starches, "safe" or not. But that is my choice. Others who do not have a problem with carbohydrates may choose differently. But for anyone who is carbohydrate intolerant--i.e. diabetic, pre diabetic or overweight, there is really no such thing as a safe starch. Or an 80/20 rule or even 95/5 rule.
If you eat eggs, meat and god fat there is no need for potato. Why burden your "system" with useless "food" that it does not need?
My diet incorporates about 1 lb of rice or potato per day and I'm still over 50% fat and under 100 grams of carbs per day. So is that still HCLF or do I get my badge revoked because I get the carbs from starches?
The human "system" has a daily glucose requirement. Even the staunched low carb advocate recognizes that. Why place that burden on my liver and waste protein on the conversion to glucose when I can incorporate some in my diet? Safe starches are not "useless" as they will get used to feed the brain and red blood cells. Those certainly seem like useful things to me.
who has ever talked about zero carbs? there is a lot of carbs in the "above ground vegetables" that is "aloud" on LCHF.
And by all means go on with your rice and potato diet if you like - but please dont lie and say to other people that you eat LCHF - because you dont.
As for "burden on the liver"... where the heck did you get that idea from?
What if you were to get 100g carbs per day from leafy green vegetables.. would that put a burden on your liver? Or do you think that the more accessible or refined the glucose, the better it is for you?
Perhaps you should satisfy all your nutritional needs through an intravenous drip, no need to burden your digestive system unduly eh 😉
I think that there is a rift between the paleo and low carb communities. The paleo communities seem to be distancing themselves from low carb. Some claims are being made that very low carb diets cause hypothyroidism, although I haven't seen peer reviewed studies to demonstrate that theory. Some paleo experts are recommending more carbohydrates in the form of "safe" starches (and it seems to be expanding to honey, maple syrup, and other "natural" sweeteners, too).
My personal feeling is that many of the people drawn to the paleo approach are younger and fitter in the first place. Perhaps their metabolisms are in better shape because of this and they can tolerate more carbs in the form of safe starches than those of us who are older and more metabolically "deranged" (is that not the perfect description for people like me--over fifty, highly insulin resistant, and menopausal!!!! That's me, I'm deranged!).
The naughtier side of me (I'm deranged, so I can be a little naughty) thinks that the younger and fitter paleo group doesn't want to be lumped in the same category as us fat old ladies (and men) on low carb, and if it takes starches to differentiate themselves, then so be it. LOL!!! Let them eat all McDonald french fries they want, not me! (Most self-respecting people I know who are paleo wouldn't touch them either).
P.S. Mike--my food tracker says 1 lb of cooked white rice is about 130 grams of carbs all by itself. That does seem to put you out of the low carb range which is a bit of an enigma because opinions vary on where the line should be, but most are 120 or below.
So if a vegetable comes from above the ground it is magically permitted in LCHF but if you eat something that comes from below the ground you're banned from the club? Is there a magic number of carbs I'm required to be under if I'm to be a LCHF member? Even Atkins recommended ramping up carbs until once you reach your maintenance weight (which I have).
If potatoes aren't primal because they've been selected and modified over hundreds of years, then neither are cows and pigs and scores of other plants and animals that we all eat. It seems rather arbitrary to single out potatoes for vilification.
Thanks. I'm not even suggesting that everyone go and load up on starches and I agree that those who are diabetic or insulin resistant best avoid them.
I'm just questioning the notion that potatoes should be lumped in the same category as white flour and sugar. Perhaps there should be gray area for those who aren't insulin resistant? I understand that most people don't cope with gray areas very well and would rather say "starch=sugar=bad".
I was trying not to be too wordy, but I'll either have a 12 oz. portion of potato or a 6 oz. portion of white rice. In other words, I work out the portions to be 100 grams/day or less which last I checked, is widely considered "low carb". I just find it interesting that I'm suddenly a liar if I call myself LCHF if those carbs come from starches.
I too have a chip or two if my grandson is having McDonalds - this is a lifestyle and not a dogmatic religion!! I'll even have a few fries with fish if eating out! BUT that is a rare exception as I am sure it is with you.
Mike, I certainly didn't mean to imply you're a liar. On maintenance Atkins you do have a lot of leeway, though that's somewhat different from Andreas' more general LCHF approach.
I think you're getting some emotional responses because we've all seen so many people THINK they're on Atkins or low carb when they really are eating way more carbs than they recognize, and then they complain that low carb is stupid because it didn't work for them. And how many "scientific" studies have we all seen claiming to compare low carb to higher carb diets, but the threshold for low carb is much higher than any of us consider low carb? That can make it a touchy subject!
Under the Harris plan, there's absolutely nothing wrong with potatoes at all - just make your french fries in coconut oil, I guess.
We have to remember that Drs. Cordain, Eenfeldt, Westman and Attia here are just about the last people on earth apparently to believe that insulin regulates fat storage or gain. Outside of a biochemistry textbook you won't hardly find a doctor or researcher who believes it. No other noted Paleo expert believes it except Cordain.
I was surprised to see Dr. Eenfeldt above say a Paleo diet has fewer carbs than SAD because Harris' 50% seems right in SAD territory.
And I would agree with Janknitz above, Paleo is not about low carb - at 50% the non-Cordain paleo, "PaNu" or "Paleo 3.0" or whatever you want to call it, seems right in line with SAD - after all, the MyPlate will also tell you to avoid white sugar and trans fat. Really Paleo 3.0 seems just a form of gluten-free.
So I'd be Confused too if I were just learning about Paleo now. It's tough to figure out and those people on PaleoHacks are angry and weird - like vegan-rage, if I may quote Lierre Keith. I too found high carbs made me cranky, and maybe someday the Paleo people will figure that out.
Everything I eat gets weighed and logged to my FitBit account and my carbs add up to 100 grams per day. I adjust my portions to hit those numbers.
I was in the "starches are evil" camp for a long time, too. When I finally actually took the time to crunch the numbers, I realized that you could work in very satisfying portions of potatoes and still stay under 100 grams. It may not be right for everyone, but I certainly don't think a cup of potatoes should be viewed the same as a cup of sugar.
Speaking of Fat Head, it may interest to look at his food log:
He's doing about 100 grams of carbs per day and it certainly isn't all from leafy greens. It's mostly from bread (hamburger buns), hash browns and french fries. He's doing approximately equal portions (in grams) of carbs/protein/fat. My diet has those same proportions except that I cook all my meals from scratch.
I too have followed the Paleocommunity's return to "safe" starches etc. etc. and have a sneaking feeling that this is just apologetics - an excuse to return to old eating habits. Starches maybe fine if you lead a very active life and burn them off as soon as you eat them - as paleolithic people were wont to do - and for those that are not insulin-resistant or diabetic or have a metabolism that just slurps them up and turns them into fat and for those that do not feel hungry after ingesting a potatoes, rice and wheat (as I do). Paleo is becoming an umbrella for all sorts of WOEs - very useful because nobody has been able to establish what people in the paleolithic age really ate. From a non-scientific perspective I tend to assume that they ate whatever was available to them and whatever proved most nourishing - learning by trial and error maybe. And we all know from experience that a piece of meat keeps you sated longer than a bowl of greens.
My Paleo take is that primal man certainly had access to starchy tubers and other root vegetables. While modern man may not have access to the same species of woolly mammoth, wild boar and prehistoric tubers that Grok did, the neolithic equivalents of beef, pig and potato are not at odds with our evolutionary background.
But the hormonal impact of the food that comes from an animal cannot be radically altered by selective breeding the in the same way that of a plant can. Animals can be bred to have more fat or less, but in the end, fat is fat and muscle is muscle and their impact on hormones remains the same (some insulin release for protein, no insulin release for fats).
Plants, on the other hand, are chemical factories. Selective breeding can cause them to contain quantities of phytochemicals that are orders of magnitude larger than that of their undomesticated counterparts. The Russet Burbank potato (a descendant of the potato developed by Luther Burbank in the 1870s and the one used for French fries) contains far more sugar than those potatoes grown in the Andes 10,000 years ago. It's sugar content is even higher than that of the varieties used to make potato chips (crisps).
McDonalds, however, is repulsive. There is pretty much nothing on their menu I would eat, as I believe they add sugars and starches to every item they sell (including their salads - I would bet they add a "flavor enhancer" to their salads that contains a little bit of sugar, salt and God knows what else). I also beleive they will not disclose these ingredietns to the public.
"So if a vegetable comes from above the ground it is magically permitted in LCHF but if you eat something that comes from below the ground you're banned from the club?"
Most people on LCHF prefer above ground vegetables because they dont contain as many carbs as the underground ditos.
I dont know what club you are talking about - but if you are overweight and want to loose - you better stay away from the underground - for your owne sake 😉
BTW I think Mark Sisson says that very energetic people can use some quinoa (a seed) or wild rice (a grass).
At the end of the day, though, people can do what they like and may have their own interpretation of the LCHF diet or what they have found works for them. I've followed a low-carb diet for 31/2 years - it's a good way to keep weight to a healthy level - and I'm just getting into the LCHF diet, which for me means eating more meat than I used to.
Email (not shown) (required)
Pictures of participants through Gravatar.
Diet Doctor is your guide to effortless weight loss, vibrant health
and mind-blowing diabetes reversal on low carb.
About Contact us