The FastDay Forum

Try two kilos of lamb...

[carorees]

Effect of a paleo diet on fat distribution: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23414424

Thanks Caroline for that link. The diet in this (Feb 2013) study didn't affect insulin sensitivity and didn't affect fat levels within muscle but did substantially affect fat within the liver, as well as improving a range of other markers.

The results however are perhaps confused by the weight loss that accompanied the 5-week paleo diet (30/40/30 P/F/C). All subjects (healthy post-menopausal women) were overweight or obese so losing 4.5kg average would be likely to improve markers anyway. The weight loss was presumably an accidental by-product of forcing the subjects to eat paleo!

I note that the diet in the study kept away from saturated fat, and I now realise that this is commonly the case with paleo diets although it is hard to see how this fits with the evolutionary argument for paleo that this is how our ancestors would have eaten.

"Mean energy intake decreased by 25% with a weight loss of 4.5 kg" - not bad for an ad-lib diet regime. Halved the carbs and ate a bit more fat while eating a quarter less than before.

"There was a nonsignificant increase of about 8% in physical activity".

I'm confused about insulin sensitivity - Fasting insulin, glucose and HOMA assessments all reduced but the clamp result didn't :-

M-value (mg kg−1 min−1) 5.97 (4.15, 6.83) 5.66 (4.67, 6.53) NS
HOMA 2.24 (1.33, 3.19) 1.50 (1.16, 2.03) **

The actual weight loss demonstrated in this study corresponds to a net energy deficit of 1000 kcal day−1, but reported energy intake (1900 kcal day−1), estimated resting metabolic rate (1200–1400 kcal day−1, using FAO/WHO/UNU equations) [40] and estimated mean PAEE (600 kcal day−1) rather suggest a steady-state of energy balance in our subjects. The reason for the pronounced weight loss with this dietary regimen is therefore not clear. Possible explanations include overreporting of energy intake, increased thermogenic effects of protein (versus other macronutrients) [41] and loss of glycogen, which may contribute to loss of body water during the study period. Of note, increased urinary volumes were commonly reported amongst participants during this intervention. Nonetheless, measurement uncertainties for all energy components on either side of the energy balance equation may be part of the apparent contradiction of achieving weight loss during energy balance.

Dominic - just looking back on a post in which you mentioned "fatty carbs". Pure fats have no - or few - carbs, so what foods were you referring to?

Hi tomtank, it was PhilT actually - here:

Lower protein is likely to result in eating more in my opinion. I can't see anyone eating 2000 calories of steak in a hurry but fatty carbs will do that easily.

I'm guessing that he meant 'the type of carbs that make you fat'...

fats and carbs combined - cake, commercial ice cream, pizza, chips

Sorry Dominic - I meant PhilT. He's answered now anyway!!

[carorees]

Just spotted this Scientific American article about the validity of the paleo diet: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... really-eat

Excellent read

The Scientific American article was a good read. Mark Sisson,and his Daily Apple, seemed to be the main target for the article. Sisson posted his views on the Marlene Zuk book, which the article is based on, back in early April:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-it-al ... z2VOlF94Yi

I don't follow the Sisson's primal blueprint dietary suggestions, am too entrenched in my sweet confectionary lifestyle, but regularly reading his website I do find it hard to fault or disagree with any of his views on the multitude of subjects he posts about.

I admire the vegan and vegetarian eating styles. I hope that many of the next generation will adopt vegetarian ways. I would say that the shift from plant diets to meat diets that is happening in Asia, Africa and China will impact on the planet's food resources. The Mediterranean diet is much closer to vegetarian method of eating and allows fish and some meats. But meat can become more of a choice as nuts and pulses are involved with Mediterranean eating, and olives, tomatoes, low GI pastas and so on are so central to it.
I dare say the Japanese/Thai and south east Asian diets with soy and tofu will have their day too! Variety is the spice of life and 5:2 is a useful tool to appreciate that variety.

Vegan is ridiculously restrictive. About as popular as Scientology.

No pasta, but cavemen in Greece and the Med ate grains.

Reference?

Some view the Paleo diet as restrictive too. That said, the vegan diet does have an ethical basis, albeit attracting rare positive attention.
The vegetarian diet is a better aim for planetary care. Back in the 1970's Frances Moore Lappe wrote a book about protein from animals being a poor use of land use and earth's water and mineral resources.
The meat producing industry seems to be its own worst enemy. You and I probably grew up with meat food close at hand: chooks, pigs,sheep and cattle. Presently, livestock food is produced, (even in Australia) by feedlots, using antibiotics and pelletised feed. Our meat is generally quite manufactured. So, to overcome wastefulness, no need to refuse meat when it's prepared for you but don't overvalue its centrality. The Med diet is closer to a compromise between vego and opportunistic.