Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

I have used the Paleo diet before and plan to use it again, but I have some questions on it.

Will the amount of meat I eat be hard on my system to digest?

Will the amount of protein harm my liver?

Will extended ketosis do damage to my liver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

No.

No.

Why would it?

Just make sure to eat enough fat. I'ts hard to get enough fat just from meat since it is often trimmed. An easy way to get lots of healthy fat in your diet is trough butter and other high fat dairy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No.

No.

No.

Why would it?

Just make sure to eat enough fat. I'ts hard to get enough fat just from meat since it is often trimmed. An easy way to get lots of healthy fat in your diet is trough butter and other high fat dairy.

I'll get fat from olive oil, coconut oil, almonds, and seeds also. My nutritionist said didn't like that I was in ketosis when I last saw here and she was very concerned that I did not eat too much protein. Also I have only heard bad things about digesting meat so I just was curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have to say that I gain weight like crazy after eating high fat. Eating too much in general will cause weight gain, but now that I have added back in carbs of various sorts, I feel like I'm coated internally in fats and the carbs are just sticking to this gunk. I'm trying to lose weight, can you tell? I'm sure the weight will just fall off once the weather warms up. High animal fat diet isn't doing me any good at this point (I live in a cold climate and consume animal fats), but I might play with a high fat diet again in the summer for experimental purposes.

I now follow a very liberal diet including eating as wide of a veriety of different foods possible. My only concern is not eating too much of the same food. Oh, and keeping 'regular'. A smooth-functioning digestive system is soooo important to overall health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just have to say that I gain weight like crazy after eating high fat. Eating too much in general will cause weight gain, but now that I have added back in carbs of various sorts, I feel like I'm coated internally in fats and the carbs are just sticking to this gunk. I'm trying to lose weight, can you tell? I'm sure the weight will just fall off once the weather warms up. High animal fat diet isn't doing me any good at this point (I live in a cold climate and consume animal fats), but I might play with a high fat diet again in the summer for experimental purposes.

I now follow a very liberal diet including eating as wide of a veriety of different foods possible. My only concern is not eating too much of the same food. Oh, and keeping 'regular'. A smooth-functioning digestive system is soooo important to overall health.

We'll I can't gain weight so this sounds excellent to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll get fat from olive oil, coconut oil, almonds, and seeds also.My nutritionist said didn't like that I was in ketosis when I last saw here and she was very concerned that I did not eat too much protein. Also I have only heard bad things about digesting meat so I just was curious.

You should ask her specifically why she was concerned that you were in ketosis. It has shown to be a harmless condition that is suitable for treating kids with epilepsy--why would it be a bad thing for anyone else?

As for the digesting meat thing: your body is designed to absorb as much fat and protein as possible, and those are the two macronutrients found in meat. Your body is not, however, designed to absorb all plant matter (fiber--cellulose, resistant starch, etc), nor is it necessarily designed to absorb all the nutrients in dairy (lactose). Common sense says that the paleo diet, which we evolved on, is easier to digest than the Food Pyramid diet or another plant-rich diet, which are literally high in nutrients that your body can not digest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the digesting meat thing: your body is designed to absorb as much fat and protein as possible, and those are the two macronutrients found in meat.

Your body is not designed to absorb as much fat and protein as possible. In addition, the paleo diet is essentially a low-fat diet (especially low saturated fat) that limits things like butter, eggs, and fatty meats.

Additional long-term considerations that you might want to make on a high red meat, low carb diet:

1) The strong link between red meat intake and cancer.

2) Evidence concerning the negative impact of low carb diets on cognitive behavior (learning, memory, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2) Evidence concerning the negative impact of low carb diets on cognitive behavior (learning, memory, etc).

That is yesterday's news, recent research shows the opposite, in fact. Research suggested that people on low-carb diets had better sustained attention, for example.

Not to mention the fact that the link between red meat itself and cancer isn't exactly strong (and there are links between hundreds of other things and cancer, besides red meat), but opposing evidence doesn't really matter I suppose. Some studies "finding" a correlation between the two, and other studies not finding any correlations, does not = a "strong link."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your body is not designed to absorb as much fat and protein as possible. In addition, the paleo diet is essentially a low-fat diet (especially low saturated fat) that limits things like butter, eggs, and fatty meats.

mike_wf, at this point I must wonder if you are simply trying to be a troll. "The paleo diet is essentially a low-fat diet"? Are you serious? You obviously have done no good research on this diet, and thus your opinion on it is meaningless. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you've only read about Loren Cordain's so-called paleo diet, which resembles very little the actual paleolithic diet. If this is the case, you need to do better research before you make such a deluded claim.

That said, yes, your body is designed to be able to absorb 100% of the protein and fat it ingests up to a certain point (you don't absorb everything you eat once you start overeating). Let me make myself clear: if you ingest 10 grams of protein and 5 grams of fat, your body has all the right functions to absorb this close to 100%. On the other hand, if you eat 10 grams of carbohydrates from a potato, your body will not under any natural circumstances be able to absorb 100% of it.

Additional long-term considerations that you might want to make on a high red meat, low carb diet:

1) The strong link between red meat intake and cancer.

There is none. Even major cancer organizations admit that there's very little evidence supporting a link between meat and breast cancer. Other cancers you might have a case for, but I've already given you links to read about the link between red meat and colon cancer, and I assume you haven't read them.

2) Evidence concerning the negative impact of low carb diets on cognitive behavior (learning, memory, etc).

There is none--unless you would like to point some out to me, because I certainly haven't come across any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly not very stable evidence. Brings up the point that I was thinking about going in, humans have been eating red meat forever and only recently has cancer arose as an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly not very stable evidence. Brings up the point that I was thinking about going in, humans have been eating red meat forever and only recently has cancer arose as an issue.

Humans have been eating red meat forever. But what is different recently about the red meat people have been eating...

"Paleolithic people couldn't eat fatty meats if they tried--they had nothing like the tubby grain-fed animals that produce our steaks today. Wild game meat contains about 15 to 20 percent of its calories as fat. A lean cut of beef trimmed of all visible fat contains more than double this amount. Not only is the total amount of fat higher...Because most commercially available beef has been feedlot fattened, it contains low levels of omega 3 and high levels of omega 6. This is the wrong mix." Cordain, The Paleo Diet

"Research to date would support the argument that grass-fed beef is higher in Vitamin A, Vitamin E, CLA and Omega 3 when lipids are compared on a gram of fatty acid/gram of lipid basis."

California State University, Chico

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly not very stable evidence. Brings up the point that I was thinking about going in, humans have been eating red meat forever and only recently has cancer arose as an issue.

Humans have been eating red meat forever. But what is different recently about the red meat people have been eating...

"Paleolithic people couldn't eat fatty meats if they tried--they had nothing like the tubby grain-fed animals that produce our steaks today. Wild game meat contains about 15 to 20 percent of its calories as fat. A lean cut of beef trimmed of all visible fat contains more than double this amount. Not only is the total amount of fat higher...Because most commercially available beef has been feedlot fattened, it contains low levels of omega 3 and high levels of omega 6. This is the wrong mix." Cordain, The Paleo Diet

"Research to date would support the argument that grass-fed beef is higher in Vitamin A, Vitamin E, CLA and Omega 3 when lipids are compared on a gram of fatty acid/gram of lipid basis."

California State University, Chico

The diet strongly recommends grass fed meat only...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wild game is leaner, but they also probably consumed fattier parts of meat that we usually don't. If I were to guess, I'd say moderate fat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So whats the verdict? Did primitive humans eat a high fat meat diet or a low fat meat diet?

High-fat.

It's true that the wild mammals and game that paleo humans would have had hunted had less subcutaneous fat than the farmed animals of today, but as Glass Danse said, paleo humans wouldn't have eaten the muscle meat, they would have much preferred to eat the organ meats that are naturally very high in fat: brain, heart, tongue, liver, etc. Some reports indicate that hunter-gatherers would have thrown away the muscle meat if the animal had plenty of fat.

You should also look up the term "rabbit starvation," which has a page on Wikipedia. It is the result of eating meat that is too lean.

This is the flaw in Cordain's thinking, and it's why you have to take his book "the Paleo Diet" with a grain of salt. More recently, Cordain did a report on the diets of hunters and gatherers, and his conclusions were a lot different than the conclusions he made in "the Paleo Diet". Here you go: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/...y=KPJ8NPKvC6lVQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that I pose is this:

Cancer

Recent studies indicate that red meat could pose a notable increase in cancer risk. Some studies have linked consumption of large amounts of red meat with breast cancer,[6] colorectal cancer,[7][8] stomach cancer,[9] lymphoma,[10] bladder cancer[11] and prostate cancer.[11][12] Furthermore, there is convincing evidence that consumption of beef, pork, lamb, and goat from domesticated animals is a cause of colorectal cancer.[13] Professor Sheila Bingham of the Dunn Human Nutrition Unit attributes this to the haemoglobin and myoglobin molecules which are found in red meat. She suggests these molecules, when ingested trigger a process called nitrosation in the gut which leads to the formation of carcinogens.[14][15]

Eating cooked red meat may increase the likelihood of cancer because carcinogenic compounds called heterocyclic amines are created during the cooking process. Heterocyclic amines may not explain why red meat is more harmful than other meat, however, as these compounds are also found in poultry and fish, which have not been linked to an increased cancer risk.[16]

[edit]Cardiovascular diseases

Red meat consumption is associated with cardiovascular diseases, possibly because of its high content of saturated fat.[11]

A 1999 study funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, an advocacy group for beef producers, involved 191 persons with high cholesterol on diets where at least 80% of the meat intake came from either lean red meat in one group, or lean white meat in another. The results of this study showed nearly identical cholesterol, and triglyceride levels in both groups. This study suggests that lean red meat may play a role in a low-fat diet for persons with high cholesterol. [17] [18]

[edit]Other health issues

Regular consumption of red meat has also been linked to bone loss,[19] type 2 diabetes,[20] hypertension[11] and arthritis.[11]

I know wikipedia is hardly the definitive source on all things. But I feel like this article summarizes the nutritional literature pretty well. Red meat has been linked to so many diseases--can you really deny the implications of all these studies, that all of them are flawed? It's one thing to say that red meat helps acne, it's another to challenge all these studies, in my opinion...

I personally live on potatoes and chicken and beans and I do great. But I guess this kind of diet is more suited for active people who absolutely need the carbs for exercise. I could not possibily live on a low-carb diet for the amount of exercise I do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know wikipedia is hardly the definitive source on all things. But I feel like this article summarizes the nutritional literature pretty well. Red meat has been linked to so many diseases--can you really deny the implications of all these studies, that all of them are flawed? It's one thing to say that red meat helps acne, it's another to challenge all these studies, in my opinion...

Since you don't believe that all these studies could be flawed, I'm not going to bother trying to persuade you otherwise. But if you read the proteinpower.com link I provided in this thread, and you thoroughly read it (I'm sure you won't, but whatever), you should see exactly why these studies are flawed--not only the ones that try to implicate red meat in disease, but any study that tries to implicate any specific food group or macronutrient in disease.

And by the way, you're right, Wikipedia is not a definitive source. It's a wonderful learning tool, but actually citing it, like you did? No. Until you read every one of the studies that Wikipedia cited for that article, you are none the wiser on the topic of red meat and disease. As it is, most of the citations in that article are citations for news websites and cancer organizations, which are almost sure to be biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So whats the verdict? Did primitive humans eat a high fat meat diet or a low fat meat diet?

High-fat.

It's true that the wild mammals and game that paleo humans would have had hunted had less subcutaneous fat than the farmed animals of today, but as Glass Danse said, paleo humans wouldn't have eaten the muscle meat, they would have much preferred to eat the organ meats that are naturally very high in fat: brain, heart, tongue, liver, etc. Some reports indicate that hunter-gatherers would have thrown away the muscle meat if the animal had plenty of fat.

You should also look up the term "rabbit starvation," which has a page on Wikipedia. It is the result of eating meat that is too lean.

This is the flaw in Cordain's thinking, and it's why you have to take his book "the Paleo Diet" with a grain of salt. More recently, Cordain did a report on the diets of hunters and gatherers, and his conclusions were a lot different than the conclusions he made in "the Paleo Diet". Here you go: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/...y=KPJ8NPKvC6lVQ

Cordain discusses rabbit starvation in his book, which it appears you didn't read. He also talks about the fact that paleolithic peoples probably ate organ meats.

The paper you give a link to which you suggest revises Cordain's findings from "the Paleo Diet" was submitted in 1999. Yet the book the Paleo Diet came out in late 2001 and the Paleo Diet for Athletes came out in 2005.

Where do you get your information from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cordain discusses rabbit starvation in his book, which it appears you didn't read. He also talks about the fact that paleolithic peoples probably ate organ meats.

No, I definitely read it, although quite a while ago, and I haven't revisited it. I do specifically remember that he recommends a paleo diet of lean meats, fruits, vegetables, and canola oil. I don't feel this is a proper paleo diet, and to be truthful I think he was trying to avoid controversy and decided to play it safe by only advocating politically correct foods. (It's also possible that he was trying to appeal to his customers more by not telling them to eat liver and spleen every night.)

Even on his website, he says: "The types of meats permitted on The Paleo Diet are lean meats (beef, pork, poultry, fish, seafood) trimmed of visible fat."

Maybe he talked about organ meats and rabbit starvation in his book, but when all is said his diet resembles a true paleolithic diet only slightly.

The paper you give a link to which you suggest revises Cordain's findings from "the Paleo Diet" was submitted in 1999. Yet the book the Paleo Diet came out in late 2001 and the Paleo Diet for Athletes came out in 2005.

Where do you get your information from?

A total misstep on my part, I apologize.

Don't miss the forest for the trees, though. The chronological order of Cordain's career aside, all I was trying to say was that I think he was being unscientific when he wrote the Paleo Diet, and the conclusions that he made in the Paleo Diet betray the ones he made elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll get fat from olive oil, coconut oil, almonds, and seeds also. My nutritionist said didn't like that I was in ketosis when I last saw here and she was very concerned that I did not eat too much protein. Also I have only heard bad things about digesting meat so I just was curious.

Coconut oil and olive oil are generally fine. Nuts like almonds and most seeds are high in polyunsaturated fats and tend to aggrevate skin conditions in alot of people. On top of that they are almost impossible to digest. I would keep them at a minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll get fat from olive oil, coconut oil, almonds, and seeds also. My nutritionist said didn't like that I was in ketosis when I last saw here and she was very concerned that I did not eat too much protein. Also I have only heard bad things about digesting meat so I just was curious.

Coconut oil and olive oil are generally fine. Nuts like almonds and most seeds are high in polyunsaturated fats and tend to aggrevate skin conditions in alot of people. On top of that they are almost impossible to digest. I would keep them at a minimum.

I thought it was only legumes that were hard to digest? Can you give me a link on nuts and seeds being hard to digest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes

×