How To Lose Weight

and it works for me.
It is a bit different as the Paleo but the main features are still to eat less carbohydrates. I live in Thailand and rice is a staple food. I slowly gained weight over the years. Getting rid of that weight was as good as impossible on other kinds of diets, mostly low fat, low sugar. But carbohydrates especially the ones found in refined food like white rice, bread, pasta convert to sugars right away, preventing me from loosing weight. Those carbohydrates came mainly from fruit! My glucose levels where a bit high, not pre diabetic but also not far away from it. LCHF allows very little fruit but lots of vegetables, especially the leafy (dark)green ones.

After reading a lot and finally having a friend writing me about his success of loosing weight i got on the LCHF diet. The trick in that diet is to get into 'ketosis', which means your body is starting to use ketones as an energy source instead of glucose. Basically you stop eating carbs and sugars and replace that with fat. Vegetables are added for their nutrients and vitamins. Some potassium deficiency can occur, so having some potassium supplements might be needed. Also little extra salt is needed.

Your body will switch to the other (ketones) energy source and by lower your calorie intake the fat cells are being processed into ketones to fulfill your energy needs and are burned for energy. Glucose in your blood stops that process so as long as you have too much glucose in your blood insulin is produced to save you from glucose poisoning. The way it does that is converting the glucose into fat and store it. It is basic body chemistry and know for many decades. :slight_smile:

Keep the sugar/carbs out of your food and it will not end up in your blood. No insulin is needed to regulate your glucose levels and the path for converting fat into ketones is free. I am not very active and i still loose weight. Add some exercise and the weight will fly off.

Eating more fat, moderate protein and very little carbs will also prevent you from feeling hungry. There is no sugar addiction anymore so there is no craving for it.

One thing that is uncomfortable is the period that your body adjust to using ketones instead of glucose. It is called the 'keto flu' and the symptoms are just like having a flu. It happens somewhere between 1-3 weeks after you start the diet depending on how many sugars and carbs are in your food. It takes about a week to adjust. Knowing this beforehand helps to not quit. Once this 'flu' is over you will feel much more energetic and focused as before.

Googling LCHF will give many results.

Adam thank you for putting this out there, inspiring!  Here is a interesting talk about grazing animals.  If managed correctly they are good for the planet and the grasslands.  Seems to me, even if the carbon aspect is overstated, managed grazing is a very sustainable way to produce food.  Tilling and plowing is very destructive for the soil and the microorganisms that live there.  
http://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI

Thanks so much, Adam, and I'm so happy for your success! 
I used to spend an obscene amount of time researching diets, food plans, weight loss tricks, workout routines etc in order to keep my weight under control, but nothing worked. I had the knowledge but couldn't put it into action for the life of me. I eventually reached 240lbs and was miserable. 

I then found a free, 12-step program for food addiction (www.foodaddicts.org) and my life completely changed. The structure, discipline and support the program gave me was exactly what I needed–not to mention a relationship with a power greater than myself since I could NOT stop eating on my own. I've maintained a healthy 125lbs for over 7 years and my obsession with food, my weight and my body have all disappeared. I am so grateful!!

I applaud Adam for his commitment to health and wonderful success. As a naturopathic doctor, I think he accidentally left these words off his comment " I'm simply stating it's one that I know for sure works."  And those would be: FOR ME.  
What Adam so well outlined here is called in medical research a case report of a single individual. (or n =1.) 

Anyone can cherry pick the research and find studies that support their theory of what is a superior diet (I am not saying that Adam is doing that here). Research on nutrition is notoriously difficult to do well, and mostly looks at the short term results of weeks to months, not what happens 10 years down the road. And even in those studies that show a statistical benefit of a particular diet, there are always people in the treatment group who did not benefit (or even got worse).

There is no doubt a diet that eschews grains, beans, dairy is helping many people regain their health and lose weight (or gain if that is needed). However, it can also be a disaster for some people who are APOE4, or have a genotype that makes it harder for them to metabolize fat, or just too sedentary and eat too many fat calories.

I cringe when I see this topic come up because it always seems to devolve into a shouting match (at respectful levels) between the Paleo and Whole foods Plant based Diet folk.

The truth is both camps share a lot in common: eating lots of nutrient dense food in form of roots, tubers and green leafy veggies, nuts and seeds. They also face challenges eating outside of the home in restaurants. But I do not think there is one diet that rules all. Weston Price DDS found isolated communities eating ancestral diets all over the world: from Swiss eating cold weather grains like oats /barley and dairy to tropical islanders eating fish and lots of starches and coconut. And all had good health (and more importantly to him…excellent teeth!)

As a clinician recommending diets to patients, I run out of time explaining the nuances of all the possible ways to feed oneself in a healthy manner. I often give them homework, to read this article I stumbled on a while back that I think does a good job explaining my position. http://www.precisionnutrition.com/best-diet. I have no affiliation with that website nor do I recommend their services…it just happens to be a thoughtful piece.

In many ways Michael Pollan said it best “Eat real food, not too much, mostly plants.” The problem is to find a sustainable diet (for the person, their budget and the planet) that is enjoyable and actionable….meaning folks can learn how to prepare/purchase those foods without too much trouble and stick with it. And be flexible as time passes and their needs change. How a 30 year old male who crossfits and a frail 75 year old woman will look very, very different.

I was fortunate to study with the great Tori Hudson, ND who always said “Your life is an experiment, and you live in your laboratory”. So if you are feeling confused about what to eat, try experimenting and do your on case study of 1. Buy a glucometer, keep a diet diary, make a commitment to eat more vegetables. Start with baby steps. Or go big and make a radical departure on a new journey of nourishing yourself like Adam. If at first you don't succeed, try , try again. Ultimately you (and your lab values and waistline) are the best judge of what diet is right for you.

Respectfully, 

Claire

 

I love the quote you shared from Tori Hudson, ND:

Your life is an experiment, and you live in your laboratory
-Great concept!

 

Adam-a belated response. Excellent and digestible!laugh
Diet is so personal. You were kind to give a hat tip to the veggie crowd. Just FYI I fit Claire's profile of the person for whom paleo would be a disaster-this I know following extensive testing, and personal experience. The funny thing is I went veggie 2 decades before I knew any of that. Intuition? don't know.

Refined carbs seem to be a universal problem. I like to remind people that sugar water is used as a reinforcer in rat studies to get them to do anything. It hits the reward centers of the brain like any other addictive substance. A vegan who eats chips and candy all day without adequate b12, fiber, omega 3 fatty acids etc…is in big big trouble and at risk for all kinds of metabolic and cardiac issues. 

Your guidelines make perfect sense. I find tracking food intake and weighing myself daily makes a huge difference re; weight gain. That and eating beans every day (sorry to my near and dear but it is true) mostly lentils.

Many thanks.

For those who haven’t read this update, these photos show the progress possible when following the advice in the original post above with extreme discipline:

For the record, I’m not at this same low % fat right now. This was for a competition – a level that’s hard to maintain. (That, plus I decided to enjoy a few meals over the holiday season)
But I have been able to maintain the weight reached for the “after” photo in the original post above. The nutrition program detailed above combined with a fitness/sleep/stress management regime is definitely sustainable as an enjoyable lifestyle.
Happy New Year 2018!
Adam

Legumes: Legumes (also known as pulses) include beans (black, kidney, pinto, soybeans and derivative products such as tofu, etc.), lentils, peas, alfalfa, and peanuts and peanut butter. While legumes are seen as less offensive than grains, because they have a higher nutritional value and lower levels of anti-nutrients, paleo deems legumes unnecessary to consume. Legumes are simply not something humans have evolved to eat. Not only should legumes be soaked, sprouted, denatured, and cooked before their nutrients can be fully utilized, but in many cases they are also non-digestible and even toxic if not extensively pre-treated. In fact, one of the most deadly poisons known to man is ricin, a highly toxic poison extracted from the seeds of the castor bean plant. Ricin has been used in military attacks for decades. While cooking does neutralize the toxic effects of a lectin known as PHA (phytohemagglutinin), it does not completely eliminate it. Hence, especially in sensitive people, legume consumption can promote leaky gut syndrome.
Legumes are generally not the great source of protein they are sometimes reputed to be, but, like grains, are an abundant source of cheap carbohydrates that easily convert to glucose. Ironically, one of the main features of legumes touted by some dietitians is that they contain lots of fiber and may assist in bowel health. However, the fiber in beans and most other legumes is not only unnecessary, but can also possibly be counterproductive. As has been the case throughout evolution, optimal fiber intake can occur simply by consuming abundant vegetables. A diet heavy in grains and legumes can easily deliver excess fiber and lead to constipation, inhibited nutrient absorption, and other digestive problems. The fact that legumes commonly cause flatulence (due to the fermentation of indigestible carbohydrates in the intestinal tract) offers a practical indication that they cause digestive distress when ingested.

A sampling of legumes; less offensive than grains, but still not a necessary component of a healthy diet
Saponins: Legumes also contain anti-nutrients called saponins, so named because they foam up like soap when shaken in water. Saponins also provide a chemical defense for plants against microbes and fungi. The detergent-like chemical structure of saponins enable them to easily bind on one end with water molecules and to cholesterol and fat molecules on the other end. Their unique amphiphilic (water soluble paired with water insoluble) structure is what enables saponins to easily create pores on the surface of cells they interact with. Saponins permeate not only gut cell membranes, but also membranes of all other cells. For example, when saponins enter the bloodstream via a leaky gut, they can compromise the ability of red blood cells to process oxygen in a process called hemolysis.
Cooking does not destroy saponins, so beans and legumes will provide you with a full dose, even when cooked. However, fermenting does destroy saponins, making fermented products such as tempeh more attractive to eat. Athletes should take note that soy protein isolate, commonly used in inexpensive protein supplement powders, is extremely high in saponins. Robb Wolf, author of The Paleo Solution, notes that, "saponins are so irritating to the immune system that they are used in vaccine research to help the body mount a powerful immune response. Those suffering acutely from the effects of leaky gut and requiring a strict exclusionary diet often eliminate saponin-containing foods such as all legumes (alfalfa, beans, peas, lentils, soy products), amaranth, buckwheat, and quinoa, chia and flax seeds, and even root beer.
Saponins have also been found to have some anti-inflammatory and anti-microbial properties, but in general can be problematic, especially in sensitive people, due to their ability to permeate cellular linings and mucous linings in the body. Tara Grant, author of The Hidden Plague, says about numerous saponin studies: “It’s evident that consuming saponins can increase your risk for developing bacterial diseases, allergies, and autoimmunity, since bacteria, proteins, and antigens that would normally stay locked up tight within the intestine are free to join up with the saponins and vacation somewhere fun and new, like inside your internal organs.”
Soy dangers: Soy, which has become one of the largest crops in the world and is used in countless processed foods, is not only high in lectins, but has also been shown to have phyto-estrogenic properties (estrogen-like effects when ingested, in both men and women, that can disrupt normal sex hormone cycles). This is due to the presence of agents called “isoflavones” in soy products. Isoflavones are also believed to cause goiters (an enlargement of the thyroid gland), interfere with normal menstrual cycles, and harm the healthy development of infants who drink soy formula13.
Furthermore, the USDA confirms that 94 percent of all soy grown in the USA is genetically modified, one major purpose being to make it resistant to the powerful pesticide product called Roundup. This Roundup Ready genetically modified soy has elevated levels of pesticide residue in the form of glycophosphate and its principal breakdown product, Aminomethylphosponic acid (AMPA). Genetically modified soy also shows an inferior nutritional profile to organically grown soybeans. I have to go with Adam on this one.

At least one phytoestrogen in soy is weak and may displace some natural estrogen and can have an antiestrogenic effect in breast and uterus which may explain some of the reported benefits in select studies. This is not medical advice just added information. I can source this but it is easier to give Dr G’s sources he has about 10 in the transcript version of the soy talk. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/who-shouldnt-eat-soy/. I understand people should talk to their health care providers for advice on any issue.
sprouted legumes are great! they can be used like regular legumes in soups and stews and are very easy to cook.
GMO is a real issue and labeled organic products are safer. I am not being argumentative you make some valid points but it is still a subject under some debate. I personally prefer fermented soy (tempeh). Adam I promise I will not hijack the thread but just wanted to add info. Have a great day!
P.S.In the past 6 months I have lost 20 pounds on a high protein lower carb (almost no wheat/sugar) diet and my body fat has dropped 3 percent but that included a rigorous exercise routine. Everyone is different genetically so ymmv.

https://youtu.be/BMOjVYgYaG8
Also,

High carb, low protein diet leads to long healthy life

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190116-a-high-carb-diet-may-explain-why-okinawans-live-so-long Carbs are good for you
 

Gerry,
By your criteria, this woman may not be competent to comment on the paleo diet since she is an archaeologist, not a nutritional biochemist. But by my criteria, I often find that intelligent people entering a field in which they haven’t been brainwashed by “professional” training can often offer valuable insights. So I will grant that I think she is qualified to comment, at least partially. Her presentation, however, has more holes than a Swiss cheese warehouse.
There is a concept called biochemical individuality. It was first discussed in the 1950s in the titular book by Roger Williams and has been updated in various ways in the ensuing decades. What it states is that we have individual DNA and genetics and therefore, the diet that may suit one individual or population may not suit another. For example, Okinawa is at about 26 deg. latitude, a subtropical climate. Such climates have peoples who function best with relatively high levels of carbohydrate (at least if it’s the correct type of carbohydrate) relative to protein. But put a Northern European on that diet and most of them will not be as healthy as on a diet with a higher level of protein. This is even more true for an Inuit who does best consuming a diet made up almost entirely of protein and fat with very little carbohydrate.
Certainly, people who understand a paleo type diet know that wild game is healthier than most domesticated animals. Also, domesticated cattle, for example, are much healthier is they are raised on grass than on grains. Also, they are much healthier if raised on grass from nutrient rich glacial and alluvial soils versus the depleted soils found in most agricultural areas today.
Paleo people understand that whole, unprocessed, unrefined foods are generally healthier than the opposite so she was actually reinforcing paleo doctrine here. She discussed dentition but doesn’t seem to understand that we indeed have canines that can tear flesh. She discussed digestive tracts but failed to note that we don’t have digestive organs like a cow (i.e. rumen, omasum, reticulum). She said we have to get vitamin C from plants but fails to note how northern indigenous people, whether in Finland or Russia or Alaska or Canada will eat such things as raw reindeer kidney for vitamin C. She claimed that preservation methods counter bacterial growth but failed to note how one of the healthiest preservation methods, fermentation, actually promotes growth of micro-organisms. She failed to recognize how much erroneous information has been generated from isotopic studies, not only nitrogen but also carbon and other substances. In fact, she presents some of the problems in her presentation without recognizing them as such. She tries to explain them away. She fails to note how many wild plant foods don’t have less vitamins and minerals than domesticated versions but rather more. She talks about marrow and organs as if they are separate from eating meat but she doesn’t seem to recognize that paleo people advocate eating organs (from healthy, organic animals) and marrow and, in fact, bone broths made with bones and marrow are recognized as being very beneficial to health. She’s discussing sugar laden soft drinks but they are most definitely excluded from the paleo diet (as is sugar cane). I could go on and on but hopefully you get the point and I don’t have to waste more time Her semi-wild-eyed, somewhat frantic presentation is fairly typical for when people go off half cocked without knowing the facts better. And she doesn’t know how to spell “virtually”, lol.
The paper about the Okinawans and 10:1 ratio of carbs to proteins actually makes a very good case for the multiple reasons BESIDES a 10:1 carbohydrate to protein ratio for the longevity of Okinawan peoples. If you read the paper, you hopefully noted that. Furthermore, anyone who would look at carbohydrate to protein ratio in isolation is a fool since it is critical to look at the macro-nutrient ratios INCLUSIVE of fat (i.e. proteins, carbohydrates, fats). It is also critical to look at the TYPE of carbohydrate as well as the types of proteins and the types of fats. Try being a genetic type that originated north of the 45th parallel and eating a 10:1 carb to protein diet (especially with junky sugary and starchy low micro-nutrient carbs) and you will experience significantly more health issues over the long term than someone consuming a more reasonable ratio.
I think you’re out of your element discussing nutrition. Perhaps best to stick to the climate arena.
And just so you understand, I’m not denying there’s a problem. But I fall in the category of Tom and Dave and I’D REALLY LIKE TO READ WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT TOM’S EXCELLENT QUESTIONS!!!
 

It was first discussed in the 1950s in the titular book by Roger Williams and has been updated in various ways in the ensuing decades
Typically, you refer back to ancient texts written in an almost pre-scientific era, where randomised, placebo-controlled studies were unknown. Nevertheless, I do know the book and have partially read it. It does NOT make the case that you do, namely that groups ("populations" as you put it) of people have different nutritional needs based on geography. Humans have the same nutritional needs all over the globe. So that's the first error you make. Individuals within groups may have aversions to certain foods, or like me, even have medical reasons not to eat some foods (I'm celiac). But that's not the same as claiming that people in warm climates "need" plant based diets and those in cold "need" meat based diets. That's bullsht. The human is an omnivorous animal that can survive, opportunistically, in any landscape. You can take a northern European and put him in the Tropics, and he'll be just fine on the local foods. There is no scientific paper suggesting otherwise. Paleo diets have been discounted by almost all leading nutritionists. On a personal note, I have lost 30lbs on a diet consisting mainly of carbohydrates. I eat a little sugar every day, because I enjoy it. The diet that works for you is the diet you can tolerate long term. Low carb diets are notorious for being boring and hard to maintain (I tried one, so I know how true that is). I won't answer you again. Your brain is full of fuzzy ideas and you have a unique talent at grabbing the wrong end of the stick. Life must be hard for you.

…unless you can refrain from insulting PP members in your comments and otherwise disregarding the PP guidelines and rules. For your convenience and enlightenment, I’ll provide you with the link: https://peakprosperity.com/forum-topic/forum-guidelines-and-rules/
You’re welcome.

You shouldn’t have answered it for once again you’ve proven yourself wrong. The book mentioned has been updated and is far from the sole source of information on this subject. You “partially” read it? My sense is that you may “partially” do other things as well. Better to do them to completion. You’ll get more out of them. I have a personal library with hundreds of volumes and thousands of articles on the subject of nutrition and lectured on it professionally so I think I might have a little advantage over you here.
Again, you need to brush up on your history more. The 1950s was hardly an “almost pre-scientific era”. I don’t think radio, telephones, TV, fixed wing air craft, helicopters, jet engines, rockets, transistors, computers, and nuclear bombs were invented by random happenings (unless you think that’s another component of evolution but with inorganic rather than organic matter). As an aside, “ancient” texts often contain valuable knowledge and wisdom forgotten or overlooked by modern texts. Your tendency to dismiss older writing as incorrect or useless is a fallacious assumption.
Genetics related to the area of indigenous origin most assuredly DOES determine different nutritional needs because area of indigenous origin influences genetics. Are you dismissing evolution again, lol? And are you assuming we all have the same genetics? That’s ludicrous. Assuming we all have the same genetics with regards to the assimilation and elimination components of digestion is as absurd as assuming we all have the same genetics in terms of our adaptation, resistance, and exhaustion responses with regards to stress. It’s time to wake up and enter the 21st century Gerry. I worked in a medical school gastrointestinal physiology laboratory on just these issues. Ever hear of such things as lactase deficiency? Do you think there’s a genetic component to your celiac disease? Of course! You just proved my point.
In discussing diets, I never used the word “need”. Those quote marks are yours, not mine. I discussed functioning more optimally versus your “be(ing) just fine”. Humans are indeed omnivorous but there are more optimal diets and less optimal diets, depending upon genetics, environment, etc… Dietary requirements also change depending upon age and your stage in the life cycle. In addition, reams of exercise physiology research shows that optimal nutrition changes depending upon the nature, volume, duration, intensity, periodicity, etc. of the physical work loads placed upon the organism.
It seems like your knowledge of the literature on this subject is a bit thin. Your statements prove that. Unfortunately, even the vast majority of professions in the medical field are also unaware of much of this knowledge but that is changing. In fact, I leveraged this very fact to my advantage and had a very successful career providing exactly this type information and treatments unknown to the majority of professionals. While most were just beginning to focus on “evidence based” treatments, I had done that years previously, noted its limitations, and decided to incorporate that information but, more importantly, move on to “success based” treatments. The evidence based crowd typically lags behind cutting edge knowledge by anywhere from 5 to 15 years and that time interval gave me a tremendous leg up on the competition.
Unlike you, I haven’t had to lose 30 lbs. My body weight has been very stable for decades, blood chemistries are excellent, blood pressure is low, resting heart rate varies from 50s during the day to as low as 48 at night, and physical performance abilities exceed 99+% of those in my age category. The diet I’ve followed for years is a variation on the paleo diet. I don’t eschew all carbs but my carbs are skewed towards the fibrous carbs like vegetables and fruits and away from the sugary and starchy carbs (especially the refined and processed ones) such as those from grains. You probably need the sugar every day for the serotonin hit, perhaps because you’re not very happy. I don’t have those cravings. Furthermore, my diet is far from boring. I would guess that’s because my wife is a fantastic cook and knows how to use the freshest ingredients, spices, etc. to make consistently delicious meals. I tell her this every day and she laughs but I know she enjoys hearing it. She’s the best.
You know, I never thought about it but perhaps my brain IS full of fuzzy ideas. Fuzzy logic has numerous advantages over the boolean logic by which you appear to function. My sense is that you’re a very linear and rigid thinker, unable or unwilling to think outside the box, exercise intuition and creativity, and embrace alternative ideas. That’s rather sad.
Life now, in fact, is the easiest in my life. I’m retired, financially independent, live in a beautiful part of the world that is a tourist destination for many, travel extensively (including to 32 countries with 10 more on the agenda in the year to come), have excellent health, and have a wonderful family and great friends. On a personal level, I really could ask for little more. I wish you the same.

You are 100% spot on this post. Comments:

  1. Yes, diet is 80%. Free weights/sleep are the other 20%
  2. Yes, our diet is like yours: eggs/salmon/meat/veg/olive oil/rice.
  3. 2 meals/day. skip 1 meal/week, and eat as much as we desire.
  4. Books: Nutrition & Physical Degeneration (Price) & Get Serious (Osborn). Both free online.
  5. Supplements: magnesium, iodine, Vit D
  6. Results conclusive. zero cavities in 2-dig fam, perfect BMIs/BP/RHR, muscle, zero calorie restriction.
    90% of diet is ditching processed foods (unless one considers rice & olive oil processed).
    One thing to disagree with: staying fit is not “hard” at all. It’s easy if one just cooks their own food, likes to hunt/fish, and lifts weights 3x week 1 hr, runs 2x week 1/2 hr.

Thought I’d share this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niwqfwA2Lb8

I read some of the articles referred to as promoting the paleo diet. The articles emphasize insulin resistance but generally lack data on effects of all that saturated fat on heart disease. One study was referred to as proof that saturated fat in eggs is heart disease neutral. I read the research article, which actually stated that “daily egg consumption (≥1/d) (versus <7/week) was associated with a 30% higher risk of HF (heart failure)” in the men studied. Since heart failure is the number one cause of death in America, this small fact (one or more eggs per day causing 30% higher heat failures compared merely to those who only ate up to 6 eggs per week) really sticks out, as pertaining to only one food item (not even including trans fat margarine, red meat, cheese etc).
I note that paleolithic man had a life span of about 30 years and lacked diseases of aging, and that heart disease from saturated fat takes a long time, and generally does not affect morbidity or survival (eg. reproduction) of sub-30 year olds. I also note that saturated fat is not needed in any human diet as the body’s capacity to synthesize such is trivial. I further note that cholesterol in diet is fairly irrelevant and those who argue the wonders of saturated fat often point to the lack of effects from dietary cholesterol as their reason.
I try to stay out of nutrition arguments because people usually scream advertising slogans at me, but wanted to point these facts out due to my worry: so many people close to me have died from heart failure, in fact most. I prefer a classic Asian diet associated with basically no heart attacks and ischemic strokes, while noting that heart failure has started in Eastern Asia following the introduction of fatty red meat and cheese from America, (ok argue with me that suddenly after all these years with virtually no heart disease people in Japan start to get heart attacks from overwork, as their workweek shrinks by at least a day, they get an extra 10 holidays per year and generally work fewer hours per day). Insulin problems seem to be under control despite the constant input of rice, although the Paleo diet benefits due to weird glial protein of wheat and arthritis/celiac disease seem to be good points.

Many of these studies are flawed Mots. Very, very few nutritional studies consider the genetic factor. And you can never look at one or even a handful of studies in isolation. And you can’t just read the abstract. You have to read the study in detail. And you also have to figure out who funded the study. There are lots of other variables to consider as well. Nutrition is actually very difficult to research properly.
With regards to the quality of research, one of my particular areas of expertise is low back pain and dysfunction. At least 95% of the studies in this area (and maybe more) are junk and performed by people who just aren’t that knowledgeable on the subject in a comprehensive way (but think they are). So I take most studies with a grain of salt unless there is a growing preponderance of the best studies supporting a particular idea.
Eggs are actually one of the healthiest foods you can eat. But think of your average egg eater in the US. They have their bacon with eggs or sausage or both, toast with butter (or worse, margarine) and jam, coffee with sugar and milk, sugary orange juice, etc. Furthermore, the saturated fat in cattle that are fattened with grain is much less healthy than the saturated fat in cattle fed grass from rich soils. For one, the omega-3 fatty acid content is extremely low in the grain fed and quite high in the grass fed. It’s one of the reasons buffalo meat is so healthy. Sugar is a HUGE factor, probably the most important factor dietarily in contributing to poor health. Populations shifting towards a Western diet of red meat, cheese, etc. almost invariably increase their sugar intake as well. They also start dropping their vegetable intake as well as dropping whole grain (but not refined grain) and legume content. It’s the combination of sugar and unhealthy fats with lower micro-nutrient and lower fiber intake that’s the problem. If you’ve happened to note, such populations as the Chinese are getting taller now that they are getting “better” nutrition. I use the word “better” loosely because there is obviously an upside (taller, stronger, etc.) with a downside (more Western diseases of civilization). They are getting more protein and more calories but they are also getting more sugars, trans fats, etc. and less fiber. So one can approach the problem from the opposite way and combine the best elements of a Western diet and an Eastern diet and wind up with the best of both worlds. This is why I eat a diversity of protein from wild game, meat, poultry, fish, seafood, and eggs (but little dairy and then only fermented) as well as nuts and seeds but also an abundance and diversity of all different types of vegetables as well as fruits and also many different kinds of spices. The wheat, corn, soy, sugar, etc. in our Western diet is a particular problem.
With regards to eggs again, just like with meat, you have to look at what the chickens are eating. It is very difficult to buy eggs from chickens that have not been fed soy, for example. But from quality sources, eggs are extremely nutritious. My grandfather had 3 a day and lived to his 90s. I have 6 eggs at a time (but remove the yolks from 3) and eat that 3 times a week. My blood chemistries are perfect. I can swim a mile in 58 deg. water without fatigue. All systems are go at 66.
I’m not sure what you mean by this sentence but if you clarify it, I may be able to better understand what you are saying

I also note that saturated fat is not needed in any human diet as the body’s capacity to synthesize such is trivial.
By the way, heart disease from unhealthy eating and stress does not take a long time to form. Autopsies done on young US soldiers not even out of their teens during the Korean War showed arteriosclerotic streaks and plaques were already forming. I'm not legalistic about the paleo diet and don't necessarily follow every single detail to the letter nor agree with them all to the letter. But certain advantages of this diet and similar diets, be it Atkins, Zone, South Beach, etc. are undeniable. Keys are: Consider the genetics of your forebearers. In other words, if you're an East Asian, I wouldn't be eating an Inuit diet. And if you're Inuit, I wouldn't be eating an East Asian diet. Most of us are highly hybridized though making the choices more difficulty but genetic testing to determine the most optimal diet will get better and better. In the mean time, refining your somatic awareness and sensitivity can improve your ability to discern which foods are good for you and which foods are not. That's especially true when you push yourself to physical limits and sensitize yourself to the boundaries of those limits. This information often becomes very clear. If you're doing yoga for example, you'll notice being a little stiffer if you indulge in sugar. For some people, at the end of harvest season, when they may be eating a lot of tomatoes, they may feel slightly more achey. This is especially true of individuals who are nightshade sensitive. Ditto for the big potato eaters. You get the picture. Eat natural, whole, unrefined, unprocessed foods for the most part (with the exception being certain fermented foods where the "processing" actually increases the health and digestibility of the food). Don't go too extreme on macro-nutrient ratios (in other words, COMPLETELY deleting either carbs or fats) and get plenty of protein but not too much. Each of these macro-nutrients has their roles. And consider the type and quality of your macronutrients. If you are living in a hot climate, lower levels of protein and fat and proteins like leaner fish and poultry may suit you better. If you are living in an arctic region, then higher levels of protein and fat with red meat and fatty fish may suit you better (but again, with consideration of genetics). Consider the soil your food is grown on and the foods the animals you consume eat and the chemicals that might be added to either. That is a major factor in the health of the foods you eat. Always balance and moderation - extremes tend to produce short term results but will create problems in the long term (like the potato hack noted elsewhere). The above is not meant to be comprehensive but just thoughts as they came to mind. Hope this helps.

AO, I don’t disagree with anything you write. Re. my sentence about saturated fat requirement, I just pointed out that saturated fat is not needed in a diet (but polyunsaturates are).
I too used to lecture on biochemistry and nutrition in my own college biochemistry course. My favorite topic was molecular logic (differences between plants and animals who evolved their own high lysine vs low lysine proteins, reducing vs non reducing storage sugars, saturated vs unsaturated fats etc in response to environmental challenges: I probably should have written that book I wanted to, maybe you might be interested), including many of the points you have made regarding genetics and differences. I too, have read hundreds and probably thousands of nutrition research studies based on biochemistry in great detail, often criticizing them in formal seminars with other PhDs and PhD graduate students in a major university and was a nutrition researcher (I discovered the selenium transport protein and won an award for that) for a few years in a major laboratory that among other things discovered the antioxidant vitamin E (we subsequently spent a few million tax dollars trying to prove that antioxidants added to food prevents free radical problems of aging or other damage: all negative results), the selenocysteine t-RNA (and thus separate codon) in one of the top 3 nutrition graduate schools. I became very disgusted with nutrition research and left that field because I did not want to waste my time. It has become much worse since then, almost mind numbing how money affects everything.
The only reason I commented is because I am worried that people I care about are killing themselves with saturated fat. The biochemistry of this problem was worked out a long time ago and is very logical and predictive (the lipoprotein anabolizing and catabolizing enzymes in omnivores and herbavores are designed for more fluid fatty acids than are the same enzymes in carnivores and cannot handle the “harder” saturated fatty acids). The trans fatty acids found in margarines and many junk foods are even more bizarre and even less natural and the body has even more problems with these, for example. There are so many complicating factors I don’t want to even begin because I DONT HAVE TIME FOR THIS. But even the main article cited for how wonderful the paleo diet is cited a study that contradicted a main conclusion. We went through a similar high fat low carb craze with the Atkins diet 15 years ago until Atkins taught everyone more directly by dying from heart failure, which his widow tried to cover up to keep the book sales going.
I DO NOT HAVE TIME FOR THIS AND WILL NOT RESPOND AGAIN ON THIS TOPIC

Yes Mots, a medical report issued by the New York medical examiner’s office a year after Atkins’s death showed that Atkins had a history of heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension and noted that he weighed 258 pounds at death. His widow refused to allow an autopsy because it is likely that he actually died from a heart attack by suddenly falling over in the street. So his estate has managed to paper over it by claiming he died from hitting his head and suffering a brain clot. Atkins was only 72 as well, relatively young, and quite fat. So much for low carb diets!
The research I linked above is also compelling. I’ll quote some of it here because it seems to have been ignored:

New research from the University of Sydney’s Charles Perkins Centre suggests a low protein, high carbohydrate diet may be the most effective for stimulating a hormone with life-extending and obesity-fighting benefits. The findings, published today in Cell Metabolism, paint a clearer picture of the role of a little-known hormone called Fibroblast Growth Factor 21 (FGF21) – the so-called ‘fountain of youth’ hormone produced primarily in the liver. Previous studies have shown that FGF21 plays a role in curbing appetite, moderating metabolism, improving the immune system and extending lifespan. It is also currently being used as a therapeutic target for diabetes, though little is known about how this hormone is triggered and released in the body. Now researchers from the Charles Perkins Centre have found that diets high in carbohydrate and low in protein are the best for boosting levels of FGF21 in mice. “Despite the popularity of high protein ‘paleo’ diets, our research suggests the exact opposite may be best for us as we age – that a low protein, high carbohydrate diet was the most beneficial for latelife health and longevity,” said lead author Dr Samantha Solon-Biet.
Lastly, plant-based diets simply MUST supercede meat and protein based diets if we are to have any hope of controlling global heating. For example, beef is more than 100 times as emissions-intensive as legumes. BTW I eat a LOT of baked goods made from legume flour, specifically lentil flour, home made. I have no unusual gas, and my bowel motions are normal.

Change your diet to combat climate change in 2019

And if you are not ready for a meat-free diet, try a "flexitarian" diet. This diet includes plenty of fruits, vegetables and plant-based protein sources including legumes, soybeans and nuts, along with modest amounts of poultry, fish, milk and eggs, and small amounts of red meat.