Is the paleo diet low-carb?

Posted Sat, 03/27/2010 - 11:02 by Melissa

 Cordian looked at the food intake of studied hunter gatherers and concluded:

"Of the 229 hunter-gatherer societies listed in the Ethnographic Atlas, 58% (n = 133) obtained >=66% of their subsistence from animal foods in contrast with 4% (n = 8) of societies that obtain >=66% of their subsistence from gathered plant foods...For worldwide hunter-gatherers, the most plausible (values not exceeding the mean MRUS) percentages of total energy from the macronutrients would be 19–35% for protein, 22–40% for carbohydrate, and 28–58% for fat "

Paleolithic people clearly preferred animal foods as they represented the highest quality nutrition, but only those without the choice to eat plants survived on very low carb diets and the Inuit clearly prized berries when they were in season. 

I think a very low carb approach to paleo is as un-paleolithic as a vegan approach. Both can be done and technically fit the definition of paleo, but they are far from optimal. The funny thing as that the people I know on very low carb are often as dependent on supplements as vegans, which doesn't speak much to the suitability of their diet for humans. Although it probably doesn't help that they often don't really try to emulate the diet of successful human carnivores like the Inuit who certainly consumed more than just ground beef. They ate kelp, berries, and a wide variety of meats ranging from fish to polar bear. In fact, arctic foods like smelt and seal are very high potassium and would prevent cramping. 

 

Comments

It would be interesting to

by Anonymous - 04/04/2010 - 12:50

It would be interesting to see a Paleo response to this: http://permavegan.blogspot.com/2010/04/does-carbon-isotope-analysis-of-d...

I actually agree that that

by Melissa - 04/04/2010 - 20:21

I actually agree that that particular isotope analysis + other evidence does not support the idea of Australopithecus as a meat eater. I would say the evidence is inconclusive.

Whether that has bearing on our human diet is another question entirely, I would agree no because of the expensive tissue hypothesis which posits that the very important evolutionary changes since then, including our very large brains, were the result of either cooking, meat eating, or both.

I think the real question is

by Nicole - 03/28/2010 - 06:55

I think the real question is "what is low carb"? I do eat fruit (and high-quality dairy), and I do measure my BG fasting and post-prandial, and it is simply not an issue for me. My blood sugars are more stable this way than when I was keto adapted. I eat 75-100g of carbs a day (not "net" carbs - fiber is still in that count).

What does send my sugars through the roof is corn. Tortilla chips are a BG disaster for me, and really anything from corn causes me some kind of problem. I have celiac, so I never eat gluten grains. Soy especially but other legumes too are extremely destructive to my digestive processes. Fruit does nothing bad to me at all, and I'm not tempted to just keep eating it, as I am with corn chips or deep-fried potatoes.

I'm starting to think I was never actually insulin resistant when I was fat. I think my problems all along have been thyroid and female hormones. I'm the kind of person who stalls out on LC weight loss very quickly. When my
When I was burning ketones, I had more issues with hypoglycemia and lack of satiety signals than I ever have now. I never had central abdominal obesity. Even at my highest weight (back in 1999), I was still hourglass shaped, just very very well padded.

We're all taught to believe that there really is nothing wrong with the thyroid if the blood tests say there isn't - we're just fat and lazy!. I'm finding out that isn't the case after all. Thank goodness.

Melissa, Have you tried ghee?

by Michael - 03/28/2010 - 01:01

Melissa,

Have you tried ghee?

I really find it incredibly

by Geoff - 03/27/2010 - 16:33

I really find it incredibly hard to believe that people were getting somewhere in the range of 400+ calories a day from carbohydrate at any point prior to agriculture. It's just far too rare a macronutrient in nature, and the forms that it comes in are not very palatable. Additionally, I don't think that the paleontological evidence or fossil record support this.

It almost sounds to me like you're turning paleo into a religion as opposed to a movement grounded in disease prevention. Eating paleo is not about avoiding neolithic agents for the sake of avoiding neolithic agents, it's about eating foods with a healthy macronutrient profile, which is why someone like Dr. Harris still recommends milk fats despite the fact that we weren't milking cows in the paleolithic era.

As far as I can tell, we adapted omnivorous capabilities for survival in famine, not daily sustainance. How our bodies respond to very low carb diets as laid out in a bood like GCBC is further evidence of this to me.

Lastly, I'd like to note the importance of ketosis and keto-adaptation. My buddy Anthony made a good point with regard to this in his post here: http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2010/03/16/finer-points-of-nutrition-new-t.... It is complete nonsense for me to imagine living in the wild and not being keto-adapted. Eating a 22% carb diet would prevent this.

If you are doing paleo for

by Melissa - 03/27/2010 - 17:14

If you are doing paleo for autoimmune issues, things are little different. Milk messes with many illnesses and I'm happier in my skin is clearer without it. The autoimmune approach is to evaluate neolithic agents through an elimination diet to determine which are the problems. 

There is definitely plenty of evidence for the use of roots and tubers in the early human diet. How are carbs rare in nature? Have you ever been to the tropics?

People who believe carbs are rare need to read more actual anthropology. If fact, I'd say there is stronger evidence for this part of the diet than for high fat consumption. There are thousands of different species that early humans and studied hunter-gatherers drew on for carbohydrates ranging from the prairie turnip to wild fruits. Yes, lower carb than many modern foods, but they were still eating carbs.

I specifically singled out

by Geoff - 03/27/2010 - 17:45

I specifically singled out cream and butter as compared to milk for this reason.

I admittedly am not especially well read on the subject, but I am fairly confident that I have read somewhere that the fossil record shows teeth that primarily ate meat, and does not show the wear that would be caused by long term consumption of roots and tubers.

Also, I don't think that the tropics aren't particularly relevant, as Homo Sapiens did not evolve in the tropics. We evolved as a result of a series of ice ages in central Africa pushing us south, from a population that is estimated to be about 600 people or so, which is why we are so genetically similar as compared to all other species. A lot of "gathering" is actually just grabbing shellfish off of a beach during low tides and bringing them back to caves to cook.

How does it even make sense that we ate that much of something for millions of years when we for all intents and purposes cannot digest it? I personally cannot wrap my head around it. Then of course you have the long term health benefits of eating very low carb, which again are pretty tough to ignore.

Looking past all of this though, I still think that ketosis is the best evidence of our lack of carbohydrate in our diet. I believe our bodies probably run more efficiently in ketosis, and when you look at how difficult it would be to survive in the wild without being keto-adapted, it will require some extremely compelling evidence to overturn.

I think there is evidence

by Melissa - 03/27/2010 - 18:03

I think there is evidence both ways. Humans digest starch very well and even have some genetic adaptations for it.

Most of our evolution was in the tropics, but there have clearly been changes since then. You should eat what makes you feel good and I firmly believe that varies between people.

I unfortunately react even to delicious butter. Wish I could eat it, perhaps someday that reaction would go away, but these days I tolerate only very small amounts.

I definitely agree with the gathering not equaling plants. Gathering was as you said shellfish...also lizards, turtles, grubs, small mammals. I'd pick catching turtles over digging for potatoes any day.

We certainly adapted to

by Martin Levac - 03/28/2010 - 20:00

We certainly adapted to eating starch genetically. But we developed an entire organ, the gall bladder, dedicated to the digestion of fat. Indeed, when we eat too little fat, bile salts accumulate into stones which then block the passage and ultimately results in infection and probably death in an environment where there is no modern medicine. An entire organ versus a few genes that turn on certain digestive enzymes.

The evidence in favor of eating carbs in any quantity is weak when compared to the evidence in favor of eating few or even no carbs and lots of fat animal flesh. The very first piece of evidence that should tell us something, but we're not listening, is that carbohydrate is not essential to humans, i.e. we don't need to eat a single iota of it to maintain perfect health indefinitely. How can we posit that we've eaten carbs in any significant quantities in our past then?

From a natural selection perspective, this means we are the descendants of those who survived a period when the only food available to us was animal flesh. Or rather, we are certainly not the descendants of those for whom plant foods were essential. This could mean those who required plant foods died off, or they remained in the forest while we went out in the plains. It doesn't matter, the result is the same anyway: We don't need carbs.

I'm sorry to hear that. I go

by Geoff - 03/27/2010 - 18:17

I'm sorry to hear that. I go through about a pound of grass fed amish butter a week, although admittedly I eat about 4000 calories a day desperately trying to put on muscle.

Again though, I think that the fact that we have an adaptation for digesting starch is more likely evidence that we digested it as a matter of survival than as a matter of daily consumption. Genetic adaptations really only win out when they give you a competitive advantage over the person next to you, which being able to digest starch during famine would be, while being able to digest starch as 22% of your daily intake would not be.

I think there is some

by Melissa - 03/27/2010 - 18:36

I think there is some evidence that the feast-famine cycle has benefits...at least that's what the IF studies suggest.

Right now until I get a better job I am on a famine. If I had more cash money I'd pretty much eat mostly lamb, venison, and duck....maybe berries and some some carbs on the side. There is no question that meat is nutritionally the holy grail.

I also definitely don't need more muscle...haha, I am often glad that I am a girl and would look very scary IMHO doing some of the muscle building things my male paleo friends are doing. I did in the past and I did look scary. I am a normal woman, but woman in my family tend to build up muscles quickly and in large amounts.

I hear that. I spend about

by Geoff - 03/27/2010 - 18:48

I hear that. I spend about $40 a day on food, it's not an easy lifestyle to maintain. What's this business about supplementing an all meat diet btw? With the exception of Vitamin D if you don't get enough sunlight, I see no reason to supplement meat for someone who is avoiding plants.

I spent between $10-15 a day

by Anthony "Dream" Johnson - 03/27/2010 - 20:07

I spent between $10-15 a day on animal products. $40 a day... holy crap! lol. I suppose if you are eating in the realm of 4,000 calories though that would make a bit more sense.

@Melissa

I obviously side with Geoff and think he has articulated himself well in the comments here. If there is something you think I could add feel free to ask though.

Also, have you tried eating ghee? Clarified butter may not cause any problems for you.

I know ZC who can't go

by Melissa - 03/27/2010 - 21:51

I know ZC who can't go without supplements or they have cramping, although these are people who have chosen to eat only ruminant muscle meat, which I think is inane. If they had some salmon once in awhile I think they would probably not need supplements, but it's truly amazing how many ZC I know who just eat things like chicken and ground beef.

I think Don at Primal Wisdom has made some good arguments why the Inuit diet, while it prevents diseases of civ, is still a suboptimal one. From what I've seen and studied of higher carb hunter-gatherers, they look much better.

I think any form of paleo diet is great and I think there is strong evidence that both high and low carb can work. In the end it's just splitting hairs...yeah, the Eskimos seem to have some bone density issues later in life, but it's not like they are getting diabetes.

low carb Paleo is a good

by Anonymous - 03/27/2010 - 15:47

low carb Paleo is a good choice for diabetics, though. Perhaps other conditions.

Melissa, could you list the

by Louisa - 03/27/2010 - 15:14

Melissa, could you list the carbs you would consider as 'beneficial' on the paleo diet?