The paleo diet borrows many concepts from Weston Price, who did some serious research in contrast with the mostly faddish nature of the former.

He had many more good insights. I think a major point is some fat soluble nutrients are essential. That's why eating bone broth or organ meat is so important.

I think an optimal diet is probably mostly plant based, with high quality animal fats and no oils for cooking.

"Restrict calories" is a great terminal goal, but terrible advice. Trying to be hungry and not eat is a quick way to exhaust all your willpower.

What's generally much more effective is applying rules to your eating habits that result in calorie restriction. Intermittent Fasting or Keto works best, from what I've seen. The former because it requires no willpower for what you eat, or how much - only when. Keto works well because it requires zero willpower for how much you eat or when, only what. Either approach goes to the same place as "just eat less" with much less mental effort.

telling someone who is obese to just stop eating is like telling an alcoholic to just stop drinking. accurate, but useless.

Keto isn't suitable for everyone's lifestyle. You don't have to be hungry to restrict calories, just eat foods that are more satiating per calorie. The satiety index is a decent guide. And avoid large carby meals because in my experience the insulin crash causes huge food cravings.

I've done a bit of intermittent fasting - found it to be fairly easy.

>"Restrict calories" is a great terminal goal, but terrible advice.

Well I'm not talking counting the calories. In my case its more a general principle. e.g. I'll try to avoid a carb heavy meal.

I have the same two beliefs and another one: 3) Everything in moderation.

All the things that we belief to "know" today could once again be proven wrong tomorrow. Just because someone claims that butter, coconut oil, bacon or almond meal is healthy, that doesn't mean you have to go crazy with it and eat large amounts of it daily. Or the other way around: just because some people think that dairy or grains are harmful, for a lot of people it may not be an issue at all to eat them every once in a while (at least if someone is able to e.g. eat only one slice of sourdough bread and then not go carb crazy; I'm not).

I just think given the fact how often we've been wrong in the past, it is smarter to decrease risks by not overusing any kind of food group.

Do you have any evidence to support that 'processed' food is worse than the alternative?

>Do you have any evidence to support that 'processed' food is worse than the alternative?

I don't. Thats why I labelled it "beliefs". If I've got a choice between 1) Carrot 2) Carrot flavoured goo then I'm not going to look for a peer reviewed journal supporting the view that the carrot is better.

I've simply drawn a line in the sand and decided that give uncertainty I'll place my faith in the carrot rather than whatever a profit seeking enterprise engineered for me. We all make decisions in the face of uncertainty & this is one of those judgement calls.

I genuinely believe science can do better than nature can (i.e. engineered functional foods)...but right now looking at the supermarket...its not there for me to buy so I will continue buying nature.

Typically you're looking at more sugar and salt in anything processed.

Do you have evidence to support that more sugar and salt is detrimental?

This question doesn't make any sense unless there's a baseline from which 'more' is measured. In my very anecdotal and useless experience of most Americans I know, more sugar would be very bad, and more salt is mostly harmless. But there's obviously levels of both which are too low and too high.

Not sure if you're just trolling. Regarding sugar, processed foods usually are high in high-fructose corn syrup - yes, there evidence that is bad. On youtube, search "sugar bitter truth" for a lecture from U of California.

Regarding salt, "the experts" don't seem so confident on what levels. In the past few years, the daily recommended intake of sodium has increased.

I found the lectures by Robert Lustig to be very convincing. I spent a couple of hours listening and trying as best I could be verify the biological pathways referenced, it all checked out.

I do not 'troll'. It's an open ended question, not a forgone conclusion.

Do you have evidence to support that you do not 'troll'?

Well, trolling is I think largely based on intent.

If one does not believe that they were trolling (i.e. they do not believe that they were doing what trolling is. This is a belief about what they were doing, not a belief about what the word "trolling" means), then that seems like fairly good evidence that they were not trolling.

I don't know what would be a better (and available) measure of one's intent than one's own perception of one's own intent. (Of course, one could imagine that there might be a better source, but in practice I think it is the best evidence we have).

This would only be as convincing to oneself I suppose, but I think that one's memory of one's intent is generally fairly good evidence to present to oneself to show that one was not trolling.

Sugar, fat and salt taste good. That means that humans and animals evolved to seek them out. If they were unequivocally bad for us, we would have evolved to find them disgusting.

We evolved those tastes at a time when 1) those things were much harder to get and b) energy needs were higher due to more physical lifestyles.

If you are burning 5000 calories a day hunting or farming, eat all the sugar and fat you want (and can get by your own efforts). But if you are burning 2000 calories a day sitting at a desk... You can't debate food in a vacuum without considering lifestyle.

So it's okay to drink sea water?

You could probably cook pasta with it.

does it taste good?

Also processed stuff usually doesn't taste as good. The enjoyment you derive from eating contributes to your physical health.

>>Also processed stuff usually doesn't taste as good.

This isn't true. The entire reason there's more salt and sugar in processed foods is to make them taste good. Compare a Snickers bar with broccoli.

Well-prepared broccoli certainly tastes better than a Snickers bar.

Objectively, no. Humans have evolved to enjoy salty and sweet things, due to evolutionary reasons. You may prefer well-prepared broccoli over a Snickers bar, but I can guarantee that that's an acquired taste. 6-month old jesseaustin most likely swung the other way. :)

6-mo me consumed milk, exclusively. b^)

Taste is subjective, can't really make general statements.

Indeed.

By all means, if you think processed food tastes better, then that's what you should be eating, at least as far as good taste -> enjoyment -> good mental health -> good physical health is concerned. But, it's worth your time to do proper comparisons and not write off unfamiliar things.

...to you.

The truth is that most diets "work" in the sense that, any amount of actually thinking about what you eat is better than just shoveling in whatever was last on TV or a billboard!

I agree. When I "diet", it's more about snapping out of mindless consumption and thinking about what kinds of food and how many calories I consume. As soon as I'm in that mindset, I immediately start noticing calories, sugar levels, and quantity.

Isn't that the actual meaning of diet? It does not mean healthy. I can do a chocolate diet. It only means to plan what you eat.