What is the difference between paleo and RP diet?

[gomkat]

I started half a grain of thyroid after feeling low energy and other symptoms. I’m able to fall asleep at night now (without magnesium and melatonin) and my hair falls out less, but I gained 7 pounds since starting it and I’m bordering on obese.

My labs were normal (cusp of subclinical) before and I retested with the same thyroid lab values. So on to gluten free I go- my doc and the research says that gf helps thyroid. So then I was looking into it and found autoimmune paleo and it made a lot of sense because I was keto and inflamed and crashed years ago even though I was at a healthier weight. So, now I’m wondering why RP followers seem to act like paleo is so different from RP diet. RP always talks about easy to digest food. I mean, sure, for RP diet there is more sweetner variety + almost gf sourdough, but overall the diets seem so similar. Paleo seems to be the most easily digestible food in addition to sweet molasses and other sugars that are easy for the body. Can someone help me navigate why paleo would be so bad?

 

[tankasnowgod]

So, now I’m wondering why RP followers seem to act like paleo is so different from RP diet.

Because it is. I think it could be summed up in the word "sugar."

RP always talks about easy to digest food. I mean, sure, for RP diet there is more sweetner variety + almost gf sourdough, but overall the diets seem so similar. Paleo seems to be the most easily digestible food in addition to sweet molasses and other sugars that are easy for the body. Can someone help me navigate why paleo would be so bad?

"Paleo" is somewhat of an ill defined term, but it tends to be presented more as a low carb diet. Ray Peat does not recommend a low carb diet, though carb intake could vary quite a bit. I think most people might be getting 300-400 grams of carbs, mostly from sugar, a day, but something on the lower end, like 150g would probably be good for some. Fruit and honey is preferred, but using refined sugar and soda is still fine. There's also a focus on calcium that isn't there most paleo diets.

Paleo often suggests 72g or less of carbs a day, and something like 150g might be more of a "refeed" day. Those carbs would usually be suggested to come from starches. Plus, two of the foods Peat most frequently suggests (Orange Juice and Milk) technically aren't paleo at all.

There are some similar foods that are frowned upon (gluten, high PUFA vegetable oils, many processed foods), and lots of foods that would fit in both diets (beef, fruits, honey). If you put together a higher carb "paleo" diet with lots of fruit and honey, and included milk or focused on calcium in some other way, that would be the sort of overlap between the two.

 

[Riesensackteil]

Paleo is broad term and there is no strict RP diet.
Peat is more so a psychotherapist here and those therapies only work if the client tries to help himself. At least in my opinion

 

[reaching]

Both aren’t real.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Paleo is based on the ridiculous notion that what people trying to survive on limited resources are is somehow optimal, garnished with a complete lack of understanding of how actual pre-industrial peoples ate and the ignorance of the huge variety of diets found around the world.

It is an ideology.

Peat's works is an attempt to understand the human and individual physiology in order to have be healthy.

 

[DennisX]

It's funny that no one on a so called Peat diet or any other diet claim posts their blood labs. I mean full blood labs like testosterone, crp, uric acid, insulin, kidney, liver, glucose, etc etc.

 

[mm33]

Because it is. I think it could be summed up in the word "sugar."

"Paleo" is somewhat of an ill defined term, but it tends to be presented more as a low carb diet. Ray Peat does not recommend a low carb diet, though carb intake could vary quite a bit. I think most people might be getting 300-400 grams of carbs, mostly from sugar, a day, but something on the lower end, like 150g would probably be good for some. Fruit and honey is preferred, but using refined sugar and soda is still fine. There's also a focus on calcium that isn't there most paleo diets.

Paleo often suggests 72g or less of carbs a day, and something like 150g might be more of a "refeed" day. Those carbs would usually be suggested to come from starches. Plus, two of the foods Peat most frequently suggests (Orange Juice and Milk) technically aren't paleo at all.

There are some similar foods that are frowned upon (gluten, high PUFA vegetable oils, many processed foods), and lots of foods that would fit in both diets (beef, fruits, honey). If you put together a higher carb "paleo" diet with lots of fruit and honey, and included milk or focused on calcium in some other way, that would be the sort of overlap between the two.

Very nice, succinct and accurate reply Tank!

 

[tankasnowgod]

Both aren’t real.

If you get too far down the rabbit hole, nothing is real.

 

[tankasnowgod]

It's funny that no one on a so called Peat diet or any other diet claim posts their blood labs.

I think it boils down to this thing called "None of your business."

Plus, average dieters probably never even run blood tests. And the majority of those that do probably don't even know the specific result, they probably just accept whatever their doctor says (eg, "Your testosterone is normal, Thyroid looks a little low, etc).

 

[DennisX]

I think it boils down to this thing called "None of your business."

Plus, average dieters probably never even run blood tests. And the majority of those that do probably don't even know the specific result, they probably just accept whatever their doctor says (eg, "Your testosterone is normal, Thyroid looks a little low, etc).

If someone is promoting a diet saying it's better for your health then they should prove it with labs. Anecdotal BS is not proof. Saying "I feel great on this xyz diet" is not proof of anything. For instance most on this forum claim eating liver is great for you. Is it? Where's the the double blind study? As an example The liver removes all kinds of harmful molecules from your blood stream. When you kill a cow those molecule s are in the liver. Then you eat the liver with all those harmful molecules still in it. So liver is good? Where's the proof?

 

[tankasnowgod]

If someone is promoting a diet saying it's better for your health then they should prove it with labs.

Followers of a diet aren't necessarily "promoting" a diet. Although what would their own labs "prove?" There are all sorts of uncontrolled factors in a single individual.

Anecdotal BS is not proof. Saying "I feel great on this xyz diet" is not proof of anything. For instance most on this forum claim eating liver is great for you. Is it? Where's the the double blind study?

Where is the double blind study for ANY food? What you are asking for is impossible. Please post even one Double Blind study of a whole food, like you are asking for.

Usually, Double Blind RCTs are limited to a component of food, like testing Saturated Fat vs. Poly Unsaturated Fat content, in something like the Los Angeles Veterans Administration study.

As an example The liver removes all kinds of harmful molecules from your blood stream. When you kill a cow those molecule s are in the liver.

Um, no they're not. They would be in the blood stream. And the removed molecules would be elsewhere, like in the urine.

Then you eat the liver with all those harmful molecules still in it.

Again, you don't seem to understand the basic function of the liver.

So liver is good? Where's the proof?

Where's the proof that oysters are good? Or milk? Or fruits? Vegetables? Beef? Nuts? Again, you set a standard that has never been met by a single food.

Of course, it goes the other way, too. Where is the proof that any of these foods are "bad?"

 

[DennisX]

Followers of a diet aren't necessarily "promoting" a diet. Although what would their own labs "prove?" There are all sorts of uncontrolled factors in a single individual.

Where is the double blind study for ANY food? What you are asking for is impossible. Please post even one Double Blind study of a whole food, like you are asking for.

Usually, Double Blind RCTs are limited to a component of food, like testing Saturated Fat vs. Poly Unsaturated Fat content, in something like the Los Angeles Veterans Administration study.

Um, no they're not. They would be in the blood stream. And the removed molecules would be elsewhere, like in the urine.

Again, you don't seem to understand the basic function of the liver.

Where's the proof that oysters are good? Or milk? Or fruits? Vegetables? Beef? Nuts? Again, you set a standard that has never been met by a single food.

Of course, it goes the other way, too. Where is the proof that any of these foods are "bad?"

That's exactly my point. Just because someone says, even Ray, thank Some food is good or bad who knows. On the liver, the live does not immediately remove harmful molecules, it takes time a lot of time. So many harmful molecules are still being processed in the liver when the cow is killed.

 

[Nomane Euger]

That's exactly my point. Just because someone says, even Ray, thank Some food is good or bad who knows. On the liver, the live does not immediately remove harmful molecules, it takes time a lot of time. So many harmful molecules are still being processed in the liver when the cow is killed.

hi,do you have any reason to claim that these "harmfull" molecules are more concentrated in the liver rather than the rest of the body?

 

[tankasnowgod]

That's exactly my point. Just because someone says, even Ray, thank Some food is good or bad who knows.

Well, there's other lines of evidence that you can look at, other than just

On the liver, the live does not immediately remove harmful molecules, it takes time a lot of time.

So what? Those molecules, by definition, would stay in the blood, not the liver.

So many harmful molecules are still being processed in the liver when the cow is killed.

Only the amount of blood flowing through the liver at the time of death. But at the same time, the liver isn't just a filtration organ, it also stores high amounts of beneficial molecules. This is why Ray Peat (and many others) recommend eating liver, and why it was traditionally a valuable food item.

This is no more an argument against liver than it is against, say, a ribeye, ground beef, or tallow.

 

[Nomane Euger]

@tankasnowgod it is interesting because a certain animal liver can taste disgusting,the most often for me its beef lvier even when grass fed,yet its fat and mucle meat taste decent.when the animal is very young like lamb/veal and is grass fed,liver taste way better than muscle meat

 

[teds]

Why sh

If someone is promoting a diet saying it's better for your health then they should prove it with labs. Anecdotal BS is not proof. Saying "I feel great on this xyz diet" is not proof of anything. For instance most on this forum claim eating liver is great for you. Is it? Where's the the double blind study? As an example The liver removes all kinds of harmful molecules from your blood stream. When you kill a cow those molecule s are in the liver. Then you eat the liver with all those harmful molecules still in it. So liver is good? Where's the pro

If someone is promoting a diet saying it's better for your health then they should prove it with labs. Anecdotal BS is not proof. Saying "I feel great on this xyz diet" is not proof of anything. For instance most on this forum claim eating liver is great for you. Is it? Where's the the double blind study? As an example The liver removes all kinds of harmful molecules from your blood stream. When you kill a cow those molecule s are in the liver. Then you eat the liver with all those harmful molecules still in it. So liver is good? Where's the proof?

Sorry but why should they “prove it”? No one is the authority on what works for you. This is individual. The reality is that one thing might make you feel good and another person not good. Context is always important. So, no one should have to prove anything imo.

 

[gomkat]

Followers of a diet aren't necessarily "promoting" a diet. Although what would their own labs "prove?" There are all sorts of uncontrolled factors in a single individual.

Where is the double blind study for ANY food? What you are asking for is impossible. Please post even one Double Blind study of a whole food, like you are asking for.

Usually, Double Blind RCTs are limited to a component of food, like testing Saturated Fat vs. Poly Unsaturated Fat content, in something like the Los Angeles Veterans Administration study.

Um, no they're not. They would be in the blood stream. And the removed molecules would be elsewhere, like in the urine.

Again, you don't seem to understand the basic function of the liver.

Where's the proof that oysters are good? Or milk? Or fruits? Vegetables? Beef? Nuts? Again, you set a standard that has never been met by a single food.

Of course, it goes the other way, too. Where is the proof that any of these foods are "bad?"

The only reason I was excited about the AIP is because I know I have followed it by accident in the past except it was very low carb so it wasn’t sustainable. My mom does it but just eats to her satisfaction and lost 50 pounds. I was so excited when I realized that it seems so similar to Ray Peats recommendations for a template and I need to get my progesterone way up and body fat to 28%. AIP is very much centered around the gut lining and inflammation so it makes sense that there is overlap with RP. Thank you for your responses Tank, I am even more thrilled to see what happens with my labs.