My opinion.

1) Your mind will get a break from eating clean.

2) More people tend to bust ass because that ate that double cheese burger instead of the steak and sweet potato. (which will generate more fat loss, or possibly muscle gain)

3) People who cheat end up sticking with a program for fat loss, and tend not to binge and destroy their diet

Hell, if you are busting your ass 5 days a week with weight training and cardio…and the calories are the same. Have some ice cream! Were only human.

I know this comment is lagging the article by a few months, but wanted to say thanks for the insight. I think, as you eluded to, the larger problem with eating fast food is controlling the macros and the total caloric intake. While this certainly happens at home (people underestimate or don’t know what they are eating), fast food tends to come in packaged meals and people feel obliged to eat all of it since they paid for it.

I did giggle at the paleo article when they rationalized that although mayo and carrot juice weren’t paleo foods, they were close enough to be included. Yeah, whatever guys.

And of course the real reality is that
a. there was no single paleo diet in the first place. Humans are absurdly adaptable in this regards and diets ranging from every extreme to the other were probably consumed at one point or another.
b. the foods that existed then (especially in terms of fatty acid profile of meats) don’t exist.

As well, some folks contend that the benefits from the ‘paleo’ vs. the modern diet has far less to do with food quality and far more to do with quantity. This is the other huge confound; in general losing weight improves health parameters and gaining weight hurts it. Of course, this particular study, even if it didn’t keep the macros consistent did avoid weight loss as a confound. But many studies on this topic do not.

As well, there was a hell of a lot more to the ‘paleo lifestyle’ than most folks realize. It wasn’t just the diet that was involved in whatever benefits were obtained. Activity, stress, overall lifestyle all played a role but those seem to be downplayed as often as not in the various dietary arguments that go on.

Lyle

If you look at the list of foods in that study, they actually had to feed them a tonne of honey and carrot juice to even get the carb levels that high. It’s really hard to get an “average person’s” amount of carbs on the paleo diet. A lot of blogs criticized the study for having so much honey and carrot juice, and for having low amounts of saturated fat.

In my experience, the thing about the Paleo diet is that you become so full with meats and vegetables, you naturally reduce your calories. That’s why people lose weight on it.

So I got ahold of the full Paleo study and here’s part of what’s going on. From page 4

“The usual diet had a calculated K/Na intake ratio of 0.6±0.3 and averaged 18% of calories from protein, 44% from carbohydrates and 38% from fats. An analyzed paleolithic diet composite had a K/Na intake ratio of 4.3 (Po0.0001) and contained 30% of calories from proteins, 32% from fat (mainly unsaturated) and 38% from carbohydrates.”

So the overall macro content of the diets were different. Protein went up 12%, carbs went down 6% and fats went down 6%.

So, in the way that totti is getting thrown by the confound between food quality and TOTAL CALORIES, this paleo diet study is confounding food quality and MACRONUTRIENT CONTENT.

The diets aren’t directly comparable because, the two macro contents are different. Which I also directly discussed in this article because it’ the other common confound in this discussion. Which is why I brought it up in the article itself.

Because of course if you lower carbs and increase protein, blood glucose and insulin will tend to be lower, the blood pressure is a potassium/sodium issue, etc. Without comparing paleo foods to modern foods in a diet with an identical macronutrient composition, it’s not addressing what this article of mine is addressing.

That’s not what I’m talking about. Anther guy lost weight and improved his health parameters doing the same thing because he ate less calories. He did a documentary called Bowling for Morgan detailing his experiences although his website seems to be down right now. It’s the calories, not the quality.

Bryan: Yes, I did see that study although I haven’t read it in full. And I mentioned explicitly that this was only a single meal study which is different than the Paleo study you’re talking about. Then again, compared to the standard American diet (which sucks), the results don’t surprise me at all.

Of course, as I knew it would to somebody, you seem to be reading this article as advocating that people eat a 100% junk food diet. Which isn’t the case and not at all what I’m saying. I’m simply pointing out that the type of dietary extremism (and moronic claims) made by the ‘clean eating brigade’ have little to no basis in reality: as this study shows (within its limitations), the hormonal response and pretty much everything else is identical given the same calories and macros.

Great stuff, as usual. Just curious, but even in light of this type of information, would you take issue with an individual who was still inclined to “work around” a fast food or restaurant menu by ordering 2 burgers or chicken sandwiches and tossing aside the buns along with a side salad (in the case of the former) or a lean cut of meat and steamed veggies (in the case of the latter)?

Occasionally I go with the tastier and so-called “unclean” foods, but often I find myself roughly approximating what I could prep myself when eating out. It’s literally become second nature as opposed to a burden, but I certainly don’t want to stray into even quasi-orthorexic territory.