= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
siodine comments on What is the evidence in favor of paleo? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (96)
The most obvious, and significant, argument in favor of paleo is that it tends to make it more difficult to overeat or maintain a lot of weight (i.e., it's acts as a fail-safe against akrasia). Imagine if you only had nuts, fruits, and vegetables to snack on and for anything else you had to cook a meal.
A better diet would be to push your eating window to 2-3pm to 10pm (intermittent fasting), and only eat low calorie things which you've cooked (and make sure you don't buy anything that can be eaten without being cooked).
Basically, from the research I've read, akrasia is the most significant factor in maintaining a healthy weight; anything you can do to force or impel your future self to commit to your non-akrasiac desires is a good idea.
Nuts are a high-calorie, high-fat, low-sateity food.
You're just sharing the fact that nuts are a high-calorie, high-fat, low-sateity food and not making any specific point, right?
Well, I was pointing out that it seems weird to group nuts in with fruits and vegetables, especially given the previous argument that paleo "tends to make it more difficult to overeat or maintain a lot of weight" and "acts as a fail-safe against akrasia".
EDIT: In particular, fruits and vegetables are low-calorie, low-fat, high-sateity foods.
Consider the typical American diet and what they snack on and compare it to eating nuts; I'd be amazed if it didn't tend to make it more difficult for those people to get the same amount of calories. I wonder if you've had the kinds of nuts paleo dieters eat. They're unsalted and uncooked walnuts, almonds, or pecans (typically almonds) -- not exactly a superstimulus.
And remember, you need 24 almonds to get ~128 calories.
You're right, I was imagining peanuts, which are probably much worse.
You must be thinking of a different kind of fruit than I am. I could easily get half my daily calories from apples and oranges. Not to mention bananas or watermelons, which are basically fruit-shaped sugar water. I have to stop myself from doing it, like with chocolate or ice cream.
I've totally pigged out on a ~2000 Calorie bag of trail mix before.
Nuts are very energy-dense, so I don't think they belong in there at all. OTOH, almost exclusively keeping in my apartment foot that needs cooking before eating, or is bulky but not very energy-dense (e.g. apples), is what I usually do when I'm trying to lose weight.
I believe you've confused my description of the paleo diet with me advocating for the paleo diet (I am supporting an aspect of the paleo diet, but I then go on to say "a better diet...").
And although nuts are calorific, personally I have a hard time eating more than 10-20 almonds in a day because they're simply not that compelling of a snack (I'm not dainty either), but that's not to say there aren't better alternatives for a snack
I hit satiety pretty easily with nuts, but I get the impression I'm not typical.
Snacking generally leads to drastically underestimating calories consumed. I've found eating 3 big meals in an 8 hour window to be best for me.
Isn't that what siodine suggested? (Or were you agreeing with him.)
Agreeing. Just adding to the idea.