Saturday, February 5, 2011

My Primal Blueprint Experiment - Week 2

Quick update today as I caught a cold and don't feel like writing too much. So I lost some weight. Weight is between 210.6 and 211.4. Body Fat between 24 and 24.7. I did stick to putting all of the food I ate into Daily Burn and while I did not go hungry at all, I'm sure I didn't eat as much this week as the week before. This is a psychological thing in that if I have to record it, I have that slightest bit of hesitation to eat anything. My average numbers for the week were:

Calories: 1885
Fat (g): 136.7 (65%)
Protein (g): 113.1 (24%)
Carbs (g): 37.07 (6%)

I'll keep track for another week and have more analysis then.


  1. Hi,

    Just thought I'd mention

    1. Berries are nice, but still have been somewhat bred over the years for human taste (sweetness), as far as I understand. Anyway, somebody like Mat Lelonde (strong, healty, science-oriented, friend of Robb Wolf), says he only eats fruit on the weekends as a treat. So given your history etc, I don't think berries are a requirement. Anyway, if you're really only eating 37g of carbs per day, it's probably a non-issue.

    2. The one key difference between low-carb and primal is this: Low-carb allows vegetable oils, primal doesn't. This is key, and where Atkins missed something. If you want to give a rat diabetes, feed it corn oil. Sugar is awful, and so are vegetable oils, canola included. (Olive oil is okay-ish.) It's more than just omega-3/omega-6, and supplementing with fish oil only helps a bit. You can eat berries or not, whatever, but keep off the bad fats (and load up on the good ones).

    2. I'm a low-carb/primal/paleo liberal. You could blog on "low carb is good, Republicans are idiots", but that's two separate blogs. What might be interesting is where the two meet.

    a) sustainability and meat eating/farming.
    b) cruelty-free and meat eating.
    c) the government's role, and not, in nutrition
    d) the budget, nutrition and health care
    e) etc

    There is an annoying libertarian streak in the low carb world, even to the point where these "we're so smart, we follow the science and see that paleo and low carb are the key to health" and then they are climate deniers, I guess under the theory that if nutrition science is wrong then climate science is wrong. In other words they only follow the science where they feel like it ... just like the Conventional Wisdom nutritionists.

    Anyway, if you're interested, that might be a place to take your blog.


  2. Thanks for the comments. I agree that mixing low carb and politics doesn't really work and I've basically abandoned the politics as it seemed pointless.

    I do plan one political blog sometime soon arguing that government needs to stay out of nutrition, not because it wouldn't help should they do the right thing, but rather that they will more likely than not do the exact opposite of the right thing :-)

  3. The government's role is interesting. Because the government is messing this up, it's easy to say they should keep out. But let's not forget that the free market is messing up just as much. The drug companies have no incentive to keep us healthy. But it's not a conspiracy: I doubt the drug company execs and their families eat low carb. A better solution is to have have the feds sponsor research, but set up systems to keep corporate influence out of science. Because who else will have the incentive to do the research? Do we see even large insurance companies doing research to keep their costs down? In theory, we should, but we don't. I feel the government should do whatever the free market is not incentivized to do, such as keeping the streets safe, defending our borders, and dealing with "commons": infrastructure, clean air, research.

    Maybe the free market would work better if we killed medicare and all insurance regulation. Maybe then insurance companies would give discounts to healthy people, but still the question remains who would have the incentive to tell people what healthful is? Maybe it would all just work, this libertarian approach. However the 2008 financial crisis shows that letting large corporations just do what they want isn't the panacea it's made out to be.

    I have no answer, but saying the gvt should pay for healthcare yet not even try to figure out what's healthful just incentivizes the world to get people sick and take money from the gvt to care for them. Ugh.


  4. I do agree the government should try to figure out what is healthful. However it seems that the system is so corrupted by corporate interests that the idea of what is healthful is perverted by profit motivated rather than health motivated entities.

    Where I fear government involvement is in their power to tax and regulate. They have decided that low fat is the way to go, so what if they decide to tax high saturated fat food and subsidize vegetarian eating. Or even worse, what if they decide to ban some food because they are 'unhealthy'.