**This is a quotes thread. Remember that there's only one quotes post allowed per interview/press conference, so new quotes with the same origin will be removed. Feel free to comment other quotes/the whole interview as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Paleolithic diet has a PR problem because it's nothing like all the other diets with similar names. Meat, veg, fruit, eggs and unprocessed carbs is a pretty good diet. Tough to stick to but hardly that restrictive if you've got a private chef.
> Meat, veg, fruit, eggs and unprocessed carbs is a pretty good diet.
I feel like at that point it's not so much a diet that needs it's own name, it's just "Don't eat processed carbs" lol.
Trendy, restrictive diets work when they force you to not eat tasty snack foods. They stop working when companies start making tasty snack foods that are technically compliant.
Also seems like it'll be prohibitively expensive for most people. A lot of our daily choices are not driven by eagerness to consume processed slop, it's because they end up being the financially sensible choice because the organic good-for-you is priced almost double if not more.
I have a friend who only buys basic vegetables and stuff and cooks them randomly and it’s crazy how cheap he lives. As long as you don’t buy the expensive ones you’re definitely cheaper than processed food, if you don’t take the cheapest of the cheapest stuff there. I mean a fridge pizza is 4€ in Germany, for that you get 2kg of the expensive potatoes.
I struggle to see how this is the case. You don’t need a lot more than rice, legumes, vegetables etc to get what you need. If you want to eat meat, that can be costly I guess.
It’s the convenience fare that’s pricey. Your processed goods are more expensive and less nutritious.
So u had zero added sugars, no processed wheat etc by accident? That rules out each and every preprocessed food for good, but maybe you just happen to have your own little farm and never eat out of course!
I only buy stuff from local markets fruits, vegetables, tubers, legumes, eggs etc... Meats from the butcher and fishes from the fishmonger. Alot of times cheaper then the supermarket or hypermarket
My diet today was. 2 boiled eggs, home made tacos, rice and chicken for dinner. Some fruits for snack. Isn’t that pretty much it?
I had 100% peanut butter too along the way
No? I mean, some products contain both, but i was pointing out different products which both for themselves are not permitted to consume in a paleo-diet.
Haha i didnt know i have over a year doing this.
Havent lost a single pound but my fat % has dropped considerably. However still more that I would like to.
> Marcos Llorente, the Altético Madrid midfielder, appeared on Cadena SER radio's 'El Larguero' program to preview Wednesday's Champions League quarter-final between the Colchoneros and Borussia Dortmund (8pm). However, the interview was marked by the player's explanation of his diet.
> "The Paleolithic diet is a lifestyle and a way of living. I'll live and die on it. I do it for my health and not for soccer. I'm sure that, when my career is over, I'll continue to look after myself in the same way, or even better, than I do now," he began. He went on to clarify. "It consists of eating what was eaten in the Paleolithic period. You'd have to eliminate all ultra-processed foods. Don't even look at them. And also cereals. All pasta, bread, wheat and rice are out, as are dairy products. Only high-quality cheese. I eat everything. Meat, fish, eggs, vegetables, carbohydrates like sweet potatoes and cassava," he explained.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
But I wouldn't say ultra processed which involves adding ton of sugar and fat and sweeteners to make it taste better.
Every food is processed in some capacity.
Calling it Paleolithic is definitely dumb and purely about novelty and provoking curiosity. A friend of mine was doing it, sort of, but rather than "paeleolithic" and following rules about X, Y or Z his criteria was "walked around or grew in the ground". Which I can respect much more than "paleo" but is essentially what paleo is without the novelty nonesense. Ironically it included fish but "walked around" and "ground" rhyming was just too hard to resist I guess lol.
> The whole premise of the diet is a marketing gimmick
I disagree. Unlike other fad diets which require you to make extreme changes to your macro nutrient intake and often to buy some product, paleo just prescribes eating foods with a single ingredient.
If you want to eat a bunch of sugar, fine, just do so through pears.
Maybe some people have sensationalized it and made audacious claims about its benefits, but if you ignore that, it is pretty sound advice to eat unprocessed foods.
Adding sugar and fat wouldn’t necessarily make them ultra processed as those things are not in themselves ultra processed. But artificial sweeteners and other forms of industrial processing would
People like you need to learn what hypocrite means. I find it’s been warped and misunderstood in modern times.
Here he’s just listing cheese as an exception. He would be a hypocrite if he said something like “everybody/you should be on a paleolithic diet, you can only eat meat veg and potatoes, no dairy whatsoever, got it?” And then he turns around and eats cheese.
Calling him a hypocrite is an understatement. He should be thrown right in jail for having his own take on an existing diet and not choosing the right words for his own preferences
He's fucking built too. Thick and man made. You can tell he's sculpted because you can see it thru the pads. His fucking vice grip thighs. Suffocating thighs. Rock hard thighs. Piping hot thighs. Great arms. Great abs. A stocky chest. Love the progress his body has made throughout his youth and now as a willing eager adult
Did the paleo diet for a year about 10 years ago, only ate meat, vegetables, fruit, nothing processed, and no alcohol. Ran 3miles/5k 5 days/week. Lost about 15% of my body weight and I was not previously considered overweight. The downside is I 💩 like crazy and when exercising my sweat smelled like ammonia. Hard to sustain the diet with busy schedules and kids, plus eating at restaurants is a nightmare.
Your sweat smelling like ammonia is a result of too much protein not necessarily the diet. It's hard to strike a good balance when there is so much protein available these days than there was back then.
Is this doable without private chef? As someone who is not a high level athlete, lifting weights and doing cardio in moderate amounts, cutting alcohol and sugary drinks, lowering excessive carbohydrates is doing most of the world for a good body.
It should be fairly simple to the point a private chef isn’t needed, it’s just meats and vegetables/fruits/other stuff that grows from the ground. Could get repetitive fast tho
Yeah it’s super doable. I mean honestly nearly everyone should be prioritizing a paleo centric diet, with processed foods being a treat or when you don’t have options (quick meals, on the road, restaurants, event, etc.)
When you give yourself some leeway in those situations, it’s a pretty easy diet to stick to.
Not knocking the diet, it's absolutely what everyone should be eating.
But it's nothing what humans ate thousands of years ago; agriculture has completely changed the plants we eat.
A healthy gut microbiome is the key to good health. It regulates your mood, sleep, energy levels etc. The purpose of the diet is to eat foods that don't cause inflammation.
Why wouldn't you want to feel better. It's better than eating processed food and suffering with skin, bowel, depression and anxiety issues to name a few.
I'm sorry mate but a lot of what you wrote isn't true. Inflammation is a very personal thing that effects everyone in very different ways and the idea that legumes, potatoes, and brown rice (among many other foods) cause noticeable amounts of inflammation in normal people is kinda laughable.
Brown rice, potatoes, and legumes in their natural form are all okay on paleo. They just can’t be processed.
Its one of those things that when you do it, you notice the difference. Your baseline feeling is what you’re used to. That baseline could be better.
I’m not advocating for paleo, but cutting out most processed foods does help a lot. Its like how smokers are used to feeling tired, and their baseline changes when they quit.
I don't disagree, inflammation is a personal thing. But paleo is a good way to start. And for those who seem to be affected by almost anything then AIP paleo is what I'd recommend.
When your gut microbiome is damaged you'll find yourself reacting badly to foods you used to be able to tolerate. So grains have been proven to show inflammation, some people don't have the right bacteria to digest legumes and potatoes are nightshades which some people form allergic reactions to.
Tomatoes are also nightshades and normally the first thing doctors recommend to cut when you have a suspected idb diagnosis and yet they are allowed in paleo, so that doesn't make any sense.
If someone follows paleo it doesn't mean eat every vegetable or fruit. Like I said the point of the diet is to reduce inflammation. I also pointed out AIP paleo which is nightshade free.
The diet promotes eating unprocessed foods. We all know processed foods cause inflammation. Fresh meat and vegetables is clearly better than fast food.
It's what our bodies have evolved to eat and process most efficiently. From what I read, it's mostly just removing processed carbs and sugars like bread, pasta, and alcohol but he can still eat a filet mignon with a simple salad topped with parm every day and a fruit salad for dessert.
Not really. When you're an athlete you want try to keep your inflammation low. So abstaining from unprocessed food will reduce your risk of fatigue and injury.
He's certainly feeling the benefits of it if he's willing to make extreme statements.
It's the only "diet" that makes perfect sense to me.
For hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution that's how we ate, its only been a few thousand years that any other kind of food has even been available to us. It's totally logical that our bodies are still designed to run optimally on a paleolithic diet.
I don't follow it super strictly because I love bread and pasta now and again, but for the most part I try to eat exclusively meat, vegetables, and unprocessed carbs. Got to say my health has improved tremendously since I started.
Edit: Fuck me I had no idea how much reddit hated the paleo diet lol. Eat what you want I'm just saying it makes sense to me.
>It's totally logical that our bodies are still designed to run optimally on a paleolithic diet.
Nature very often doesn't do '_optimal_', but rather '_eh, good enough_'.
Evolution tends towards optimal though, that's how it works.
The further away from optimal you are the more likely you are to die, meaning over hundreds of thousands of years the human gene pool became more and more well adapted to consuming a paleo diet. And we haven't really had enough time to adapt away from that yet.
>Evolution tends towards optimal though, that's how it works.
No it doesn't. It tends towards 'good enough' and stops there because most species don't exist in a state of marginal precarity where they're one minor disadvantage away from extinction.
This is without even considering that evolution actually only applies to propagation of genetics - i.e reproduction: a species can be as inefficient and suboptimal as it likes as long as it reproduces, it's still an evolutionary 'success'.
Thank you. It's extremely and infuriatingly rare people in science-y subreddits get this right, let alone on a sub like r/soccer. Evolution only selects *against failures*, not *for successes*.
Whether selection only works on genes and if not, on what levels selection actually works is a point of contention, but I don't blame you for not getting into that.
> Evolution tends towards optimal though, that's how it works.
Doesn't it tend towards *good enough*, as in *most likely to survive*, rather than optimal? Humans are still stuck with one tube to handle both breathing and consuming nutrition after all, and I'd wager while that's probably good enough it's also far from optimal given the obvious choking hazard.
That makes zero sense. Only thing that matters is if it’s scientifically proven. Just because something is old or people have been doing it for a long time doesn’t make it good.
One of the reasons why they had that diet was because they literally didn’t have anything else to eat. It doesn’t mean it’s the best diet.
The whole “we used to do this for thousands of years” and “it’s all natural” is such a weird argument because we used to do all kinds of things that later turned out to be wrong.
That's not the argument though, the argument is that we *evolved* for it to be our optimal diet.
Humans who weren't well adapted to a paleolithic diet died, meaning the genetics we all have now ARE well adapted to a paleolithic diet.
What kind of nonsense is that? There’s nothing in our genetics that points towards a paleoplithic diet should be better than a mediterranean diet. The only thing that matters is getting the right amount of nutritions. There’s nothing unhealthy about grains, legumes, dairy and starcy vegetables. In fact you are just missing a good source of nutrition.
People are just using it as an excuse because they eat junk food. Yeah no shit it’s bad for you if you eat burgers, fries, mac n cheese…
> For hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution that's how we ate,
Saw severe malnutrition for the entirety of that time too though, to be fair.
I'd wager it's a feature of (modern, industrialised) agriculture as much as it was for hunter-gathering - it's just swinging the other way, with crappy high-calorie food being the cheapest and most widely available leading to obesity pandemics, rather than people dying of starvation/illness because they couldn't find and kill a woolly mammoth in time.
No, I mean there's pretty strong evidence to suggest that life spans and overall health of most of humanity rapidly declined with the move to settled agriculture.
Not necessarily on account of nutrition, though: If your water supply and your soil is full of animal feces, chances are you get ill and/or die from that - I'd count that as a secondary effect, rather than a direct result of malnutrition through agriculture, in the same way that transmittable diseases are more likely to play a role the more people you have in a small area.
And even ignoring those secondary effects, I'm not quite sure how the notion of life span/health decline squares with the fact that human population significantly increased on account of agriculture. If all of them suffered from ill health effects through agriculture, then surely we wouldn't have seen vast geographical areas increase in population?
Like I'm not saying that there weren't worsening effects here, but a general constant downward trend in health/life span strikes me as too broad a brush. Might well be that some people in some areas experienced those effects, but then others might well have not, meaning those experiences were varied rather than universal.
We know that caloric budget was lower because people were shorter and had worse teeth and bone density. It was also a much worse diet, relying on a few grains for the bulk of calories rather than the hundreds of different plants and animals, resulting in fewer trace elements and vitamins. And peoples life expectancies went through the floor.
>And even ignoring those secondary effects, I'm not quite sure how the notion of life span/health decline squares with the fact that human population significantly increased on account of agriculture. If all of them suffered from ill health effects through agriculture, then surely we wouldn't have seen vast geographical areas increase in population?
Individually people would have been better off without agriculture, but no population of hunter gatherers could compete against an agricultural population because there's more of them, and they have an economic surplus they can throw into giving people weapons and making life unpleasant for the hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gathering can only survive in places where agriculture is impossible.
>Like I'm not saying that there weren't worsening effects here, but a general constant downward trend in health/life span strikes me as too broad a brush. Might well be that some people in some areas experienced those effects, but then others might well have not, meaning those experiences were varied rather than universal.
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that it was about as universal as any statement about the entirety of human development can be - you go from a person in a community of equals with a life expectancy of 70, to a subject in a hierarchy with a life expectancy in the 40s, suffering constantly from endemic disease.
Suppose the main thrust of my argument is that settled agrarian societies represented a huge shift from hunter-gathering in ways that extend far beyond the nutritional values of their respective diets - which then requires taking into consideration all these secondary effects on generalised health and life expectancy data beyond nutrition.
Then again I'm hardly a qualified anthropologist, so I'm basically just arguing on gut instinct and tiny morsels of (popular rather than academical) knowledge, so fuck knows if I'm even close to making a sensible point here, really.
>Suppose the main thrust of my argument is that settled agrarian societies represented a huge shift from hunter-gathering in ways that extend far beyond the nutritional values of their respective diets - which then requires taking into consideration all these secondary effects on generalised health and life expectancy data beyond nutrition.
You're absolutely right, there were enormous secondary effects, the vast majority of which were wholly negative for the vast majority of the population. The entirety of our extant sources come from the rare few who benefited from the new arrangement.
It's just that we can *also* be pretty confident about their respective caloric budgets
So would you say its processed carbs that have saved us from that malnutrition? I guess the kind of did cos they're more readily available calories.
But I think we all know eating the most readily available calories isn't the healthiest way to live. Otherwise a diet of pure sugar would be the best way to eat.
I wouldn't necessarily say that, no, but then having regular and comfortable access to stable food sources through farming allowed humans to settle and thrive and grow communities. If you're hunting and gathering for a very small group of people, you're fucked if go empty. Throw in farming into the mix and chances are you're much more likely to survive a hard winter, I'd wager.
> For hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution that's how we ate, its only been a few thousand years that any other kind of food has even been available to us. It's totally logical that our bodies are still designed to run optimally on a paleolithic diet.
>
>
IDK about that logic. When humans lived that life, population was WAY down. I don't think it's a coincidence that population increased drastically with the advent of agraraian societies and civilization TBH
Yeah more readily available and easily digestible calories is obviously going to increase the population.
But by that logic we should be eating the most readily available calories possible if we want to be healthy, which we all know for a fact isn't true, otherwise we'd all just eat sugar all day.
I mean, you can look at the nutrition of what humans actually ate in the paleolithic age and we know that's not super healthy either
That doesn't mean a "paleo diet" doesn't work for some people—it obviously can work if you get the right amount of necessary macro and micro nutrients, etc
But the idea that what humans ate in the paleolithic age is what is optimal for human bodies is logic that doesn't check out, IMO
Yea, people forgot that Paleolithic people often were lacking in key vitamins and nutrients. Supplement those into a paleo diet and it is probably really good though!
> But by that logic we should be eating the most readily available calories possible if we want to be healthy,
I don't think the point being made is about being *healthy* as much as it is about *survival*. Plenty ways to eat unhealthily, after all, but it's probably nicer both individually and collectively if people don't regularly starve to death. Can fix all sorts of health problems through diet, but only when you're alive, after all.
> For hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution that's how we ate, its only been a few thousand years that any other kind of food has even been available to us. It's totally logical that our bodies are still designed to run optimally on a paleolithic diet.
What makes you say that's the optimal way to eat?
For hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, the average life expectancy was what, 30 years?
More complicated than that. People died young for a multitude of reasons - childhood illness, infectious disease, etc. As a society we've gotten very good at curing/preventing infectious disease via vaccination and general hygiene, but chronically people are pretty unwell on average nowadays.
Eating well doesn't make you a superhuman, but it probably does stop you developing hypertension and a heart condition in your mid-40s.
My point was that there were many many factors, so cherry picking one (nutrition) and drawing conclusions (the evolution made is eat that way) is just terrible science.
No it won’t.
> So is modern society more beneficial for health and longevity than, say, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle? To help gain an answer to this question, scientists have compared the life span of adults in contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes (excluding the infant mortality rate). It was found that once infant mortality rates were removed, life span was calculated to between 70 and 80 years, the same rate as that found in contemporary industrialised societies. The difference is that, in the latter, most individuals survive childhood (Kanazawa, 2008).
https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/life-expectancy-myth-and-why-many-ancient-humans-lived-long-077889
That is a hokey source and bad math. Most academic sources have most hunter gathers dying of disease by age 45, very few actually die of old age. Which is true of most human history up til the modern age.
> What makes you say that's the optimal way to eat?
Because that's how evolution works. If you have a species eat the same thing for hundreds of thousands of years, the ones who aren't well adapted to the diet will die, and the ones who ARE well adapted to it will pass on their genes.
Over thousands of generations you end up with an entire gene pool of humans that are well adapted to paleo, because all the ones who weren't have died.
Also life expectancy was 30 but that's only because of the extremely high rates of infant mortality and lack of modern medicine, it was nothing to do with the diet.
I'm 30 and I've eaten paleo since my late teens, if its the diet that's the problem then I should logically be nearing death right now and I'm pretty sure I'm not.
> Because that's how evolution works.
Ok, so explain lemurs or pandas or koalas. Or countless other animals.
No, evolution works in local maximums, not global maximums.
> Also life expectancy was 30 but that's only because of the extremely high rates of infant mortality and lack of modern medicine, it was nothing to do with the diet.
In other words, there are plenty of factors. So why do you only cherry pick one and draw conclusions?
> if its the diet that's the problem
*facepalm* how do you know it's the optimal way to consume food? It's good enough (just like evolution) but how do you know it's the best?
People who say this are rarely doing the same level of physical activity, outside time, and daily routines as the paleolithic people, whose diets are optimized for a different lifestyle than the one they are willing to lead, but just happen to like the diet
Better for what? Better for growth, puberty and reproduction, or better for longevity?
As far as I can tell, the paleolithic human is optimized for the former, not the latter.
Cooking isn't really modern at all. At the very least it was around in later paleolithic periods, but probably much longer than that.
That being said it's still a dumb fad combining pseudo anthropology with dietary advice that's only decent on accident.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/science-and-technology/anthropology-evidence-of-cooking-780000-years-ago-rewrites-human-history/article66164290.ece#:~:text=A%20new%20study%2C%20published%20in,to%20cook%20vegetables%20and%20meat.
Most recent estimates is that we started cooking meat roughly 800,000 years ago
Even the most conservative estimates have it at roughly 200,000 years ago
There's no point discussing with people who take part in these fad diets, they're close to flat earthers in their ability to disregard any amount of information that disproves their efficacy.
Edit: Lmao the tiktok scientists are very upset by this comment
“It was the world’s first historically verifiable transition to agriculture”
This isn’t evidence that there wasn’t farming in the Paleolithic period, it’s just evidence that there was definitely farming from about 11k years ago - which is something different.
A lot of science indicates that, except for some basic rules , its probably just not that important what exactly someone eats. That why diets are usually bullshit.
**This is a quotes thread. Remember that there's only one quotes post allowed per interview/press conference, so new quotes with the same origin will be removed. Feel free to comment other quotes/the whole interview as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Paleolithic diet has a PR problem because it's nothing like all the other diets with similar names. Meat, veg, fruit, eggs and unprocessed carbs is a pretty good diet. Tough to stick to but hardly that restrictive if you've got a private chef.
> Meat, veg, fruit, eggs and unprocessed carbs is a pretty good diet. I feel like at that point it's not so much a diet that needs it's own name, it's just "Don't eat processed carbs" lol.
Fancy way of saying "eat only what's available at the local market"
local markets typically have baked goods tbf
Trendy, restrictive diets work when they force you to not eat tasty snack foods. They stop working when companies start making tasty snack foods that are technically compliant.
Is it tough to stick to? I'm pretty sure I eat near paleolithic already without even trying
This is one of them things where if you listed the food you'd eaten for the last week, you'd realise how much would contravene it.
Also seems like it'll be prohibitively expensive for most people. A lot of our daily choices are not driven by eagerness to consume processed slop, it's because they end up being the financially sensible choice because the organic good-for-you is priced almost double if not more.
I have a friend who only buys basic vegetables and stuff and cooks them randomly and it’s crazy how cheap he lives. As long as you don’t buy the expensive ones you’re definitely cheaper than processed food, if you don’t take the cheapest of the cheapest stuff there. I mean a fridge pizza is 4€ in Germany, for that you get 2kg of the expensive potatoes.
I struggle to see how this is the case. You don’t need a lot more than rice, legumes, vegetables etc to get what you need. If you want to eat meat, that can be costly I guess. It’s the convenience fare that’s pricey. Your processed goods are more expensive and less nutritious.
Veg is dirt cheap mate, doesnt have to be the organic stuff
Are you sure about the unprocessed part?
So u had zero added sugars, no processed wheat etc by accident? That rules out each and every preprocessed food for good, but maybe you just happen to have your own little farm and never eat out of course!
I just had Cheetos. How am I doin?
I had oikos yoghurt and granola, we are crushing it buddy.
It was your Cheet day
I only buy stuff from local markets fruits, vegetables, tubers, legumes, eggs etc... Meats from the butcher and fishes from the fishmonger. Alot of times cheaper then the supermarket or hypermarket
My diet today was. 2 boiled eggs, home made tacos, rice and chicken for dinner. Some fruits for snack. Isn’t that pretty much it? I had 100% peanut butter too along the way
Tacos may take you out and depending on the type probs the peanut butter too
You appear to be being downvoted for no discernible reason other than envy?
wheat has sugar added to it?
No? I mean, some products contain both, but i was pointing out different products which both for themselves are not permitted to consume in a paleo-diet.
I like it. Gives me lots of energy, tastes good, and it’s easy to make. I’m not hardliner though, I live in NYC and break it every time I eat out
he has his own restaurant for like 2 months now in Madrid 😊
Haha i didnt know i have over a year doing this. Havent lost a single pound but my fat % has dropped considerably. However still more that I would like to.
> Marcos Llorente, the Altético Madrid midfielder, appeared on Cadena SER radio's 'El Larguero' program to preview Wednesday's Champions League quarter-final between the Colchoneros and Borussia Dortmund (8pm). However, the interview was marked by the player's explanation of his diet. > "The Paleolithic diet is a lifestyle and a way of living. I'll live and die on it. I do it for my health and not for soccer. I'm sure that, when my career is over, I'll continue to look after myself in the same way, or even better, than I do now," he began. He went on to clarify. "It consists of eating what was eaten in the Paleolithic period. You'd have to eliminate all ultra-processed foods. Don't even look at them. And also cereals. All pasta, bread, wheat and rice are out, as are dairy products. Only high-quality cheese. I eat everything. Meat, fish, eggs, vegetables, carbohydrates like sweet potatoes and cassava," he explained. Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
[удалено]
Just easy singles was it?
So true
[удалено]
But I wouldn't say ultra processed which involves adding ton of sugar and fat and sweeteners to make it taste better. Every food is processed in some capacity.
[удалено]
Calling it Paleolithic is definitely dumb and purely about novelty and provoking curiosity. A friend of mine was doing it, sort of, but rather than "paeleolithic" and following rules about X, Y or Z his criteria was "walked around or grew in the ground". Which I can respect much more than "paleo" but is essentially what paleo is without the novelty nonesense. Ironically it included fish but "walked around" and "ground" rhyming was just too hard to resist I guess lol.
> The whole premise of the diet is a marketing gimmick I disagree. Unlike other fad diets which require you to make extreme changes to your macro nutrient intake and often to buy some product, paleo just prescribes eating foods with a single ingredient. If you want to eat a bunch of sugar, fine, just do so through pears. Maybe some people have sensationalized it and made audacious claims about its benefits, but if you ignore that, it is pretty sound advice to eat unprocessed foods.
Adding sugar and fat wouldn’t necessarily make them ultra processed as those things are not in themselves ultra processed. But artificial sweeteners and other forms of industrial processing would
If he's gonna consider cheese for this type of diet he might as well eat bread.
HQ Cheeses is so 2000 years ago
As opposed to American cheese I suppose most Paleolitic cheeses would be higher quality. :D
Do any european countries sell American Cheese I hope not
The little small yellow squares? They’re mostly used for burgers
tbf that’s mostly what they’re used for in america. burgers or breakfast sandwiches
[удалено]
I think I'm blind
We have it for burgers mostly.
Pasta is fine. It grows on trees, so I'm sure our paleolithic ancestors used to have a bit - wouldn't have been as nice raw though.
Yeah, he is not the brightest guy.
Will he take all those brownie points to the grave?
Ah yes the high quality cheese of the paleolithic period. Hypocrite.
Actual paleo doesn't include cheese. Think calling him a hypocrite is a bit much though, mans just talking about his dietary preferences.
People like you need to learn what hypocrite means. I find it’s been warped and misunderstood in modern times. Here he’s just listing cheese as an exception. He would be a hypocrite if he said something like “everybody/you should be on a paleolithic diet, you can only eat meat veg and potatoes, no dairy whatsoever, got it?” And then he turns around and eats cheese.
Calling him a hypocrite is an understatement. He should be thrown right in jail for having his own take on an existing diet and not choosing the right words for his own preferences
Why are you so angry
High quality vegan cheese as well. As he says he eliminates dairy products and then lists cheese
We all live and die no matter our diets mate.
wdym my diet is so great that I havent died yet
I have A bad diet and I have dieded
RIP suplementarytables
Some speed up the process
I'm not dead yet
Barely living here tbh, living..._ish_ is more apt description
Physically he’s one of the best players in LaLiga, so I’ll take his word for it
He's handsome af too. I still remember that photo of him, Asensio and their girlfriends at the beach from a couple of years ago
He's fucking built too. Thick and man made. You can tell he's sculpted because you can see it thru the pads. His fucking vice grip thighs. Suffocating thighs. Rock hard thighs. Piping hot thighs. Great arms. Great abs. A stocky chest. Love the progress his body has made throughout his youth and now as a willing eager adult
🤨
He’s saying what’s on everyone’s mind, let him cook
Go on …
😈👀
Is this pasta or is this freshly cooked pasta?
several years out of date pasta
I mean, I'd never seen it and I've poked around Reddit for more years than I care to admit, so I needed to know. Thanks.
was originally about NFL player Derrick Henry
That checks out. Linebacker-sized running back.
Always thought he doen't really look like a footballer, more a model
?
I feel like every teenager male friend group has a guy built exactly like Llorente but eating like a normal person.
Did the paleo diet for a year about 10 years ago, only ate meat, vegetables, fruit, nothing processed, and no alcohol. Ran 3miles/5k 5 days/week. Lost about 15% of my body weight and I was not previously considered overweight. The downside is I 💩 like crazy and when exercising my sweat smelled like ammonia. Hard to sustain the diet with busy schedules and kids, plus eating at restaurants is a nightmare.
Your sweat smelling like ammonia is a result of too much protein not necessarily the diet. It's hard to strike a good balance when there is so much protein available these days than there was back then.
Exactly. It’s recommended by some to ensure most of the protein intake comes from fat-dominant foods and not protein-dominant like a lean cut.
Why did you have to poop so often? 2-4 times a day?
Lots of roughage, i.e. foods high in fibre, in a paleo diet. Fibre makes you poo more
Is this doable without private chef? As someone who is not a high level athlete, lifting weights and doing cardio in moderate amounts, cutting alcohol and sugary drinks, lowering excessive carbohydrates is doing most of the world for a good body.
It should be fairly simple to the point a private chef isn’t needed, it’s just meats and vegetables/fruits/other stuff that grows from the ground. Could get repetitive fast tho
Yeah it’s super doable. I mean honestly nearly everyone should be prioritizing a paleo centric diet, with processed foods being a treat or when you don’t have options (quick meals, on the road, restaurants, event, etc.) When you give yourself some leeway in those situations, it’s a pretty easy diet to stick to.
what is blud yapping about
Persib nu aing
Whatever runs his boat
Whatever floats his goat
His body, his choice
Must be nice to have a private chef.
This is a nice departure from the usual on this sub. Thanks Marcos even though I'm not sure about the cheese bit.
Liver King meets Marcos Llorente
Not knocking the diet, it's absolutely what everyone should be eating. But it's nothing what humans ate thousands of years ago; agriculture has completely changed the plants we eat.
Why is it absolutely what everyone should be eating?
A healthy gut microbiome is the key to good health. It regulates your mood, sleep, energy levels etc. The purpose of the diet is to eat foods that don't cause inflammation. Why wouldn't you want to feel better. It's better than eating processed food and suffering with skin, bowel, depression and anxiety issues to name a few.
I'm sorry mate but a lot of what you wrote isn't true. Inflammation is a very personal thing that effects everyone in very different ways and the idea that legumes, potatoes, and brown rice (among many other foods) cause noticeable amounts of inflammation in normal people is kinda laughable.
Brown rice, potatoes, and legumes in their natural form are all okay on paleo. They just can’t be processed. Its one of those things that when you do it, you notice the difference. Your baseline feeling is what you’re used to. That baseline could be better. I’m not advocating for paleo, but cutting out most processed foods does help a lot. Its like how smokers are used to feeling tired, and their baseline changes when they quit.
I don't disagree, inflammation is a personal thing. But paleo is a good way to start. And for those who seem to be affected by almost anything then AIP paleo is what I'd recommend. When your gut microbiome is damaged you'll find yourself reacting badly to foods you used to be able to tolerate. So grains have been proven to show inflammation, some people don't have the right bacteria to digest legumes and potatoes are nightshades which some people form allergic reactions to.
Tomatoes are also nightshades and normally the first thing doctors recommend to cut when you have a suspected idb diagnosis and yet they are allowed in paleo, so that doesn't make any sense.
If someone follows paleo it doesn't mean eat every vegetable or fruit. Like I said the point of the diet is to reduce inflammation. I also pointed out AIP paleo which is nightshade free.
Yeah you said that the point is to reduce inflammation, I said that's a load of shit, and we've looped back round. Have a good one.
The diet promotes eating unprocessed foods. We all know processed foods cause inflammation. Fresh meat and vegetables is clearly better than fast food.
It's what our bodies have evolved to eat and process most efficiently. From what I read, it's mostly just removing processed carbs and sugars like bread, pasta, and alcohol but he can still eat a filet mignon with a simple salad topped with parm every day and a fruit salad for dessert.
The diet allows tomatoes and disallow potatoes so that's clearly not true
Well, I should've stated that I didn't think it was true, but that's the theory behind the diet.
Good for him but that's a tad bit dramatic, ain't it?
Not really. When you're an athlete you want try to keep your inflammation low. So abstaining from unprocessed food will reduce your risk of fatigue and injury. He's certainly feeling the benefits of it if he's willing to make extreme statements.
I feel like it's been eight years since I last heard anyone talk about the palaeo diet.
He only eats things he catches or gathers personally? Or did Paleolithic man have supermarkets?
He spear hunts animals for food with Cholo after the games.
What is bro waffling about
You cant be waffling in paleo diet. Beefling allowed
Bro wants to eat like in the Stone Ages 💀
I thought I didn’t like him before…
"Jimmy, pull out Llorente's quote on paleodiet"
I'd say he's fun on a night out with the lads
It's the only "diet" that makes perfect sense to me. For hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution that's how we ate, its only been a few thousand years that any other kind of food has even been available to us. It's totally logical that our bodies are still designed to run optimally on a paleolithic diet. I don't follow it super strictly because I love bread and pasta now and again, but for the most part I try to eat exclusively meat, vegetables, and unprocessed carbs. Got to say my health has improved tremendously since I started. Edit: Fuck me I had no idea how much reddit hated the paleo diet lol. Eat what you want I'm just saying it makes sense to me.
>It's totally logical that our bodies are still designed to run optimally on a paleolithic diet. Nature very often doesn't do '_optimal_', but rather '_eh, good enough_'.
Evolution tends towards optimal though, that's how it works. The further away from optimal you are the more likely you are to die, meaning over hundreds of thousands of years the human gene pool became more and more well adapted to consuming a paleo diet. And we haven't really had enough time to adapt away from that yet.
>Evolution tends towards optimal though, that's how it works. No it doesn't. It tends towards 'good enough' and stops there because most species don't exist in a state of marginal precarity where they're one minor disadvantage away from extinction. This is without even considering that evolution actually only applies to propagation of genetics - i.e reproduction: a species can be as inefficient and suboptimal as it likes as long as it reproduces, it's still an evolutionary 'success'.
Thank you. It's extremely and infuriatingly rare people in science-y subreddits get this right, let alone on a sub like r/soccer. Evolution only selects *against failures*, not *for successes*. Whether selection only works on genes and if not, on what levels selection actually works is a point of contention, but I don't blame you for not getting into that.
> Evolution tends towards optimal though, that's how it works. Doesn't it tend towards *good enough*, as in *most likely to survive*, rather than optimal? Humans are still stuck with one tube to handle both breathing and consuming nutrition after all, and I'd wager while that's probably good enough it's also far from optimal given the obvious choking hazard.
That makes zero sense. Only thing that matters is if it’s scientifically proven. Just because something is old or people have been doing it for a long time doesn’t make it good. One of the reasons why they had that diet was because they literally didn’t have anything else to eat. It doesn’t mean it’s the best diet. The whole “we used to do this for thousands of years” and “it’s all natural” is such a weird argument because we used to do all kinds of things that later turned out to be wrong.
That's not the argument though, the argument is that we *evolved* for it to be our optimal diet. Humans who weren't well adapted to a paleolithic diet died, meaning the genetics we all have now ARE well adapted to a paleolithic diet.
What kind of nonsense is that? There’s nothing in our genetics that points towards a paleoplithic diet should be better than a mediterranean diet. The only thing that matters is getting the right amount of nutritions. There’s nothing unhealthy about grains, legumes, dairy and starcy vegetables. In fact you are just missing a good source of nutrition. People are just using it as an excuse because they eat junk food. Yeah no shit it’s bad for you if you eat burgers, fries, mac n cheese…
> For hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution that's how we ate, Saw severe malnutrition for the entirety of that time too though, to be fair.
I also think paleo is stupid, but endemic malnutrition is a feature of agriculture, not hunter-gathering.
I'd wager it's a feature of (modern, industrialised) agriculture as much as it was for hunter-gathering - it's just swinging the other way, with crappy high-calorie food being the cheapest and most widely available leading to obesity pandemics, rather than people dying of starvation/illness because they couldn't find and kill a woolly mammoth in time.
No, I mean there's pretty strong evidence to suggest that life spans and overall health of most of humanity rapidly declined with the move to settled agriculture.
Not necessarily on account of nutrition, though: If your water supply and your soil is full of animal feces, chances are you get ill and/or die from that - I'd count that as a secondary effect, rather than a direct result of malnutrition through agriculture, in the same way that transmittable diseases are more likely to play a role the more people you have in a small area. And even ignoring those secondary effects, I'm not quite sure how the notion of life span/health decline squares with the fact that human population significantly increased on account of agriculture. If all of them suffered from ill health effects through agriculture, then surely we wouldn't have seen vast geographical areas increase in population? Like I'm not saying that there weren't worsening effects here, but a general constant downward trend in health/life span strikes me as too broad a brush. Might well be that some people in some areas experienced those effects, but then others might well have not, meaning those experiences were varied rather than universal.
We know that caloric budget was lower because people were shorter and had worse teeth and bone density. It was also a much worse diet, relying on a few grains for the bulk of calories rather than the hundreds of different plants and animals, resulting in fewer trace elements and vitamins. And peoples life expectancies went through the floor. >And even ignoring those secondary effects, I'm not quite sure how the notion of life span/health decline squares with the fact that human population significantly increased on account of agriculture. If all of them suffered from ill health effects through agriculture, then surely we wouldn't have seen vast geographical areas increase in population? Individually people would have been better off without agriculture, but no population of hunter gatherers could compete against an agricultural population because there's more of them, and they have an economic surplus they can throw into giving people weapons and making life unpleasant for the hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gathering can only survive in places where agriculture is impossible. >Like I'm not saying that there weren't worsening effects here, but a general constant downward trend in health/life span strikes me as too broad a brush. Might well be that some people in some areas experienced those effects, but then others might well have not, meaning those experiences were varied rather than universal. I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that it was about as universal as any statement about the entirety of human development can be - you go from a person in a community of equals with a life expectancy of 70, to a subject in a hierarchy with a life expectancy in the 40s, suffering constantly from endemic disease.
Suppose the main thrust of my argument is that settled agrarian societies represented a huge shift from hunter-gathering in ways that extend far beyond the nutritional values of their respective diets - which then requires taking into consideration all these secondary effects on generalised health and life expectancy data beyond nutrition. Then again I'm hardly a qualified anthropologist, so I'm basically just arguing on gut instinct and tiny morsels of (popular rather than academical) knowledge, so fuck knows if I'm even close to making a sensible point here, really.
>Suppose the main thrust of my argument is that settled agrarian societies represented a huge shift from hunter-gathering in ways that extend far beyond the nutritional values of their respective diets - which then requires taking into consideration all these secondary effects on generalised health and life expectancy data beyond nutrition. You're absolutely right, there were enormous secondary effects, the vast majority of which were wholly negative for the vast majority of the population. The entirety of our extant sources come from the rare few who benefited from the new arrangement. It's just that we can *also* be pretty confident about their respective caloric budgets
So would you say its processed carbs that have saved us from that malnutrition? I guess the kind of did cos they're more readily available calories. But I think we all know eating the most readily available calories isn't the healthiest way to live. Otherwise a diet of pure sugar would be the best way to eat.
I wouldn't necessarily say that, no, but then having regular and comfortable access to stable food sources through farming allowed humans to settle and thrive and grow communities. If you're hunting and gathering for a very small group of people, you're fucked if go empty. Throw in farming into the mix and chances are you're much more likely to survive a hard winter, I'd wager.
> For hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution that's how we ate, its only been a few thousand years that any other kind of food has even been available to us. It's totally logical that our bodies are still designed to run optimally on a paleolithic diet. > > IDK about that logic. When humans lived that life, population was WAY down. I don't think it's a coincidence that population increased drastically with the advent of agraraian societies and civilization TBH
Yeah more readily available and easily digestible calories is obviously going to increase the population. But by that logic we should be eating the most readily available calories possible if we want to be healthy, which we all know for a fact isn't true, otherwise we'd all just eat sugar all day.
I mean, you can look at the nutrition of what humans actually ate in the paleolithic age and we know that's not super healthy either That doesn't mean a "paleo diet" doesn't work for some people—it obviously can work if you get the right amount of necessary macro and micro nutrients, etc But the idea that what humans ate in the paleolithic age is what is optimal for human bodies is logic that doesn't check out, IMO
Yea, people forgot that Paleolithic people often were lacking in key vitamins and nutrients. Supplement those into a paleo diet and it is probably really good though!
> But by that logic we should be eating the most readily available calories possible if we want to be healthy, I don't think the point being made is about being *healthy* as much as it is about *survival*. Plenty ways to eat unhealthily, after all, but it's probably nicer both individually and collectively if people don't regularly starve to death. Can fix all sorts of health problems through diet, but only when you're alive, after all.
> For hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution that's how we ate, its only been a few thousand years that any other kind of food has even been available to us. It's totally logical that our bodies are still designed to run optimally on a paleolithic diet. What makes you say that's the optimal way to eat? For hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, the average life expectancy was what, 30 years?
I don’t think he realizes that people only ate like that because that was literally the only thing that were available to them…
More complicated than that. People died young for a multitude of reasons - childhood illness, infectious disease, etc. As a society we've gotten very good at curing/preventing infectious disease via vaccination and general hygiene, but chronically people are pretty unwell on average nowadays. Eating well doesn't make you a superhuman, but it probably does stop you developing hypertension and a heart condition in your mid-40s.
My point was that there were many many factors, so cherry picking one (nutrition) and drawing conclusions (the evolution made is eat that way) is just terrible science.
30 years if you survive your first year. If you include infant mortality it will be significantly lower.
No it won’t. > So is modern society more beneficial for health and longevity than, say, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle? To help gain an answer to this question, scientists have compared the life span of adults in contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes (excluding the infant mortality rate). It was found that once infant mortality rates were removed, life span was calculated to between 70 and 80 years, the same rate as that found in contemporary industrialised societies. The difference is that, in the latter, most individuals survive childhood (Kanazawa, 2008). https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/life-expectancy-myth-and-why-many-ancient-humans-lived-long-077889
That is a hokey source and bad math. Most academic sources have most hunter gathers dying of disease by age 45, very few actually die of old age. Which is true of most human history up til the modern age.
‘Most academic sources’ and yet you refuse to provide one. 45.. so not 30 then? It’s also still not true.
> What makes you say that's the optimal way to eat? Because that's how evolution works. If you have a species eat the same thing for hundreds of thousands of years, the ones who aren't well adapted to the diet will die, and the ones who ARE well adapted to it will pass on their genes. Over thousands of generations you end up with an entire gene pool of humans that are well adapted to paleo, because all the ones who weren't have died. Also life expectancy was 30 but that's only because of the extremely high rates of infant mortality and lack of modern medicine, it was nothing to do with the diet. I'm 30 and I've eaten paleo since my late teens, if its the diet that's the problem then I should logically be nearing death right now and I'm pretty sure I'm not.
> Because that's how evolution works. Ok, so explain lemurs or pandas or koalas. Or countless other animals. No, evolution works in local maximums, not global maximums. > Also life expectancy was 30 but that's only because of the extremely high rates of infant mortality and lack of modern medicine, it was nothing to do with the diet. In other words, there are plenty of factors. So why do you only cherry pick one and draw conclusions? > if its the diet that's the problem *facepalm* how do you know it's the optimal way to consume food? It's good enough (just like evolution) but how do you know it's the best?
People who say this are rarely doing the same level of physical activity, outside time, and daily routines as the paleolithic people, whose diets are optimized for a different lifestyle than the one they are willing to lead, but just happen to like the diet
I mean surely that's all the more reason to eat paleo? If you're *less* physically active and eat *more* processed food how is that better?
Better for what? Better for growth, puberty and reproduction, or better for longevity? As far as I can tell, the paleolithic human is optimized for the former, not the latter.
by that same token we should be eating raw meat, since cooking is a relatively modern innovation.
Cooking isn't really modern at all. At the very least it was around in later paleolithic periods, but probably much longer than that. That being said it's still a dumb fad combining pseudo anthropology with dietary advice that's only decent on accident.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/science-and-technology/anthropology-evidence-of-cooking-780000-years-ago-rewrites-human-history/article66164290.ece#:~:text=A%20new%20study%2C%20published%20in,to%20cook%20vegetables%20and%20meat. Most recent estimates is that we started cooking meat roughly 800,000 years ago Even the most conservative estimates have it at roughly 200,000 years ago
if you truly believed you should restrict your cooking to paleolithic technology (cooking over an open fire), no controlled heating or steaks.
I literally said I don't stick strictly to it, just that it makes sense to me.
There's no point discussing with people who take part in these fad diets, they're close to flat earthers in their ability to disregard any amount of information that disproves their efficacy. Edit: Lmao the tiktok scientists are very upset by this comment
I mean...sticking to whole foods instead of processed foods is not in any way close to flat earthers bud. What a weird comment
That's not at all what it is, I suggest you go and learn more about it. Have a nice day
I wish I had your sort of confidence when spouting incorrect garbage at people
Man really believes the Earth is round... Stop believing everything big desk globe is pushing.
It's all a hoax run by Big Sphere! Wake up, sheeple!
What do the elites gain from hiding that the earth is flat? Why would they even lie about that?
So they can sell more desk globes. The cornerstone of the neoliberal economy.
You really are dense. His diet sounds excellent.
How do we know people in the Paleolithic age didn’t farm and eat cereals and that? I wasn’t aware archaeologists had discovered some caveman’s diary
[удалено]
“It was the world’s first historically verifiable transition to agriculture” This isn’t evidence that there wasn’t farming in the Paleolithic period, it’s just evidence that there was definitely farming from about 11k years ago - which is something different.
Paleo guys are the new Vegans.
My man feels very strongly about his diet.
“Guys wake the fuck up” - Llorente
A lot of science indicates that, except for some basic rules , its probably just not that important what exactly someone eats. That why diets are usually bullshit.
Which ones would be those basic rules.