Paleo diet discussion

[Jefferson17]

So you are saying that the science establishment is not trustworthy,yet you are somehow convinced that the Paleo promoters are trustworthy?

The reason that it would be pointless to warn a wild wolf of the dangers of saturated fat is because 1) wolves don't understand our language and 2) because there is not an endless supply of food in the wild available at all times like there is for humans and domesticated animals. Domesticated animals do get sick from over consumption and low quality food.

Paleolithic man wasn't much different from the wolf. He hunted and foraged what he could find and likely went days at a time between big meals. There wasn't enough of a food supply for Paleo man to sprout bitch tits and a fat gut and that wasn't because bread and pasta weren't around, it was because he walked and ran all day to get his food.

I'll tell you what... I'll bet anything that if you eat the Standard American Diet and adopt a lifestyle like that of Paleolithic man that you will be every bit as lean and strong as he allegedly was.

Hi Scott,

Tell you what ... instead of arguing theory - why not give it a shot? Eat Paleo for 2 weeks and see how you feel? I've been on it now for about 5 weeks. My girlfriend for 9 weeks. She's lost over 20 pounds and is getting compliments left and right. I've dropped 12 pounds and FEEL terrific.

I'm not saying that I don't "cheat" here and there. When I want, I have a handful of tortilla chips or a slice of bread. But I have to admit that my energy level is fantastic throughout the day and I'm losing those love handles, and looking forward to seeing my abs in another month or two.

I certainly don't trust the administration. Being 41, I've seen again and again that their only interest is in catering to the special interest groups and big business. They do not care about what is best for you or I.

But it's hard to argue against trying a diet "based on lean meats, fish, lots of non-starchy veggies, some fruit, and some nuts". Whatever you call it, paleo, zone, whatever - it's a healthy diet with lots of good food. Come on - what's not to trust about TRYING that and seeing how YOU FEEL after a few weeks?

The diet is NOT exclusive. You CAN eat some other stuff 3 times a week, but the basis of it is just really good raw food. You don't need to get the book to try it out - the diet is SO simple that anyone can give it a shot.

Bear in mind the idea it's not just based on "here's how they lived and what they ate and therefore that your lifestyle needs to be the same". The idea is that WE evolved over 2-3 million years eating good healthy raw foods and lean meats. Sure we were pretty active too. But we also surely didn't have widespread access to starchy vegetables, grains and cows milk during this time. Not until agriculture really kicked-in. So ... why not try a regular diet of the basic things that we actually evolved eating? Heck it can't HURT us and you really will never know how YOU feel unless you try it. Put another way - you won't really know how you feel until you have EXCLUDED certain things from your diet for long enough.

Well I am off my soapbox and truly hope that you try it out for yourself. This isn't about arguing who's right and who's wrong - it's about finding an eating lifestyle that makes you feel great and supports your goals.

Best regards,

Jeff

[mac520]

So you are saying that the science establishment is not trustworthy,yet you are somehow convinced that the Paleo promoters are trustworthy?

I don't know exactly what paleo promoters say, but the general paleo philosophy doesn't try to invent anything new, it simply looks to the diet of a paleolithic man for recommending what to eat. The logic behind following a paleo diet isn't one based on science, which can be flawed and incomplete, especially a field as complicated as nutritional science, rather it is based on the simple logic that we should eat what our ancestors ate because evolved to that diet.

The reason that it would be pointless to warn a wild wolf of the dangers of saturated fat is because 1) wolves don't understand our language and 2) because there is not an endless supply of food in the wild available at all times like there is for humans and domesticated animals. Domesticated animals do get sick from over consumption and low quality food.

Paleolithic man wasn't much different from the wolf. He hunted and foraged what he could find and likely went days at a time between big meals. There wasn't enough of a food supply for Paleo man to sprout bitch tits and a fat gut and that wasn't because bread and pasta weren't around, it was because he walked and ran all day to get his food.

I'll tell you what... I'll bet anything that if you eat the Standard American Diet and adopt a lifestyle like that of Paleolithic man that you will be every bit as lean and strong as he allegedly was.

Even given everything you said as truth, your argument does not prove that paleo has no benefits, only that that weight gain/loss is a function of caloric excess/expenditure. I'm not discussing paleo as a weight loss tool -- though it may be helpful since vegetables are very low in calories therefore a diet heavy in vegetables would be good for weight loss. I'm discussing paleo as a tool for improved general health: improved lipid numbers, healthier organs, increased energy levels and longevity, and improved insulin sensitivity to name a few benefits. I have always been a chronic skinny (even under the standard american diet) so I have never viewed paleo as a tool for trying to lose fat. I was attracted to it because I wanted to find the optimum diet for maximum health.

A reasonable reply, but, you didn't address anything specific. I'm not knocking you for that, because your response was reasonable and articulate. So, in order to advance the discussion I'll cite some sources. Please feel free to offer a rebuttal, but make please make sure it has a scientific basis, rather than mere opinion. I'd also like to state that I don't have any emotional/moral attachment to the paleo concept, rather that it makes quite a bit of sense to me, due to my background (fairly limited) in anthropology. So, let's dive in...

Here's some data on paleo-meso-neolithic lifespans:
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...-1984-1a.shtml

This explains the concept of "Evolutionary Discordance".
http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/g...gumes-1a.shtml

This discusses what is Mankind's original, natural, diet.
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...erview1a.shtml

I think that this is enough for a discussion. Fire away....

Wow, that was some great reading. I especially liked the first one about the lifespans and heights. It's amazing that even today, median male height has not reached the paleolithic levels yet. It's also interesting to see heights decline during the rise of agriculture -- a very direct effect. It's a shame that most people have the misconception that the typical paleo lifespan was so short because of diet, like all that animal meat they ate clogged their arteries and they died of heart disease.

[Jefferson17]

Wow, that was some great reading. I especially liked the first one about the lifespans and heights. It's amazing that even today, median male height has not reached the paleolithic levels yet. It's also interesting to see heights decline during the rise of agriculture -- a very direct effect. It's a shame that most people have the misconception that the typical paleo lifespan was so short because of diet, like all that animal meat they ate clogged their arteries and they died of heart disease.

Interesting reading but I'd think that it's chock full of assumptions and guesswork, based on very limited real data. We will never know what life was like for people 30,000 years ago. But we have some pretty good studies of people living isolated tribal lives with no exposure to the outside only 25-100 years ago in places like New Guinea and other remote areas. And ... they are NOT dropping dead after 35 years. So I just can't place much stock into a "study" whose only data is a collection of bone fragments.

Scientists need to make claims that they "found stuff" or they won't get more funding ...

Anyway ... have a great night all!

[SDC77]

Guys, guys, GUYS. I'm not saying that Paleo isn't a healthy way to eat! My entire point is that there is that starchy tubers, bread, pasta, etc. have never been proven to be a detriment to human health. No one is saying that Paleo isn't healthy. The Paleo pushers (Loren Cordain being the main one) will have us all believe that just because Paleo man didn't have bread and pasta around back then than we shouldn't eat it today and that they are the cause of untold numbers of diseases.

THAT is the problem with Paleo.... Unsubstantiated and often outlandish claims at best, and straight up talking out of your ass at worst.

[Timmm567]

Guys, guys, GUYS. I'm not saying that Paleo isn't a healthy way to eat![b] My entire point is that there is that starchy tubers, bread, pasta, etc. have never been proven to be a detriment to human health.[b/] No one is saying that Paleo isn't healthy. The Paleo pushers (Loren Cordain being the main one) will have us all believe that just because Paleo man didn't have bread and pasta around back then than we shouldn't eat it today and that they are the cause of untold numbers of diseases.

THAT is the problem with Paleo.... Unsubstantiated and often outlandish claims at best, and straight up talking out of your ass at worst.

Refined Carbohydrates: compile a large portion of western diet. Western health is a fail. Rising levels of Type II Diabetes, coronary heart disease, obesity, depression, cancer, blah blah ect ect.

Sugar (as added salt): do I even need to say anything?

Vegetables that need to be Cooked: These are plain toxic in their uncooked state. Soybean contains a compound that acts as a trypsin inhibitor (trypsin is a primary diegestive enzyme). A green potato can be deadly. Beans contain toxic compounds as well as sugars that our bodies have no proper way of digesting.

Dairy: Most adults don't even retain the enzyme to breakdown the sugar in milk (lactose). As a result it travels to the bowel where it is fermented and can produce gas, diahorea, and cramps. The only things that are intended to drink milk are calves!


Paleo Diet//

Vegetables and Fruit (Raw)

Almost every fruit/vegetable has been linked to beneficial qualities in humans in studies. They contain phytochemicals which are often highly anti-cancerous. The on going battle in our bodies is one of oxidation. Fruits and vegetables contain antioxidants. Some of these compounds include; vitamins, indoles, caretnoids, polyphenols, flavanoids, flavones, isoflavones and terpenes. There are thousands of phytochemicals found in fruit and vegetables. These have been linked in studies to more health benefits than any other food (and many time supplement extracts as well).

Meat/Eggs

Good Source of Protein, fats, and cholestrol.

Nuts/Seeds

Good source of fat, complex carbs, protein, fiber.


There is currently no diet healthier than the Paleo diet.

[Teflon_Don]

Refined Carbohydrates: compile a large portion of western diet. Western health is a fail. Rising levels of Type II Diabetes, coronary heart disease, obesity, depression, cancer, blah blah ect ect.

Sugar (as added salt): do I even need to say anything?

Vegetables that need to be Cooked: These are plain toxic in their uncooked state. Soybean contains a compound that acts as a trypsin inhibitor (trypsin is a primary diegestive enzyme). A green potato can be deadly. Beans contain toxic compounds as well as sugars that our bodies have no proper way of digesting.

Dairy: Most adults don't even retain the enzyme to breakdown the sugar in milk (lactose). As a result it travels to the bowel where it is fermented and can produce gas, diahorea, and cramps. The only things that are intended to drink milk are calves!


Paleo Diet//

Vegetables and Fruit (Raw)

Almost every fruit/vegetable has been linked to beneficial qualities in humans in studies. They contain phytochemicals which are often highly anti-cancerous. The on going battle in our bodies is one of oxidation. Fruits and vegetables contain antioxidants. Some of these compounds include; vitamins, indoles, caretnoids, polyphenols, flavanoids, flavones, isoflavones and terpenes. There are thousands of phytochemicals found in fruit and vegetables. These have been linked in studies to more health benefits than any other food (and many time supplement extracts as well).

Meat/Eggs

Good Source of Protein, fats, and cholestrol.

Nuts/Seeds

Good source of fat, complex carbs, protein, fiber.


There is currently no diet healthier than the Paleo diet.

I feel ya dog, but yo look. See, fruit has fructose in it dog, an we all kno dat frucktose is bad shiz yo.

[Reman]

There also seems to be a lot of information out there concluding that fats are healthier than carbs. This blog in particular http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/ constantly cites scientific studies concluding high-fat, low-carb is the way to go.

Well, Paleolithic man seemed to eat carbs AND grains too.

Science 18 December 2009:
Vol. 326. no. 5960, pp. 1680 - 1683
DOI: 10.1126/science.1173966

Reports
Mozambican Grass Seed Consumption During the Middle Stone Age
Julio Mercader

The role of starchy plants in early hominin diets and when the culinary processing of starches began have been difficult to track archaeologically. Seed collecting is conventionally perceived to have been an irrelevant activity among the Pleistocene foragers of southern Africa, on the grounds of both technological difficulty in the processing of grains and the belief that roots, fruits, and nuts, not cereals, were the basis for subsistence for the past 100,000 years and further back in time. A large assemblage of starch granules has been retrieved from the surfaces of Middle Stone Age stone tools from Mozambique, showing that early Homo sapiens relied on grass seeds starting at least 105,000 years ago, including those of sorghum grasses.

Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada.

Proc Nutr Soc. 2006 Feb;65(1):1-6.
The ancestral human diet: what was it and should it be a paradigm for contemporary nutrition?

Eaton SB.

Department of Anthropology and Radiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30327, USA.

Awareness of the ancestral human diet might advance traditional nutrition science. The human genome has hardly changed since the emergence of behaviourally-modern humans in East Africa 100-50 x 10(3) years ago; genetically, man remains adapted for the foods consumed then. The best available estimates suggest that those ancestors obtained about 35% of their dietary energy from fats, 35% from carbohydrates and 30% from protein. Saturated fats contributed approximately 7.5% total energy and harmful trans-fatty acids contributed negligible amounts. Polyunsaturated fat intake was high, with n-6:n-3 approaching 2:1 (v. 10:1 today). Cholesterol consumption was substantial, perhaps 480 mg/d. Carbohydrate came from uncultivated fruits and vegetables, approximately 50% energy intake as compared with the present level of 16% energy intake for Americans. High fruit and vegetable intake and minimal grain and dairy consumption made ancestral diets base-yielding, unlike today's acid-producing pattern. Honey comprised 2-3% energy intake as compared with the 15% added sugars contribute currently. Fibre consumption was high, perhaps 100 g/d, but phytate content was minimal. Vitamin, mineral and (probably) phytochemical intake was typically 1.5 to eight times that of today except for that of Na, generally <1000 mg/d, i.e. much less than that of K. The field of nutrition science suffers from the absence of a unifying hypothesis on which to build a dietary strategy for prevention; there is no Kuhnian paradigm, which some researchers believe to be a prerequisite for progress in any scientific discipline. An understanding of human evolutionary experience and its relevance to contemporary nutritional requirements may address this critical deficiency.

Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2009;121(5-6):173-87.
[Human nutrition in the context of evolutionary medicine]

[Article in German]

Ströhle A, Wolters M, Hahn A.

Abteilung Ernährungsphysiologie und Humanernährung, Institut für Lebensmittelwissenschaft und Okotrophologie, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany. alexander.stroehle@gmx.de

Evolutionary medicine has gained increasing attention in recent years by implying that a food selection similar to that of the Paleolithic may prevent diseases. This article is an attempt to characterize the food selection during hominid evolution based on current paleontologic research. Hominid evolution can be divided into multiple phases; and the nutrition ecology of the plio-pleistocene hominids can be tentatively characterized. According to new results of isotope analysis, the Australopithecines did ingest small amounts of animal food already 4.5-2.5 million years ago, while consuming a mainly plant based abrasive diet, which was similar to that of recent chimpanzees. Compared to the Australopithecines, the first representatives of Homo such as H. erectus and H. habilis (2.5-1.5 million years before today) were likely to consume a diet providing more energy and nutrients, which might also have been related to the more gracile dentition. Like H. sapiens the members of this species also consumed an omnivore diet. Assumptions about the nutrition ecology of the archaic and the modern H. sapiens are often concluded by analogies based on the living of historic and recent foragers (hunter-gatherers). As the few detailed ethnographic data show, the diet composition of the individual hunter-gatherer groups varied considerably and ranged from a nearly pure animal-based diet to a diet dominated by plants. All in all the eating behaviour of prehistoric humans was, like that of their pleistocene ancestors, very flexible. Except for focussing on an energy and nutrient-rich diet there was neither specialization in certain foods, nor a typical plant-animal ratio nor a defined macronutrient distribution. Correspondingly, it is impossible to justify details given by representatives of evolutionary medicine on "the Paleolithic diet" empirically.

[Timmm567]

Of course they ate carbs, paleo/caveman ect is not an no or low carb diet. In my opinion it's basically a diet that consists of the foods our ancestors would have had access to. Do we know exactly what these foods are? No. Did all out ancestors eat the same food? No. We can however narrow down the choices. For instance, we know our ancestors weren't drinking soda and eating potato chips ect.

[Teflon_Don]

Of course they ate carbs, paleo/caveman ect is not an no or low carb diet. In my opinion it's basically a diet that consists of the foods our ancestors would have had access to. Do we know exactly what these foods are? No. Did all out ancestors eat the same food? No. We can however narrow down the choices. For instance, we know our ancestors weren't drinking soda and eating potato chips ect.

So you're saying that we should avoid overprocessed food?

[Jefferson17]

So you're saying that we should avoid overprocessed food?

Paleo is much more than "avoiding processed foods". It also avoids many foods from nature that we would not have eaten in any meaningful quantity before the agricultural revolution.

There are PLENTY of carbs on the Paleo diet, from regular consumption of veggies and fruit.

[Teflon_Don]

It also avoids many foods from nature that we would not have eaten in any meaningful quantity before the agricultural revolution.

What are these "many foods from nature" that you speak of?

[Jefferson17]

What are these "many foods from nature" that you speak of?

They didn't FARM ...

[Jefferson17]

What are these "many foods from nature" that you speak of?

http://paleodiet.com/definition.htm

[On Fire]

They didn't FARM ...

Why distinguish Paleolithic man from any man predating christ (chronologically)? Do you believe that in 10,000 BC, man became fat from consuming legumes and farming grain?

[Teflon_Don]

They didn't FARM ...

That's what you think.

http://paleodiet.com/definition.htm

Do you have a link to something coherent?

[Jefferson17]

That's what you think.
Do you have a link to something coherent?

RE: Farming. Actually we KNOW that they didn't. We KNOW that there was not widespread agriculture until about 10,000 years ago.

If you are actually interested then GOOGLE it, and read a few links. We're not here to sell you and either way it's a waste of time because you'd rather make 1 liner comments then spend 1 hour actually reading about it.

Thanks for playing.

[Teflon_Don]

RE: Farming. Actually we KNOW that they didn't. We KNOW that there was not widespread agriculture until about 10,000 years ago.

If you are actually interested then GOOGLE it, and read a few links. We're not here to sell you and either way it's a waste of time because you'd rather make 1 liner comments then spend 1 hour actually reading about it.

Thanks for playing.

you know that people ate grain during the paleolithic period, right?

[mac520]

http://paleodiet.com/definition.htm

Arbitrarily watering down alcohol to 6% because that's the greatest percentage paleo man ever consumed? Stupid.

Arguments that we should follow a diet consisting of ONLY foods paleo man ate are extremely stupid. The purpose of the paleo philosophy is to provide a rough guideline for judging foods. It's the hypothesis (i.e. EDUCATED GUESS) in the scientific experiment. But ultimately, evaluations of a food's effects should be scientifically evaluated. Paleo thinking provides the starting EDUCATED GUESS. Such thinking then leads to research proving fats superiority to carbs for our health, contrary to what the nutritional establishment believed 20 years ago.

Another piece of obvious evidence of the ill effects of grain: Grain-fed cattle have higher omega-6 ratios than grass-fed cattle or wild game. Skewed omega-6:3 ratios are bad for health.

Whether or not paleo man farmed AT ALL is irrelevent. What matters is whether or not farming was significant enough in his diet that it triggered evolutionary changes that would cause us to benefit from grain consumption. Research indicates that grains contain lectins and phytates which are bad for our health. Research also indicates that a diet high in carbs messes with insulin sensitivity which in turn affects fat storage.

[Jefferson17]

you know that people ate grain during the paleolithic period, right?

Duh! They ate whatever they could (see "hunter gatherer", since the concept is beyond you). But their diet wasn't "grain-based". No one is saying they didn't have ANY grain.

We also know from going back and looking at your forum history that ALL you do is post utterly meaningless short 1 liners, contribute nothing, and love to demonstrate your own ignorance. We really find the "gangsta talk" particularly amusing.

It's ironic - you should look that up, since you are supposedly a "certified strength trainer" etc. For a wanna-be member of the health and fitness community it's remarkable that you have nothing to add and what little you do write gives you no credibility at all. Take some tips from your younger brother - he LOOKS fit :-)

Again, thanks for playing!

[Teflon_Don]

Duh! They ate whatever they could (see "hunter gatherer", since the concept is beyond you). But their diet wasn't "grain-based". No one is saying they didn't have ANY grain.

We also know from going back and looking at your forum history that ALL you do is post utterly meaningless short 1 liners, contribute nothing, and love to demonstrate your own ignorance. We really find the "gangsta talk" particularly amusing.

It's ironic - you should look that up, since you are supposedly a "certified strength trainer" etc. For a wanna-be member of the health and fitness community it's remarkable that you have nothing to add and what little you do write gives you no credibility at all. Take some tips from your younger brother - he LOOKS fit :-)

Again, thanks for playing!

Love to demonstrate my own ignorance? Ok bud. Stay in your Paleo fantasy while the rest of the world moves on.

[Jefferson17]

That's a terrible definition. Arbitrarily watering down alcohol to 6% because that's the greatest percentage paleo man ever consumed?

Arguments that we should follow a diet consisting of ONLY foods paleo man ate are extremely stupid. The purpose of the paleo philosophy is to provide a rough guideline for which types of foods are good and which are bad. It's the hypothesis (EDUCATED GUESS) in a scientific experiment. But ultimately, every decision on a food's positive/negative effects should be scientifically evaluated. Paleo just provides the starting EDUCATED GUESS. It is paleo thinking that led to the scientific evidence that fats may be good and carbs may be bad, contrary to what the nutritional establishment believed 20 years ago.

Hi Mac, (friendly tone)

Oh I haven't even read that myself. It was the 1st or 2nd thing that came up in Google and figured he wouldn't bother to read it anyway. He's just not interested in anything but his inane quips, and "gangsta" 1-liners.

As to science - what we THINK we know today about what is good or bad could be very wrong. And often what is passed for knowledge or science has proven time and again to be subjective to a person's or groups agenda. Every year or two they'll keep coming up with something that contradicts our current understanding. I ENJOY reading about the supposed "science" behind Paleo, as it's is interesting and entertaining, but I can't say that I TRUST it.

What I do know is that I am really happy with how I feel and the results from eating this way. I find that it's just a very healthy and easy lifestyle that is very sustainable. I'm sure that you are far more experienced and knowledgeble on the subject than I.

What do I like? No measuring, no weighing, no portion control, no calorie counting - all while eating GREAT stuff, feeling terrific AND losing excess fat? It is SO FUNNY when people here write about "what a restrictive diet Paleo is". I've never found any lifestyle that I enjoy so much as Paleo!

Best regards,

Jeff

[On Fire]

Why distinguish Paleolithic man from any man predating christ (chronologically)? Do you believe that in 10,000 BC, man became fat from consuming legumes and farming grain?

Hi Mac, (friendly tone)

Oh I haven't even read that myself. It was the 1st or 2nd thing that came up in Google and figured he wouldn't bother to read it anyway. He's just not interested in anything but his inane quips, and "gangsta" 1-liners.

As to science - what we THINK we know today about what is good or bad could be very wrong. And often what is passed for knowledge or science has proven time and again to be subjective to a person's or groups agenda. Every year or two they'll keep coming up with something that contradicts our current understanding. I ENJOY reading about the supposed "science" behind Paleo, as it's is interesting and entertaining, but I can't say that I TRUST it.

What I do know is that I am really happy with how I feel and the results from eating this way. I find that it's just a very healthy and easy lifestyle that is very sustainable. I'm sure that you are far more experienced and knowledgeble on the subject than I.

What do I like? No measuring, no weighing, no portion control, no calorie counting - all while eating GREAT stuff, feeling terrific AND losing excess fat? It is SO FUNNY when people here write about "what a restrictive diet Paleo is". I've never found any lifestyle that I enjoy so much as Paleo!

Best regards,

Jeff

Still looking for a serious reply, insightful one.

[Jefferson17]

Why distinguish Paleolithic man from any man predating christ (chronologically)? Do you believe that in 10,000 BC, man became fat from consuming legumes and farming grain?

Still looking for a serious reply, insightful one.

Sure! When you ask a serious question, you'll have my due consideration. I never wrote anything like the above. That's just you "being cute"- or something ...

If you are really interested in the concept then you'll read up on it first.

[On Fire]

Sure! When you ask a serious question, you'll have my due consideration. I never wrote anything like the above. That's just you "being cute"- or something ...

If you are really interested in the concept then you'll read up on it first.

I'm a little lost. I'm not insinuating that YOU'VE written anything like the above, I'm insinuating that the Paleo diet insinuates the above, as the beginning of farming started literally that far in the past. I've read up on Paleo diets and I've yet to come across the reason for a "cut off point" being so far in our past. I can understand why someone interested so much in paleo would cut us off nearer the modern age, but 10,000 years in the past, things were still pretty primitive.

If you can enlighten me, please do. As far as I know, lifespans continued to increase post paleolithic time, and none of that had to do with modern medicine or refrigeration or any of the fancy things that pro-paleo fanatics like to accuse our current state of relying upon.

Scott~ made a point earlier in this thread that I wholeheartedly agree on, and that is that a few basics of the paleo diet are great ideas. Getting back to eating whole foods is a great choice that everyone should attempt. Avoiding processing is only going to aid us in the search for optimum health. Sadly, Paleo just goes too far.

[mac520]

There isn't one universal paleo defition, just different people practicing paleo-like dies that they call paleo. Every practioner has his own brand of paleo and own beliefs about which foods are good and which are bad. Some believe in dairy, others don't, etc. What exactly about paleo goes "too far"? You can take it "as far" as you want. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

The main takeaways from paleo is to avoid grains, high fructose corn syrup, vegetable oil, or anything heavily processed.

[Jefferson17]

I'm a little lost. I'm not insinuating that YOU'VE written anything like the above, I'm insinuating that the Paleo diet insinuates the above, as the beginning of farming started literally that far in the past. I've read up on Paleo diets and I've yet to come across the reason for a "cut off point" being so far in our past. I can understand why someone interested so much in paleo would cut us off nearer the modern age, but 10,000 years in the past, things were still pretty primitive.

If you can enlighten me, please do. As far as I know, lifespans continued to increase post paleolithic time, and none of that had to do with modern medicine or refrigeration or any of the fancy things that pro-paleo fanatics like to accuse our current state of relying upon.

Scott~ made a point earlier in this thread that I wholeheartedly agree on, and that is that a few basics of the paleo diet are great ideas. Getting back to eating whole foods is a great choice that everyone should attempt. Avoiding processing is only going to aid us in the search for optimum health. Sadly, Paleo just goes too far.

Thanks for the question - now we have something to discuss. The idea behind the concept of "eating Paleo" starting "so far back" as opposed to only a few hundred or 2000 years ago is that we EVOLVED eating a pre-agricultural-revolution diet. The diet of the hunter-gatherer. That I do buy into and must be true, provided that one believes in evolution. We seem to know that we have not evolved since the rise of agriculture - that's only 10,000 years or so and just isn't remotely long enough for any real changes in the genome.

So the broad strokes are that if we EVOLVED eating some stuff and didn't have broad access to others ... that perhaps this is more well-aligned with our biological makeup for regular DAILY eating. This is not to say that we "can't eat grains at all".

I'm not personally advocating for or against the "grains are bad", "tubers are bad" concepts. I really don't care. I've read everything in that book, including some of the reference materials. I am also cynical and distrusting about what we claim to know and what we THINK is hard science.

But ... it does seem logical to me that a diet based on ONLY whole natural foods, and based MOSTLY on "pre-farming foods" could make sense for us. I've been doing this now for 2 months and am very pleased with the results.

QUOTE >> As far as I know, lifespans continued to increase post paleolithic time, and none of that had to do with modern medicine or refrigeration or any of the fancy things that pro-paleo fanatics like to accuse our current state of relying upon.

I'm sure that there are people who are keen to debate the finer points of the Paleo concepts, from various perspectives.

If anyone is truly curious about it, I'd certainly recommend they "eat Paleo" (mostly) for 2 weeks and see how they feel at the end of that time. But for anyone at all to simply state that it has no merit but also not be willing to try it ... then there's nothing to discuss, right? It's not an inane idea like, "eat ONLY really fatty meats and cheeses and no carbs for weeks straight" :-)

I also don't trust those stats that people were dying off at 30-35 until recently. There are small tribes that were completely isolated until VERY recently, eating a hunter-gather lifestyle and they aren't dropping dead left and right before 40. When it comes to "science" and it's application against a VERY limited bone record of peoples who lived 30,000 years ago - I think that we know very little other than how tall they were and something about the health of the bones and teeth. People want to get grants and sit in their offices and write papers on whatever ... ok - just don't ask me to trust most of it.

I CAN trust that they know that people were taller before the rise of agriculture - they've got a fair # of bones to prove it. And it makes sense - they were eating a lot of protein and people get taller on that diet. I worked in Japan for a while. The younger post WWII generations have consumed a lot more meat and protein than their parents. They are much taller as a result. And the women are ... more filled out too ... That was in 1-2 generations.

[rgurleyjr]

A diet based on a religion of evolution? Amazing, sounds like lean meat and vegetable diet to me. Paleolithic man is a joke, you guys can believe you evolved from a rock, go ahead.

[KLMARB]

Sadly, paleo discussions always seem to degenerate into name calling and the application of subjective morality. Since one's religious or psuedo-religious belief's are not relevant here, perhaps those of you so offended by the paleo concept would like to provide one thing, a scientific rebuttal to this:
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles...%20article.pdf

No opinion's, please. Only science.....

[On Fire]

A diet based on a religion of evolution? Amazing, sounds like lean meat and vegetable diet to me. Paleolithic man is a joke, you guys can believe you evolved from a rock, go ahead.

You added nothing to this thread at all, it's no wonder you're in the red.

[Teflon_Don]

Sadly, paleo discussions always seem to degenerate into name calling and the application of subjective morality. Since one's religious or psuedo-religious belief's are not relevant here, perhaps those of you so offended by the paleo concept would like to provide one thing, a scientific rebuttal to this:
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles...%20article.pdf

No opinion's, please. Only science.....

I'll answer science with science, but that piece you linked is merely dressed-up opinion.