The REAL Paleo diet

doesn't that comment about twinkies show that the author doesn't understand that we have a genetic makeup that wasn't put together to eat twinkies? If twinkies grew on trees, back than, we'd have evolved to eat them, so it would be ok now, but they didn't and we didn't so we shouldn't. it's a weird article
 
  • Like
Reactions: skedaddle
Isn't it obvious that different hunter-gatherer groups exploited different ecologies? That's what made humans so successful as a species. If one niche went bad, we could either adapt to the changes or migrate to a more promising ecology, with attendant technological changes and innovations. Sometimes a schism within the group could lead to migration.

For me, the Paleo diet is just the commonsense prescription to eat whole, unprocessed food, often raw, but cook yer damn animal flesh, we've been doing it for almost 2 million years and there's evidence that our brains never would've gotten bigger than the australopithecines' if we hadn't invented cooking.

I leave the arguments about whether beans and whatnot are acceptable to the multitude of nutrition experts, a subspecies that has successfully exploited its various media niches, particularly the new ecology of the interwebs, to propagate its kind quite fecundly for some time now.
 
One could also [incorrectly] argue that since many people now eat processed and junk foods, that some humans have recently "evolved" to eat such things.
Taking the faulty logic further, one might also argue that some humans have now evolved to sit on their bums, watch TV, and become obese.

While some people may benefit from using a Paleo-like philosophy of eating whole, unprocessed food, it is my understanding that there are some food restrictions that may be questionable.

For example, the first result from a Google search for "paleo diet restrictions" turns up.
http://ultimatepaleoguide.com/paleo-diet-food-list/
DON'T EAT
Cereal grains
Legumes (including peanuts)
Dairy
Refined sugar
Potatoes
Processed foods
Overly salty foods
Refined vegetable oils
Candy/junk/processed food

My personal opinion is that it is a simple-minded reductionist approach for any diet to eliminate entire categories of food, when there is no medical need to do so.

Here is nutritionist's perspective on Paleo.
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedFiles/N...rogram_Books/PTC_2013_Program_Book/Aragon.pdf
 
I leave the arguments about whether beans and whatnot are acceptable to the multitude of nutrition experts, a subspecies that has successfully exploited its various media niches, particularly the new ecology of the interwebs, to propagate its kind quite fecundly for some time now.
Examples, please? In my limited experience, nutritionists are fairly consistent with their recommendations. As such, I also don't see very many controversial blogs run by nutritionists.

Perhaps, it's the self-proclaimed diet "experts" and faddists that have made the internets such a confusing place?
 
  • Like
Reactions: migangelo
Examples, please? In my limited experience, nutritionists are fairly consistent with their recommendations. As such, I also don't see very many controversial blogs run by nutritionists.

Perhaps, it's the self-proclaimed diet "experts" and faddists that have made the internets such a confusing place?
Yes, it was the self-proclaiming clan to which I was referring.

Although I'm not convinced of your consistency claim. For decades, for example, we've been told low-fat is where it's at, but now we know the study that widely disseminated bs was based on was bogus. Or how about the whole whole-grain nonsense? Just gave everyone an excuse to load up on refined starches.

Not looking for an argument, I just think the health-fitness-nutrition industries and supporting media (they're in cahoots, no?) are pretty silly a lot of the time. Like you say, the basic recommendations are timeless and obvious, then the rest are endless arguments about how best to tweak the last 10-20% of flexibility/variability, usually in hopes of selling something we don't need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DNEchris and Sid
Although I'm not convinced of your consistency claim. For decades, for example, we've been told low-fat is where it's at, but now we know the study that widely disseminated bs was based on was bogus.
The official Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which is updated every 5 years, has been fairly consistent with their recommendations (with the exception of recent changes). 30% seems like moderate fat intake to me.

It would seem more likely that the low-fat trend was propagated by the junk food industry, to try to convince people that their products were "part of a balanced diet", rather than the addictive and unfulfilling products that they are actually formulated to be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/m...nary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all

Not looking for an argument, I just think the health-fitness-nutrition industries and supporting media (they're in cahoots, no?) are pretty silly a lot of the time.
I would modify that to health-fitness-diet industries. (I wouldn't lump the professionally trained nutritionists or dietitians in with them.)

Mass media is more interested in selling advertising, than the accuracy of the information that they present.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2025279440_docozxml.html

Maybe it's better to just turn it off.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...ion-viewing-linked-to-increased-health-risks/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bare Lee