What is paleo?

"Some kind of pre-Neolithic diet?" Yes. Many threads here on the subject.

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/search.html?q=paleo&x=0&y=0

Read the Wikipedia article, it gives a fairly well balanced view.

The premise is that our bodies are adapted to the diet of our ancestral environment. Modern (as in, post-Stone Age) culture and technology emerged at a pace that's orders of magnitude faster than evolution. So, our bodies not optimized for the kind of diet that modern agriculture and food processing provides.

The problem is, although this is a nice story, there is no evidence whatsoever that the general principle is valid. It reeks quite strongly of the "Golden Age" fallacy. People generally lived short and miserable lives in the Stone Age, and it hardly seems like a good idea to emulate that.

I think it's sensible to make specific changes to your diet that are clearly supported by scientific evidence. Some healthy changes – for example, less processed starch, more high-fiber fruit and vegetables – may correlate with paleo diet ideas. But that doesn't lend weight to the general validity of paleo diet principles.

"I think it's sensible to make specific changes to your diet that are clearly supported by scientific evidence."

Absolutely.

My HMO physician demands that I get a routine complete blood test semi-annually. Once the results are analyzed, he makes continued recommendations for small diet changes, prescription medication dosage changes, changes in supplements, etc. He asks me questions about my exercise activities, watches the trends in my blood pressure, and everything.

I think that he wants to retain me as a paying customer/patient for a long time. I think that is good.

–B.G.–

Another fad diet.

How about this one?

This is the best quick introduction that I have found:
http://www.fitbomb.com/p/why-i-eat-paleo.html

I highly recommend Robb Wolf's book.

Aubrey, I credit paleo with having more substance than some "fad" diets that are entirely evidence-free. It seems sound, a priori, to propose that SOME elements of our modern diet are problematic, for the reasons that the paleo diet proposes. A scientific approach would then be to seek to identify just what those elements are – a good example being large amounts of sugar & processed carbs, high-GI foods (and possibly dairy, although that's controversial) for which there's good evidence for a link to diabetes.

But paleo starts to sound cranky when the approach is to reject EVERYTHING that was not present in the ancestral diet, solely for that reason. There's no evidence for that, and it doesn't sound remotely plausible. If there were any logic to that, then why not reject basic hygeine and the use of antibiotics? Humans are omnivores, and even by chance it must surely be true that SOME modern foods are fine. As I understand it, mainstream paleo rejects the consumption of whole grains – which puts it on very shaky ground. And the website that you linked to implies a conspiracy led by "Big Agro" to feed us wheat products that will kill us… well, I think that kind of stuff discredits the aspects of paleo that do have a sound basis in evidence.

a permutation of the anti-starch zeitgeist.

a permutation of the low carb diets

a permutation of the USFDA reccomendation to eat fruits and vegetables for half your diet, minimize sugar and other refined carbs,…

One of many food crazes or fads. Nothing more.

Cheers

In our research group (in a not too terrible top 100 world ranking University), we like to joke about the Paleo diet.

"Pseudoevolutionaryscience diet" is probably the best one I've heard in our tea room.

A few years ago I asked my doctor about the Paleo diet. He asked "Where does it come from?" and answered "Hollywood" and then said "Nuff said."

I am enlightened. And I went to look at some of the references – thank you. …

I'm surprised no one has spoken up for it. The nutritional part of the paleo approach is consistent with undeniable nutritional science, IMHO. Check out Marks Daily Apple on-line or the books of Taubes and Eames, among others.

HYOH!

Pseudo science.

I'm on again off again with the paleo diet.

I thought you said somewhere that you're vegan, and if so, then this is not the diet for you.

I don't think that the paleo diet hypothesis passes the sniff test. But what I will say is that it works for me. I continue to struggle with my weight and have found that I consistently lose 2-3 lbs a week on this diet. So I will call it the "paleo diet" but I don't agree that what I'm eating is necessarily what my ancestors were necessarily eating 30K years ago.

I will also say that I feel great on this diet. My energy level is pretty even throughout the day. I also find that the normal day to day joint pain is absent.

I find that it's pretty sustainable. I eat what I call "lazy paleo." I don't bake almond flour bread. I don't make squash noodles. I don't spend hours in the kitchen every weekend prepping food. I just don't have time for that and my wife works as many if not more hours than I do.

I keep it simple and shop on the periphery of the grocery store. I stick to whole foods and stay away or at least limit the sugary foods.

Paleo recommends not eating or limiting apples, oranges, and bananas. I eat all the damn fruit I want. I'm not trying to put my body in ketosis.

Paleo recommends limiting rice and quinoa. I'll have a small portion with dinner at night.

I prefer chicken and fish but have started eating more red meat on the Paleo diet.

Basic day for me

Breakfast: three eggs and a couple pieces of fruit.

Morning and mid afternoon snack: fruit and nuts.

Lunch: Chicken breast cooked with coconut oil and 2/3 of a large plate full of veggies/salad with some olive oil drizzled on it.

Dinner: meat, veggies, rice or quinoa.

One thing I do agree with is that you should balance bad fats with the good ones when eating paleo.

Here's the short answer.

No
Dairy
Legumes (including peanuts)
Processed sugar
Grain/Flour/Corn

Yes
Lean Meat
Veggies/fruit
Nuts
Good oils/fats

Sometimes
Rice
Quinoa
Yogurt (fermented dairy ok I guess?)

No processed foods.

I didn't realize that nuts and corn were processed.

(Not a short answer, more a response to the earlier posts.)

It's been a few years since I was doing most of my reading on it; I figure with these things you just need to wait. Heck, there are still people (and docs) who think "egg whites" are a healthy alternative to eggs, when the dietary cholesterol thing has been known to be wrong for decades.

Ralph makes a good point about the reasoning; rejecting a food solely because it didn't exist in the past is illogical. Mark's Daily Apple is a good spot to start as he takes a more pragmatic approach. Taubes' book is a fun read, but his insulin hypothesis may not even be correct. It still provides some light on the background of the nutritional ideas many take for granted as being well-supported. (Denise Minger's book may actually be the better read.)

In defense against some of the criticisms here, I think a "Golden Age" fallacy only applies to the extent that the dietary rules are dogmatically set. The idea of "diseases of civilization" is fairly well established and a reasonable approach to that question is to ask what has changed. Exercise, pollution, and food should all on the table.

I do wish some of the criticisms would have more thought behind them. The idea that people didn't live past 30 back then is a perfect example of an argument that completely misunderstands its supporting facts. Similarly, we must be careful making assumptions about other topics. Take exercise; once you bring down a mammoth, you can pretty much chill for quite some time. Hunter-gatherers have far more leisure time than agriculturalists. That time might be spent basket-weaving and chatter just as easily as it might be spent "at play".

Paleo does incorporate a few controversies. Even worse it challenges the conventional dogma of "low fat, plant-based" foods. It makes us ask important questions about the role of modern grains and veggie oils in the diet[0], the health metrics we use[1], and whether we were right to demonize saturated fats (or even carbs, for that matter).

-J

[0] What's the role of gluten/gliadins/etc. in chronic inflammation and thus heart disease, particularly with the modern wheat varieties?

[1] We now now that "total cholesterol" isn't that important and neither is the "bad" LDL number; you can lower your "bad" cholesterol numbers by grabbing a "low fat" meal actually increase your risk, but i digress…

Another interesting read is Marlene Zuk's "Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We Live"

How about lots of processed carbs, lots of fatty meats, cigars and wine????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roseto_effect

But a tight knit community with strong family ties…and very low heart disease???

:)

Now you have my attention.