| Rab said: Nice well thought out reply, just a few things to look at What Paleo use meat for http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-much-meat-is-too-much/ Paleo is not a pseudo-science it uses science, check this guy (Mark Sission) all he ever does is look at the science http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ , as new research comes in he changes, he is not fixed Importantly Paleo doesnt focus on meat, it actually focuses on mostly vegetables and some fruits, then modest amounts of fatty meats (grass feed) and plant proteins, but does avoid high Carb foods like Grains, it also includes different types of excersises, as Paleo isn't narrowly a diet but a type of lifestyle |
I should clarify what I meant. *Calling* it "paleo" is pseudo-science. The archeological evidence is that modern paleo diet recommendations do not line up with how people ate in paleo times. Also, the idea that the paleolithic period is the key one in our evolution is also pseudo-science, there is no scientific basis for the suggestion that the parts of our evolution before the paleolithic period, or the parts of our evolution after the paleolithic period, are somehow less important. 90% of humanity's evolution occurred before paleo times, and we've continued well after the paleolithic. The idea that we ate something like the paleo diet in paleo times is wrong, and the idea that other periods are less important to our evolution is wrong, and that's what I was referring to when I said it's pseudo-science.
Paleo people also argue that we began cooking vegetables very recently in our evolution, despite strong archeological evidence to the contrary. They also argue that we should be concerned with eating grains because we haven't been eating grains for a long time, and the archeological evidence also speaks against that. Paleo thinking recommends against many starches and grains, despite whole grains (and starchy vegetables like sweet potatoes) being wildly nutritious, and despite them being eating in huge quantities in paleo times. Further, paleo doctrine says we shouldn't eat phytates because it's an anti-nutrient in large quantities. When you put it to the test, though, the societies who traditionally ate the most starches and grains were the longest-living and the most vibrant in old age (such as the famed Okinawa diet, that was 69% sweet potato, and 98% plant-based). Paleo thinking is based on theory, but when you put that theory to the test it often falls apart. For example, avoiding phytates is a mistake because phytates have many health benefits. The concern with phytates is that they inhibit iron absorption, but the foods that contain phytates often also contain large amounts of iron which means that even with some malabsorption you still typically get more than enough. Paleo theory also fails to consider that animal protein becomes an anti-nutrient when present in large quantities, as it stresses the kidneys. Most people can't absorb more than about 75 grams of protein a day, and a typical paleo diet has far more than that. Too much animal protein ties up the kidneys as they try and fail to absorb the excess protein, while other nutrients that the kidneys could have helped absorb swim on by and get excreted from the body. Curiously, plant protein doesn't seem to have this same effect on the kidneys.
I acknowledged in my previous post to you that studies have shown that the number one thing that people report eating more of when they go paleo is salad, so I am well aware that paleo is about more than eating meat. :)
So I see paleo thinking as a well meaning and theory, but one that tends to fall apart in practice. This is not uncommon in nutrition research. For decades they encouraged cancer patients to avoid soy products because of their phyto-estrogens. Oddly, they didn't recommend people avoid dairy despite dairy containing ACTUAL estrogen. :) However, when they put it to the test, they found that people's recovery from cancer was improved when they ate large amounts of soy products. So the theory didn't hold up in practice. You always have to put it to the test. We find the same thing with paleo theory and how their aversion to phytate-rich foods doesn't hold up when you actually put it to the test, as one example out of several that I could cite.
Anything is better than eating processed foods, so being paleo is better than nothing, but ironically being vegan is closer to truly being paleo since most paleolithic peoples were about 98% plant-based.
