Paelo Dieters how is your colon???

Lichent

these paleo people got a big chunk of their protein by grubbing for bugs, insects made up a part of their diet along with lizards , frogs, small game like rats, mice etc.
When they did get a kill they ate like the natie indians digging right into the liver, kidneys, heart, they ate everything, tongue, neck , brain s eyes
not the lean cut steaks, roast beef, rack of lamb that the new fad paleos choose from their farm raised, and bread and genertically selected meat sources.

ironanimal

This argument is odd.

Your body cares not if the meat came from a farm, was scavenged or whatever else.

All it sees is the nutrient components and chemical structure.

CamillaHerold

I do primal, and my colon prefers it; my semicolon, and my comma for that matter, are perfectly happy with this arrangement.

Mr_Knight

Paleo is to nutrition what Intelligent Design is to biology. If someone wants to eat a certain way, that's totally cool, we're omnivores so almost any diet can be made to work. But to dress it up in a myth like this is just so pointless and misleading.

Anyway, it is what it is.

ndj1979

non paleo eater who's colon cleanses and operates just fine..

however, I heard that your intestine shuts down after 8pm if you are non paleo, is this true?

ndj1979

that is what I call a colon cleanse!

Dragonwolf

these paleo people got a big chunk of their protein by grubbing for bugs, insects made up a part of their diet along with lizards , frogs, small game like rats, mice etc.
When they did get a kill they ate like the natie indians digging right into the liver, kidneys, heart, they ate everything, tongue, neck , brain s eyes
not the lean cut steaks, roast beef, rack of lamb that the new fad paleos choose from their farm raised, and bread and genertically selected meat sources.

Most "new fad paleos" will actually go after any organs they can get their hands on. Bone broth is another staple. They go for the "farm raised" foods because they can't get wild game due to location, laws, etc (unfortunately, the game commission seriously frowns on you hunting any animal outside of its season; additionally, certain organs are illegal to sell as food due to health concerns), so they do what they can with what's available to them. Within the Paleosphere, wild is actually the ideal, and the ones that can do, in fact, hunt their own food (and more than a few also eat insects and lizards). Of course, on the insects and lizard front (as well as the organ front, for some people), it's largely a matter of being a product of their culture and upbringing. Some people simply can't get past the disgust for a given item as food that's been ingrained into them since birth. That's no easy feat. Some succeed, some don't. We all do the best we can with what we have.

The guys over at Nerd Fitness put together a nice piece about some of the criticisms and the author's responses to them. Definitely worth a read - http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2013/04/08/the-paleo-diet-debunked/

Here's a little thing by Robb Wolf, re insects as food - http://robbwolf.com/2013/07/10/true-paleo-protein/ (most Paleo people I know recognize on an intellectual level that insects are a viable source of protein, but that nasty thing called culture interferes with them actually eating it)
And another one about it, including a number of sources on raising your own insects for food - http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-eat-insects

neandermagnon

*facepalm* where to start.....

Thrity million later and we are still chimps inside!!

The evolutionary lineages that led to humans and chimps split around 5-6 million years ago. 30 million years ago, chimps did not exist. Additionally, I wouldn't describe chimps as "mostly vegetarian not meat eaters" either, given that they co-operatively hunt small mammals and also eat a lot of insects.

http://www.care2.com/causes/our-ancestors-were-mostly-vegetarian-not-meat-eaters.html

Fortunately, new research holds the answers to what Paleolithic diets actually were, and you might be surprised at the findings.

Really, care to quote from any actual journals of palaeoanthropology about that? And which species of humans are you talking about that we have "the answers to what palaeolithic diets actually were" - Homo habilis? Homo erectus? Homo heidelbergensis? Homo neanderthalensis?

BTW palaeolithic = stone age technology. So if you are talking about diets of species other than those in the genus Homo, or Australopithecus garhi, then you are not talking about palaeolithic diets. Until very recently, only humans (genus Homo) were known to make stone tools. very recently one species of australopithecine (i.e. A. garhi) have been found that seem to have also used stone tools, and they're considered to be the direct ancestors of the genus Homo.

Any species earlier than A. gahri is not palaeolithic, by definition.

We get a much better and more rounded view of what our predecessors ate when we stop focusing on one individual set of ancestors and start considering the question in a bigger, broader context.

Actually, no we don't. Evolution is a constant, ongoing, process. Human guts have adapted to changes in the diet over the past 10,000 years. Going back to what proto-apes were or were not eating 30 million years ago is utterly pointless if the question is what modern humans should eat. You have to look at recent human ancestors, especially those of the same species as us (Homo sapiens), not go back 30 milliion years. I mean, why even stop at 30 million years, why not go back 70 million years and look at the diets of the tiny little early mammals that co-existed with dinosaurs, ya know, because we evolved from them... or go all the way back to the diets of fish, because mammals, amphibians, reptiles and birds all evolved from fish type things.... see, the further back in evolution you go, the less relevant their diets were if the question is "what should modern humans eat?"

Evolution didn't stop 30 million years ago, or 5 million years ago, or even 60,000 years ago (which is considered to be when Homo sapiens first developed upper palaeolithic technology and started spreading all over the world to become, by around 28,000 years ago, the dominant species on the planet).... it's still going on and the question of "what do humans eat" needs to take into account the fact that we're constantly adapting. So you have to look at what humans have eaten over the last 100,000 years or so, for it to have any relevance, and there's no point ignoring the last 10,000 years..... the only distinction is that for the most recent millennia or ten, you need to look at what YOUR ancestors did, because that's when ethnic differences come into play. For example, if your ancestors have been hunter-gatherers until very recent times (e.g. native Australians) then you have a high probability of being lactose intolerant and possibly having other issues with post-neolithic foods. However if your ancestors were dairy farmers or herders, then chances are you can digest lactose and other post-neolithic foods just fine. And really, you don't actually need to worry that much about ethnic origin, because humans interbreed, you could be European and lactose intolerant, or native Australian and able to digest lactose, because gene flow is cool like that :drinker: so really it comes down to a very simple choice.... if you can eat something without it making you ill and you like the taste, then eat it. If eating a particular food makes you ill, then don't eat it. You don't need some fancy person talking pseudoscience about palaeolithic ancestors to tell you that.

And as for meat eating, meat is not only a natural part of the human diet, it was actually quite a crucial factor in our evolution, especially with regards to the evolution of large brains. See below for a more detailed explanation.

It all comes down to the gut and the colon. Carnivores have huge, smooth stomachs which turns prey into protein, herbivores have dense stomachs with hair-like villi and bacteria that aids in the breakdown of plants, ruminants like cows have a kind of giant fermenter which produces specific fatty acids that they can use and store, and others scarcely have stomachs at all with fermentation taking place in a greatly enlarged large intestine.

Humans are omnivores, in fact, lots of primates are omnivores. Comparing primates to other orders of mammals that are either carnivores or herbivores is utterly missing the point. Comparing humans to other primates, then we're more adapted to eating meat than other primates.

Looking at human evolution over the last 2 and a bit million years, it's clear that humans became more and more adapted for hunting and eating meat, and in fact this was necessary to grow a large brain. It's interesting that out of all the great apes, gorillas have the smallest brain for body size, and also eat the least amount of animal protein. Humans have the largest brain for body size and eat the most amount of animal protein. Chimpanzees have the second largest brain for body size of all extant hominids, and they eat the second most amount of animal protein. They co-operatively hunt and eat small mammals like monkeys. And it's not just apes that will eat meat, even baboons eat meat sometimes. Primates are for the most part omnivores (there are some exceptions, humans are not one of them though). And the largest brained humans, Homo neanderthalensis, ate the most meat of all. (Homo sapiens not far behind on either count). It's very evident from the fossil record that palaeolithic humans ate a lot of meat. Human fossils being found along with animal bones that have been butchered and/or smashed (to removed the marrow) using stone tools is usually a pretty good indication. And throughout human evolution, humans used more and more sophisticated hunting methods and developed more and more sophisticated hunting weapons, while our brains got bigger and bigger.

To put it simply, if human ancestors hadn't eaten meat, we'd have brain for body size ratios similar to predominantly leaf eating primates (i.e. very small brains) and we wouldn't be having this conversation over the internet, we'd be sitting around in trees eating leaves all day and not thinking about anything much more complex than where we're going to find more leaves to eat.

(and "turn prey into protein" .... prey *is* protein. You're protein, you're made of it. A shark eats you, a shark's going to get a significant amount of its daily required intake of protein from you. Ditto if a lion eats you, ditto if you eat meat. Meat is protein. It doesn't turn into protein in the stomach.)

neandermagnon

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

"Prima diet" is a marketing term owned by a certain supplement-selling website jockey. It has no technical or scientific meaning, and the definition has changed over the years, depending on which way the wind was blowing through the supplement-seller's ears.

Not really. While some of the details have changed (is honey primal? Depends on when you ask, since he has changed his stance on things like that; from what I've seen, though, the things he's changed on are "grey" areas, where the verdict could go either way, and when he does change, he points out the research stating why), the main point has maintained the same - eat plants and animals, limit carbohydrate intake in proportion to how fit and active you are, consume limited amounts of dairy (preferably raw, if you can) if your body tolerates it. If you know of any major parts that he's changed on, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Palaeolithic people ate honey. It's not that difficult to get hold of if you can get past the bees. You could smoke out a beehive with middle palaeolithic technology. Additionally, plenty of modern hunter-gatherer tribes not only eat honey, they go to extreme and sometimes crazy lengths to get it, because they really really like the taste of sweet things. Also, they tend to eat the honey with the bee larvae inside it. It's very nutritious... excellent source of carbs and protein all in one.

This is just more evidence that the "paleo diet" is not based on any actual research into palaeoanthropology, otherwise there'd be no "grey area" with regards to honey.

neandermagnon

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

Technically speaking, that depends entirely on who you ask. If you go blindly by Dr. Cordain's earlier works (not sure if he still holds this one, I know his views have changed on some things as he finds new information), then they're not. However, if you sit down and compare them to sweet potatoes, there isn't really much of a difference.

http://ancestralchef.com/why-arent-potatoes-paleo/

So, generally speaking, there are only two reasons to avoid potatoes - 1. You're sensitive to nightshades. 2. You're keeping your carbs down due to things like insulin resistance, in which case, potatoes aren' the only thing you're avoiding/limiting, anyway.

I am basing it off of what self-proclaimed paleo dieters state. They say that potatoes weren't eaten during the paleolithic era. I have tons of friends that are on this crazy diet, so I hear this crap all the time. My comment is always, "Eat the food; lift the weights." :bigsmile:

most of what is allowed on the paleo diet wasn't eaten in the palaeolithic era. And a lot of what was eaten in the paleolithic era is extinct now. Woolly mammoth anyone?

Also, with regards to on what people base their ideas of what the paleo diet is........ how about peer reviewed journals of palaeoanthropology?

Mr_Knight

They go for the "farm raised" foods because they can't get wild game due to location, laws, etc...

Farm raised is nothing like wild game. Different species, different meat, different diet, different lifestyle - just plain different food altogether. That should be obvious - in the wild, "meat" animals are routinely chased by predators. On a farm, they are protected and coddled and live lives of comparative luxury. And when they die, they die in the primes, as opposed to the ones who ended up over a Paleolithic fire, who were either sick, old, weak, or already partially eaten by a better predator than Joe CroMagnon. Usually combinations of all of them.

The Paleo-correct response to not having easy access to a particular food is....to not eat it, and go hungry.

WendyTerry420

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

Technically speaking, that depends entirely on who you ask. If you go blindly by Dr. Cordain's earlier works (not sure if he still holds this one, I know his views have changed on some things as he finds new information), then they're not. However, if you sit down and compare them to sweet potatoes, there isn't really much of a difference.

http://ancestralchef.com/why-arent-potatoes-paleo/

So, generally speaking, there are only two reasons to avoid potatoes - 1. You're sensitive to nightshades. 2. You're keeping your carbs down due to things like insulin resistance, in which case, potatoes aren' the only thing you're avoiding/limiting, anyway.

I am basing it off of what self-proclaimed paleo dieters state. They say that potatoes weren't eaten during the paleolithic era. I have tons of friends that are on this crazy diet, so I hear this crap all the time. My comment is always, "Eat the food; lift the weights." :bigsmile:

most of what is allowed on the paleo diet wasn't eaten in the palaeolithic era. And a lot of what was eaten in the paleolithic era is extinct now. Woolly mammoth anyone?

Also, with regards to on what people base their ideas of what the paleo diet is........ how about peer reviewed journals of palaeoanthropology?

Oh, don't tell them that! You may just crush their spirits! :laugh:

professorRAT

They might also point out that to be successful, a species only needs to reach reproductive age, so there is no reason to think eating that which we have "evolved" to eat would contribute to longevity. The selection pressure just wouldn't be there.

:flowerforyou: Wow. Very few people seem to understand this very important point. It drives me insane. You have almost restored my faith in humanity. (Sorry, just almost; there is lots of ground to make up)

neandermagnon

They might also point out that to be successful, a species only needs to reach reproductive age, so there is no reason to think eating that which we have "evolved" to eat would contribute to longevity. The selection pressure just wouldn't be there.

:flowerforyou: Wow. Very few people seem to understand this very important point. It drives me insane. You have almost restored my faith in humanity. (Sorry, just almost; there is lots of ground to make up)

there is (or was at some point in our evolution) selection pressure for longevity in humans, because of the need to transmit cultural knowledge from one generation to the next (including from grandparents to grandchildren) and also to extend the length of childhood, i.e. having longer time to learn the skills and knowledge required to survive as a hunter-gatherer, before you're an adult and have to use that knowledge to survive.

Homo sapiens has a much longer lifespan than extant ape species, including women living to be post-menopausal (which doesn't happen in the wild with chimpanzees). There's also some evidence that we have a longer lifespan than earlier human species like H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis (although there's conflicting evidence in neanderthals, i.e. some studies show they possibly had as long lifespans/childhoods as H. sapiens while other studies point to them having a shorter childhood and shorter overall lifespan).

However the point about the diet is correct, because it wouldn't be anything in the diet that increases longevity, it'd be genetic factors. Lifespan seems to be under genetic control, and there does appear to have been a strong selection pressure in humans for living long enough to see your grandchildren grow up, and taking longer to grow up.

Regards health and palaeolithic diets, there's evidence of cancer in at least one neanderthal skeleton, the skeleton in question is dated to 120,000 years ago. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0064539 The idea that palaeolithic people lived free from these kinds of illnesses is a myth. Lifestyle factors can increase your risk of getting cancer (e.g. smoking and lung cancer) however some cancers are random and not due to any lifestyle factor. So you can reduce your risk of cancer by making some lifestyle choices (e.g. not smoking, not playing with radioactive chemicals) but it's not going to eliminate the risk of it from your life, and there's also the fact that cancer is a disease of old age, i.e. palaeolithic or modern, if you live that long you're more likely to die from cancer. If many people die in their 30s and 40s then the cancer rates for that society will be lower than for one where most people live into their 80s

Dragonwolf

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

"Prima diet" is a marketing term owned by a certain supplement-selling website jockey. It has no technical or scientific meaning, and the definition has changed over the years, depending on which way the wind was blowing through the supplement-seller's ears.

Not really. While some of the details have changed (is honey primal? Depends on when you ask, since he has changed his stance on things like that; from what I've seen, though, the things he's changed on are "grey" areas, where the verdict could go either way, and when he does change, he points out the research stating why), the main point has maintained the same - eat plants and animals, limit carbohydrate intake in proportion to how fit and active you are, consume limited amounts of dairy (preferably raw, if you can) if your body tolerates it. If you know of any major parts that he's changed on, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Palaeolithic people ate honey. It's not that difficult to get hold of if you can get past the bees. You could smoke out a beehive with middle palaeolithic technology. Additionally, plenty of modern hunter-gatherer tribes not only eat honey, they go to extreme and sometimes crazy lengths to get it, because they really really like the taste of sweet things. Also, they tend to eat the honey with the bee larvae inside it. It's very nutritious... excellent source of carbs and protein all in one.

This is just more evidence that the "paleo diet" is not based on any actual research into palaeoanthropology, otherwise there'd be no "grey area" with regards to honey.

That would require "the paleo diet" to be wholly based on paleoanthropology. It's not, though, and I think that's what a lot of people who haven't researched it much often forget.

The reason it's often eschewed has nothing to do with whether or not our ancestors ate it, but whether it's of any nutritional value other than a source of carbohydrates. A Paleo person would tell you it's Paleo, but since Primal has more focus on limiting carbohydrates in general, it's questioned more. No one doubts that it's "paleo" in the sense that our ancestors could get their hands on it. What's questioned is whether or not it has benefits that make it worth its carbohydrate load.

That goes with a lot of foods. It's really only the people who are on the outside (or the ones that are in it just enough to say they do it) that keep thinking that people who follow the Paleo guidelines is about eating exactly what paleolithic people ate. The sane portion of the Paleo people will fully and freely tell you that it's not so much about replicating exactly, because that's impossible. It's about using the diets of pre-neolithic people, combined with separate knowledge about various foods (such as the evidence that wheat germ agglutinin can also contribute to leaky gut syndrome, or that polyunsaturated fatty acids oxidize easily when exposed to heat) as a template for the types of foods we should be eating and as a framework in which to make informed decisions about what should be the main staples of one's diet.

pcastagner

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

"Prima diet" is a marketing term owned by a certain supplement-selling website jockey. It has no technical or scientific meaning, and the definition has changed over the years, depending on which way the wind was blowing through the supplement-seller's ears.

Not really. While some of the details have changed (is honey primal? Depends on when you ask, since he has changed his stance on things like that; from what I've seen, though, the things he's changed on are "grey" areas, where the verdict could go either way, and when he does change, he points out the research stating why), the main point has maintained the same - eat plants and animals, limit carbohydrate intake in proportion to how fit and active you are, consume limited amounts of dairy (preferably raw, if you can) if your body tolerates it. If you know of any major parts that he's changed on, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Palaeolithic people ate honey. It's not that difficult to get hold of if you can get past the bees. You could smoke out a beehive with middle palaeolithic technology. Additionally, plenty of modern hunter-gatherer tribes not only eat honey, they go to extreme and sometimes crazy lengths to get it, because they really really like the taste of sweet things. Also, they tend to eat the honey with the bee larvae inside it. It's very nutritious... excellent source of carbs and protein all in one.

This is just more evidence that the "paleo diet" is not based on any actual research into palaeoanthropology, otherwise there'd be no "grey area" with regards to honey.

That would require "the paleo diet" to be wholly based on paleoanthropology. It's not, though, and I think that's what a lot of people who haven't researched it much often forget.

The reason it's often eschewed has nothing to do with whether or not our ancestors ate it, but whether it's of any nutritional value other than a source of carbohydrates. A Paleo person would tell you it's Paleo, but since Primal has more focus on limiting carbohydrates in general, it's questioned more. No one doubts that it's "paleo" in the sense that our ancestors could get their hands on it. What's questioned is whether or not it has benefits that make it worth its carbohydrate load.

That goes with a lot of foods. It's really only the people who are on the outside (or the ones that are in it just enough to say they do it) that keep thinking that people who follow the Paleo guidelines is about eating exactly what paleolithic people ate. The sane portion of the Paleo people will fully and freely tell you that it's not so much about replicating exactly, because that's impossible. It's about using the diets of pre-neolithic people, combined with separate knowledge about various foods (such as the evidence that wheat germ agglutinin can also contribute to leaky gut syndrome, or that polyunsaturated fatty acids oxidize easily when exposed to heat) as a template for the types of foods we should be eating and as a framework in which to make informed decisions about what should be the main staples of one's diet.

In other words, you could drop all the caveman bs, stop trying to rediscover the garden of Eden, forget about being with the "in crowd", and just eat foods that help you accomplish your goals?

Gotcha.

Dragonwolf

In other words, you could drop all the caveman bs, stop trying to rediscover the garden of Eden, forget about being with the "in crowd", and just eat foods that help you accomplish your goals?

Gotcha.

Most of the people I know that follow it have pretty much done just that. It's not about being with "the in crowd" (personally, I find all the ridicule gets old, and if I wanted to be part of "the in crowd" I wouldn't be doing anything remotely close to Paleo). They have research that backs up their decisions (just like most people who follow diets that aren't mainstream), but for the most part, it boils down to "this is how I've lost weight and for all intents and purposes gotten rid of this laundry list of ailments, all while not feeling deprived or starved in the least, so I'm going to stick with it," particularly when talking to people with whom debating with research leads nowhere.

pcastagner

In other words, you could drop all the caveman bs, stop trying to rediscover the garden of Eden, forget about being with the "in crowd", and just eat foods that help you accomplish your goals?

Gotcha.

Most of the people I know that follow it have pretty much done just that. It's not about being with "the in crowd" (personally, I find all the ridicule gets old, and if I wanted to be part of "the in crowd" I wouldn't be doing anything remotely close to Paleo). They have research that backs up their decisions (just like most people who follow diets that aren't mainstream), but for the most part, it boils down to "this is how I've lost weight and for all intents and purposes gotten rid of this laundry list of ailments, all while not feeling deprived or starved in the least, so I'm going to stick with it," particularly when talking to people with whom debating with research leads nowhere.

So... They wised up and stopped being paleo?

Sort of like how I discovered bread and pasta at night helps me combat grain free diet induced insomnia? Or that counting calories works because there is no such thing as a prefect model but there are useful ones?

neandermagnon

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

"Prima diet" is a marketing term owned by a certain supplement-selling website jockey. It has no technical or scientific meaning, and the definition has changed over the years, depending on which way the wind was blowing through the supplement-seller's ears.

Not really. While some of the details have changed (is honey primal? Depends on when you ask, since he has changed his stance on things like that; from what I've seen, though, the things he's changed on are "grey" areas, where the verdict could go either way, and when he does change, he points out the research stating why), the main point has maintained the same - eat plants and animals, limit carbohydrate intake in proportion to how fit and active you are, consume limited amounts of dairy (preferably raw, if you can) if your body tolerates it. If you know of any major parts that he's changed on, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Palaeolithic people ate honey. It's not that difficult to get hold of if you can get past the bees. You could smoke out a beehive with middle palaeolithic technology. Additionally, plenty of modern hunter-gatherer tribes not only eat honey, they go to extreme and sometimes crazy lengths to get it, because they really really like the taste of sweet things. Also, they tend to eat the honey with the bee larvae inside it. It's very nutritious... excellent source of carbs and protein all in one.

This is just more evidence that the "paleo diet" is not based on any actual research into palaeoanthropology, otherwise there'd be no "grey area" with regards to honey.

That would require "the paleo diet" to be wholly based on paleoanthropology. It's not, though, and I think that's what a lot of people who haven't researched it much often forget.

Really, call it something else!! what you're doing is about as logical as following a vegetarian diet, then re-defining meat as vegetables and saying that you're allowed to eat meat because it counts as vegetables. You're basically saying you follow the "paleo diet" then redefining "paleo" as whatever the heck you want to consider to be paleo, whether it actually is or is not. "palaeolithic" already has a definition, quite a precise one in fact, it refers to a stage of human cultural evolution where humans used stone tools as their main/dominant technology, and acquired food by hunting (or scavenging) and gathering. "palaelolithic diet" means the diet of palaeolithic people. You can't just come along and totally redefine it with your stuff about avoiding carbohydrates. Palaeolithic people didn't avoid carbohydrates, they actively sought them out and ate as many as they could get their hands on.

If you want to emulate a paleolithic diet in modern times, the nearest you can get to it would be to take to the countryside armed with nothing more high-tech than flint, and hunt and gather your own food. All the stuff you said about carbohydrates and leaky gut has only the vaguest connection with paleo diets in that the alleles that code for lactose intolerance and possibly some other intolerances to post-agricultural foods are more common in populations that have been hunter-gatherers until recently. But as I said before, you don't need a degree in palaeoanthopology to figure out that if a food irritates your colon it's better not to eat it. Simply avoid the foods that you're allergic and/or intolerant to, and leave the "paleo" thing out of it, because it just makes the whole diet an utter farce and completely ridiculous, when if you called it something like the "avoiding foods that people are commonly allergic to" you'd probably get a whole lot more respect and a lot fewer haters and you wouldn't get into arguments like this with people who have actually studied palaeoanthropology.

Edited to be more precise in my definition of palaeolithic in the first paragraph

pcastagner

Potatoes are allowed on a primal diet, but not paleo.

"Prima diet" is a marketing term owned by a certain supplement-selling website jockey. It has no technical or scientific meaning, and the definition has changed over the years, depending on which way the wind was blowing through the supplement-seller's ears.

Not really. While some of the details have changed (is honey primal? Depends on when you ask, since he has changed his stance on things like that; from what I've seen, though, the things he's changed on are "grey" areas, where the verdict could go either way, and when he does change, he points out the research stating why), the main point has maintained the same - eat plants and animals, limit carbohydrate intake in proportion to how fit and active you are, consume limited amounts of dairy (preferably raw, if you can) if your body tolerates it. If you know of any major parts that he's changed on, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Palaeolithic people ate honey. It's not that difficult to get hold of if you can get past the bees. You could smoke out a beehive with middle palaeolithic technology. Additionally, plenty of modern hunter-gatherer tribes not only eat honey, they go to extreme and sometimes crazy lengths to get it, because they really really like the taste of sweet things. Also, they tend to eat the honey with the bee larvae inside it. It's very nutritious... excellent source of carbs and protein all in one.

This is just more evidence that the "paleo diet" is not based on any actual research into palaeoanthropology, otherwise there'd be no "grey area" with regards to honey.

That would require "the paleo diet" to be wholly based on paleoanthropology. It's not, though, and I think that's what a lot of people who haven't researched it much often forget.

Really, call it something else!! what you're doing is about as logical as following a vegetarian diet, then re-defining meat as vegetables and saying that you're allowed to eat meat because it counts as vegetables. You're basically saying you follow the "paleo diet" then redefining "paleo" as whatever the heck you want to consider to be paleo, whether it actually is or is not. "palaeolithic" already has a definition, quite a precise one in fact, it refers to a stage of human cultural evolution where humans used stone tools as their main/dominant technology. "palaelolithic diet" means the diet of palaeolithic people. You can't just come along and totally redefine it with your stuff about avoiding carbohydrates. Palaeolithic people didn't avoid carbohydrates, they actively sought them out and ate as many as they could get their hands on.

If you want to emulate a paleolithic diet in modern times, the nearest you can get to it would be to take to the countryside armed with nothing more high-tech than flint, and hunt and gather your own food. All the stuff you said about carbohydrates and leaky gut has only the vaguest connection with paleo diets in that the alleles that code for lactose intolerance and possibly some other intolerances to post-agricultural foods are more common in populations that have been hunter-gatherers until recently. But as I said before, you don't need a degree in palaeoanthopology to figure out that if a food irritates your colon it's better not to eat it. Simply avoid the foods that you're allergic and/or intolerant to, and leave the "paleo" thing out of it, because it just makes the whole diet an utter farce and completely ridiculous, when if you called it something like the "avoiding foods that people are commonly allergic to" you'd probably get a whole lot more respect and a lot fewer haters and you wouldn't get into arguments like this with people who have actually studied palaeoanthropology.

You only say that because you're outside the diet. From the inside, it all makes sense. Srsly