any one try or eat a Paleo diet!!?

I tend to stay away from diets that limits foods that are suppose to be good for you, like fruits.

That's an out and out lie. Paleo does NOT restrict fruits.

Paleo advocates eating REAL food - not manufactured food. If the food you want to eat can be plucked from a plant, pulled from the ground, or hacked off an animal, it is fair game - obvious poisons plants excluded. In some instances a plant item will require special preparation to be better suited for loud, i.e. soaked - beans, some nuts, etc.

I eat Paleo 98% of the time - often sticking to it 100%+ (i.e. the plus comes from not allowing any sweeteners at all, including those approved by paleo police). I am an endurance runner. I have even run one of them completely fasted with no ill effects and scored a PR.

My advice to you - if you want to ask questions about Paleo, avoid the general forums here. Everyone's a hater. Do your own research and make the decision for yourself. And if you want to talk about it, there are a ton of places available where you won't get so much negative feedback. There are boards and groups here specifically for paleo discussions. And there are places all over the web.

And if you want friends, feel free to add me.

US news just released a report of the best and worst diets...as evaluated by "experts". Paleo finished dead last in the ranking....

I get so sick of seeing this BS. The "experts" (who usually are not experts in nutrition or metabolism) think that because grain, dairy (as if pasteurized dairy has anything to offer!) and legumes are eliminated and that natural saturated fats are eaten in abundance that the lifestyle is "dangerous". If you actually were investigating new research (and noticing that many nutritional experts are starting to change their views) and not just the cherry picked crap from the 1950s to 1980s you would know that their opinion that the lifestyle is dangerous is not based on reality. The other issue of the way the diets were ranked considers how "hard" it is to stick with the "diet".

Some people can't grasp that what we eat matters; we are told that it doesn't matter from a million different directions... and then many of us struggle for years, getting sicker and fatter, and feel like failures because we are trying to moderate and count calories (but it's funny how missing micronutrients stimulates the need to eat and eat and eat until those nutrient needs are met....).

For me, I don't find it hard at all to live in lots of fat, meat and veggies. Ribeye steak, mushrooms fried in butter, and salad over bread ANY DAY. I accept that other people have different experiences and don't want to give up the foods I have given up, but if you haven't tried this lifestyle please spare the BS based on more BS when other people are asking for legitimate information/experiences.

OP: As likely already mentioned, join the Primal/Paleo support group. There are many of us there that will be happy to help answer questions and share our experiences.... where we won't be so ridiculed and disrespected by people who have no experience or say that they have "tried the Paleo diet" (if any of them tried it for less than a month they did NOT try it) when they did not. (No one I know calls it a "diet", even my friends who have trouble sticking with it fully still call it a "lifestyle" and are always striving to improve.)

But really if you guys want to be paleo/primal go ahead, I would even support you in doing it.

I don't know why. It's not NEARLY as good as keto.

Huh? I'm keto AND Paleo. They go together quite naturally. And I skip all the processed Atkins products and artificial sweeteners. Bonus.

I've been doing it for over a year now, and it's more about getting smart on food. And realizing all the crap you really do put in your body. I want to read wheat belly, but for me, grains do a number on my stomach, and I just do better without breads and pastas. So I substitute shredded zucchini for pasta and my son still eats it.

There are good reasons to not eat peanut and grains (anti-nutrients, etc), but you have to read into the science behind it.

My husband has noticed a huge difference in his auto-immune issues by eating 'cleaner' .

Peanuts, legumes and grains are not anti-nutrients. This has been debunked. Here is a well researched article that includes links to peer reviewed published scientific articles.

http://greatist.com/health/debunking-diets-paleo-pros-and-cons#footnote-node-1643-4

Honestly, how can a diet where you eat a ton of vegetables, lean meats, fruits, nuts, and seeds possibly be the worst diet out there? What on earth is 'unhealthy' about that?

^ This.

I don't follow Paleo because there are things in it that I am unconviced of (the elimination of dairy being one). But the demerits assigned for its 'ranking' were weird. For one, most of the 'criticism' seemed to center on the semantics of the name "Paleo" as in "You can't eat exactly like a caveman." Well, no. You can't. But that's a semantic argument, not a nutritional one. It was quite odd to me that they didn't seem to actually get around to going over the nutrition of the actual diet itself.

While, I am unconvinced that eliminating dairy or legumes is necessary... I can't say that it's actually harmful to eliminate dairy and legumes from someone's diet if they wish to. Which brings me to:

Paleo advocates eating REAL food - not manufactured food. If the food you want to eat can be plucked from a plant, pulled from the ground, or hacked off an animal, it is fair game

It also seems that a lot of the criticism of Paleo comes from an assumption that it's an all meat diet when that is not the case. What some are criticising is a strawman idea of the diet that's not actually representative of the actual diet. Paleo doesn't have to be low carb if someone doesn't wish it to be. It does not eliminate fruit from the diet. It actively promotes eating vegetables. You can eat carrots, sweet potatoes, spinach, kale, collards, celery, celeriac, garlic, leeks, onions, brocolli, asparagus, cauliflower, arugula, cabbage, brussel spouts, yucca, okra, eggplant, rudabegas, summer squash, zuchini, butternut squash, acorn squash, basically any squash, olives, {insert the name of any number of vegetables here} and so on as regularly as you want (depending on the way you're choosing to follow the diet, and there's a fair amount of leaway). It does promote eating meat, so it is fairly difficult for a vegan to go Paleo and meet the protein suggestions. But, still, there is nothing about Paleo that is inherently non-nutritious. You can eat a well rounded meal with all sorts of items in a well-balanced way and still be 'doing' Paleo. Again, it may not be necessary to eliminate legumes and dairy (I'm unconvinced that it is), but it's hardly dangerous to do so, nor likely to sabotage your health to do so.

I'm frequently somewhat mystified as to why discussion of the diet so often devolves into an argument about the semantics of the word 'Paleo' rather than the nutritional guidelines it promotes. There may be issues with the terminology, but the nutrition resulting from their guidelines is still pretty defensible (IOW, legumes may not actually be unhealthy, but it's not going to actively hurt you to avoid them) . There's little damage to be done by eliminating the foods it advises to eliminate (unecessarily or not). I don't do it because I like my dairy (and lima beans!), but I'm not going to say that it harms someone to not have it. While perhaps unecessrily strict in some areas, since when is a diet consisting of eating lots of vegetables with daily servings of lean meat and fruit a 'controversial' much less inadvisable thing to do?