Non processed, easy breakfast

Eggs can be quick! If you have a microwave, just scramble them in a microwavable cup and toss some veggies in there, microwave for about 30 seconds, and voila, instant omelette. And you don't need to add any butter/oil or worry about leaching from a non-stick pan. If you cut the veggies up at night and put them in the cup in the fridge, your total time is under one minute from opening fridge to eating.

I don't want to get into a debate here, but after doing a lot of reading about the "paleo" diet, I don't know that those are really the assumptions. Perhaps it was at first, but I believe things have become more nuanced. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I'd say that the general assumption is that "looking to evolutionary clues as well as ancestral diets might be a good place to start when forming research questions about what diet is optimal for human health." I've never seen anyone claim that all paleolithic people ate the same or that we know exactly what they ate, but we do know what they probably DIDN'T eat, and so that is where people have looked first for foods that might be leading to chronic disease. The question as to whether a diet that reduces/eliminates "neolithic" foods is optimal remains open, I'd say.

I really like this quote by Cordain about "paleo" being a guiding framework (www.cathletics.com/articles/downloads/proteinDebate.pdf)

The study of human nutrition remains an immature science because it lacks a universally acknowledged unifying paradigm (11). Without an overarching and guiding template, it is not surprising that there is such seeming chaos, disagreement and confusion in the discipline. The renowned Russian geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (12). Indeed, nothing in nutrition seems to make sense because most nutritionists have little or no formal training in evolutionary theory, much less human evolution. Nutritionists face the same problem as anyone who is not using an evolutionary model to evaluate biology: fragmented information and no coherent way to interpret the data.

It's a nice enough theory, but the effect is that you end up excluding foods that are perfectly healthy, and demonizing others that don't negatively affect one's health when taken on moderation.

For a lot of people, I'm sure that's likely the case. That's also why most people accept an 80/20 rule with 20% treats that your body can handle. The only way to really know what foods your body "can't handle" (make you feel like crap, or worse) is to eliminate them for a period of time and then reintroduce them. Some people see no difference at all. So, YAHTZEE for them. Personally, I experience many immediate problems with dairy and grains (except, I think, my acne rosacea, which cleared up nicely when I eliminated those), but I also have something going on causing me to not ovulate/ovulate irregularly. My couldn't really offer any help except to suggest a drug to help stimulate ovulation. Personally, I'd rather start trying to fix things with nutrition if possible before taking a drug. Poking around indicates that gluten and casein might be the first culprits. So, I don't have a problem avoiding those for several months.

However, I don't personally see how 6-11 servings of grains/day is "moderation" at all, especially considering that researchers suspect that only a small fraction of people with gluten sensitivity or even full-blown celiac disease are ever diagnosed since they are now learning that it can manifest in a myriad of different ways that are NOT gastro-intestinal and the antibody tests are prone to giving false negatives. But that's another issue entirely.

fry up some bacon, saute some veggies (we use peppers, broccoli, cauliflower, & onions), add the crumbled bacon, scramble in several eggs, and grate some sharp cheddar (if you are following a Primal Diet... Paleo = skip the cheese) and enjoy with a sliced avocado.

Best. Breakfast. EVER!