Paleo diet?

Your answer is that no heart diseases, diabetes or so many cancers have been reported by history or by scientists that did the research for times before grains, processed food and heavy diary.

I recognize that one from the paleo bible. In reality, we have very little idea of disease from that point in history. Life expectancy was so short back then that only the healthy likely survived to adulthood anyways.

what I don't get is why would we want to eat like they did thousands of years ago when the lift expectancy was less than 40 years of age??

^^^^THIS^^^^

there were a lot of things shortening life, not what they ate, modern medicine has extended out lives drastically! not to mention we are no longer having to protect ourselves from predators.

Yes, modern medicine is extending the human life and so is the "modern" diet, when not abused. Bone and teeth samples from early man have shown plenty of vitamin A and C deficiency. I guess they weren't doing Paleo correctly.

what I don't get is why would we want to eat like they did thousands of years ago when the lift expectancy was less than 40 years of age??

^^^^THIS^^^^

there were a lot of things shortening life, not what they ate, modern medicine has extended out lives drastically! not to mention we are no longer having to protect ourselves from predators.

Yes, modern medicine is extending the human life and so is the "modern" diet, when not abused. Bone and teeth samples from early man have shown plenty of vitamin A and C deficiency. I guess they weren't doing Paleo correctly.

You don't know the modern diet is having that effect, and what is "the modern diet" anyway? Of course some fossils could show deficiency, that doesn't suggest anything useful. What point are you trying to make?

Yes, we do know that diet, modern medicine, and hygiene are suspected as the main reasons for increased life expectancy in recent history. The point I'm trying to make is that there's no need for the Paleo diet or any other fad diets for healthy individuals. Fads are attractive because people feel they're partaking in a special regimen that's only backed up by cherry picked science. When you read about it a nice book written by someone with phd next to their name it sounds even better. Often these diets work in spite of themselves simply because they get people to eat better and less than they were before. While this seems like a positive thing it's really not. It purveys false information. It's like balancing a ball on your head and crossing the street and then proclaiming that's the best way to get a ball across street.

what I don't get is why would we want to eat like they did thousands of years ago when the lift expectancy was less than 40 years of age??

^^^^THIS^^^^

there were a lot of things shortening life, not what they ate, modern medicine has extended out lives drastically! not to mention we are no longer having to protect ourselves from predators.

Yes, modern medicine is extending the human life and so is the "modern" diet, when not abused. Bone and teeth samples from early man have shown plenty of vitamin A and C deficiency. I guess they weren't doing Paleo correctly.

You don't know the modern diet is having that effect, and what is "the modern diet" anyway? Of course some fossils could show deficiency, that doesn't suggest anything useful. What point are you trying to make?

Yes, we do know that diet, modern medicine, and hygiene are suspected as the main reasons for increased life expectancy in recent history. The point I'm trying to make is that there's no need for the Paleo diet or any other fad diets for healthy individuals. Fads are attractive because people feel they're partaking in a special regimen that's only backed up by cherry picked science. When you read about it a nice book written by someone with phd next to their name it sounds even better. Often these diets work in spite of themselves simply because they get people to eat better and less than they were before. While this seems like a positive thing it's really not. It purveys false information. It's like balancing a ball on your head and crossing the street and then proclaiming that's the best way to get a ball across street.

I don't think so, hygiene and medicine helps reduce infant mortality and death rates due to infection etc. I don't think you can categorically say our recent macro nutrient intake has extended our life span.

You are right that there is no need for special diet programs in principle in order to lose weight. You can eat twinkies at a calorie deficit and lose weight. However, if you are someone who has either lost a large amount of weight or are trying to being told "it's simple, eat less and move more" is pretty useless to be honest. It's a tautology, it's obviously true. A diet framework can help immensely, much depends on the individual, same may have great success cutting out soda and, tracking their calories and going for a run, but many people, especially those with 100 lb or more to lose are facing quite possibly a couple of years of calorie deficits. Few people can do that. Primal and other diets, be they "fad diets" as you say or more accepted diets like Weight Watchers provide people with a support system and a methodology for losing weight. I like Primal because it makes sense to me, I know quite a lot about nutrition although I'm not formally educated in that field, and Primal gels with much of my research. I certainly won't argue with the laws of thermodynamics or the health benefits of exercise, but a program that encourages the points I listed in my other post is hardly a bad one whether you are a dietician (like my sister who I regularly discuss this with), a doctor or a PhD researcher.

I don't think you know much about Primal/Paleo but you are right to argue against some fad diets. If you knew Primal, if you discussed it's implications with it's proponents you would realize there are many learned, intelligent individuals who are more than capable of detecting cherry picked science and considering the points you list. To rule it out because it seems to just fit in with other fad diets created by dudes with a PhD and the desire for some money doesn't do it justice.

It sounds too restrictive for me. I can't really see wanting to give up all the healthy grains and beans I enjoy based on a theory that has no scientific evidence behind it.

Just wondering... Why did you put the "healthy" in front of the grains?

I don't agree that categorically restricting foods is always bad. Trans fats are pretty much universally condemned, is it bad to exclude them? I have to chuckle when people say "eat a balanced diet", balanced based on what? Based on our own imperfect understanding of our biology, filtered through a scientific establishment that despite all our best efforts often makes the mistake of selection bias, over reaching conclusions. The same establishment that encouraged consumption of trans fats. Beyond that, "balance" may depend on the individual.

I don't understand why people are calling Primal a highly restrictive diet? In fact, it's not at all. I have reduced my consumption of refined carbohydrates and processed foods, but I eat a wealth of fruits, vegetables and protein. I eat yogurt, milk, cream. How is this "highly restrictive"?

All diets are restrictive in some ways, if they don't restrict carbs they will likely restrict fat. So on a standard diet that you refer to I can eat some bread, and legumes, but probably not eat the egg fried in coconut oil. On primal it's the opposite, so which is more restrictive? Just because our society is set up to support the former doesn't make it optimal.

There is plenty of pseudoscience out there, there is plenty of it in the mainstream as well. Eat lots of small meals to keep your metabolism going, women shouldn't lift weights, eating low carb means you can eat as much as you want. So on and so on.

With respect to nutrition and life expectancy there's plenty of research to show that in the early years of development, diet deficiencies cause major problems later in life. You don't have to look far back to see this.

i know enough about paleo, but all anyone needs to know is that is categorically restricts a lot of foods unnecessary. You say paleo might be better for someone with a lot of weight to lose? How is a highly restrictive diet easier to follow than a sensible one that allows you to eat all foods in moderation? I agree that a framework like paleo can help but it's not the only framework and it's an unnecessary one as well. The problem comes when that fad achieves cult like status and the pseudo-science of paleo gets regurgitated as fact.