Paleo Diet Reviews: Pros & Cons | Natural Weight Loss Newsletter

Date: 05/16/2011    Written by: Jon Barron

The Paleo Diet

Diets come, and diets go. And like fashion, if you wait long enough, what is now out will eventually return -- but with a twist, so you can't dust off the old books, but instead have to buy new ones. And when you think about it, that only makes sense. After all, food really falls into one of only three groups: proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. So all diets are pretty much restricted to mixing things up within those three groups -- thus the repetition. Ahh, but given those limitations, there is still infinite variety -- thus the ever new diet programs.

And now it is the turn of the Paleo Diet (also known as the Paleolithic Diet, or Caveman Diet) to sweep the nation. In fact, the Baseline of Health Foundation has been literally bombarded with requests for me to explore the topic over the last several months. But in truth, it's not actually new. It was first popularized by Walter Voegtlin in the 1970's and is close cousin to the Atkins diet and the Meat Lovers Diets that rose to popularity about ten years ago. And in truth, there is much to like in the diet, but also some things that give me pause and a couple of "are you kidding me's" along the way.

With that in mind, let's take a look at the Paleo Diet.

The theory behind the Paleo Diet

As I mentioned, the Paleo Diet has its roots in Walter Voegtlin's book, The Stone Age Diet, which was published in the mid 70's. Originally, it was referred to as the caveman diet, or the stone age diet. "Paleolithic," by the way, is just the scientific term for "old stone age." The theory is that without access to modern diets, cavemen ate more naturally than we do today. They didn't eat Twinkies® and chips and Big Macs®. They were hunter-gatherers and ate as the human body was designed to eat…theoretically. They had no agriculture, no storage facilities, no grocery stores, and no processed foods. They ate wild plants and fresh meat as they found it.

And they were healthy…again, so the theory goes. There was no arthritis, no cancer, no osteoporosis, and no heart disease. They were strong-boned, hearty and healthy, and if they died young, it was not because of disease but because of accidents and a hard environment. Otherwise, they were all veritable Methuselahs. And although there are few remains of cavemen to verify the claims, there are a couple of small studies that do indeed show health benefits for those who follow the diet. But mostly there are testimonials. Now please understand, I do not make light of testimonials. I find them potentially as valid as many so-called scientific studies. However, I am quite aware of how testimonials can be ruled by emotion and run totally out of control, totally invalidating themselves. Another problem is that when giving testimonials, people tend to generalize their experiences -- if I feel better because of it, then everyone in the world will feel better. That said, the primary argument on behalf of the Paleo Diet is that there are select populations living in the world today that have followed the Paleolithic diet for generations and show none of the signs of modern disease…maybe. [Incidentally, new evidence has come to light that non-farming, prehistoric people who ate the paleo hunter/gatherer diet were not necessarily free of diseases such as arthritis and artherosclereosis. Ed.]

For about 30 years, the Paleo Diet struggled along, taking a back seat to the Atkins Diet®, the Blood Type Diet, the Nutritional Type Diet, Jenny Craig®, Nutrisystem®, the Hollywood Diet®, Volumetrics®, the Mediterranean Diet, the South Beach Diet®, the Carb Lovers Diet, and on and on. It was not until 2005 that the Paleo Diet came into its own, with the publication of Loren Cordain's The Paleo Diet for Athletes: A Nutritional Formula for Peak Athletic Performance. With athletes beginning to endorse the diet, it gained momentum, hitting the big time in 2010, with the publication of Cordain's next book, The Paleo Diet and Rob Wolf's book, The Paleo Solution.

So what exactly does the Paleo Diet advocate, and is it as good as claimed?

The tenets of the Paleo Diet

The primary tenet of the Paleo Diet is that diets and health started to go downhill the moment agriculture started to gain traction. Farming, the foods it produces, and food processing -- which are the cornerstones of the modern diet -- are the enemies of health. If you want to be healthy, you have to eat the diet your body was designed for -- the diet that cavemen ate, the diet that is natural to man. Of course, what that diet actually is, is open to question. It's not as if Grog the caveman left behind cookbooks. Cave paintings, yes! Cookbooks, no! And of course, the diet has to make do with certain "alternatives" since fresh, grass-fed mammoth meat is no longer available for the killing right down the street.

To summarize, the Paleo Diet is based on what we "think" cavemen ate, based on some historical data and studies of modern-day hunter-gatherers, as well as trace evidence found in archeological digs and a whole lot of guess work and theory. And since true caveman foods are no longer available to us, it is also based on modern food "equivalents" that have been refined over centuries and that are commonly available in today's supermarkets. That means that, for the most part, the meat you eat comes from domesticated animals raised using modern mass production methods, even if grass-fed, and the so called "forage" that you eat is based on cultivated hybrids nurtured on artificial fertilizers and possibly pesticides.

But that's only part of the story. The Paleo Diet is defined as much by what you cannot eat, as by what you can eat. Or more specifically, the philosophy behind the diet is that you are only allowed to eat what was "natural" to the human diet during the Paleolithic era, not the "artificial" foods that have been added to the diet since then as a result of the agricultural revolution and the introduction of urbanization and mass manufacturing. That means that all crops that only became viable parts of the diet because of the agricultural revolution (grains, beans, and peanuts, for example) and the byproducts of domesticated livestock (i.e., dairy) are taboo. Sugar is not allowed. And alcoholic beverages and fermented foods are also off the table. Incidentally, I find this particularly amusing since alcoholic beverages and fermented foods seem to have been part of man's diet since the beginning of time. As Bob Dylan once sang, "Everybody must get stoned." But forget about cavemen, as it turns out, the consumption of alcoholic over-ripe fruit for the purpose of getting blitzed predates even the first cavemen and is common to many species. See for yourself how animals find ways to "party hearty" without a brewmaster in the bunch.

I think it's pretty much safe to say that if Paleolithic men and women abstained from alcohol, they would have been pretty much alone in the practice -- which brings up an interesting contradiction in the Paleolithic diet. If cave-people ate fermented foods, and yet you choose to exclude those foods from the Paleo Diet, which is supposed to be based on what they ate, then you've opened up a fundamental hole in the logic behind the diet. But there's no need to dwell on that now.

One problem we face when looking at the Paleo Diet is that there are multiple versions of it among its many adherents. For example, some insist on organic, grass-fed beef, others barely mention it. Some say no oils are allowed. Others say low omega 6/high omega 3 oils such as canola oil are okay. And others disagree as to which fruits and vegetables are allowed. This brings up a second fundamental problem when discussing the Paleo Diet, with so many variations, what exactly is it? But in general, here is a list of the do's and don'ts of the Paleo Diet.

No grains, beans, potatoes, or dairy

This is numero uno! As the theory goes, for millions of years, humans and their relatives ate meat, fish, poultry, and the leaves, roots, and fruits of many plants. That was their natural diet, and that was their sole diet. Grains, beans, and potatoes were not eaten because uncooked, they are inedible -- in fact, according to the theory, they are toxic if eaten raw. (We'll get back to this later, because it's actually not quite true.)

Around 10,000 years ago, two things happened that changed the way we eat. First, humans learned that they could eat the three demon foods -- grains, beans, and potatoes -- as long as they are thoroughly cooked. Cooking destroys "most" of the toxins that made them inedible. "Most" is the important word here for Paleo's. In any event, these discoveries changed the course of history. No longer did people have to chase animals across the plains and scavenge for roots and berries in harsh winter landscapes. Now they could grow food, store it in granaries for times of famine, and have a source of abundant calories in a stable environment. In addition, they could start raising herds of animals and introduce dairy products into the diet. Once the hunt for food was no longer the driving factor in life, people could devote themselves to the things that make for civilization: science, the arts, building cities, gangsta rap, and war. This is the point in history that divides Paleolithic man from modern man (or so the theory goes).

Continuing on!

Unfortunately, according to the Paleo diet, our bodies are not designed to handle these "new foods." We're not genetically equipped to handle a diet heavy in grains, legumes, and potatoes. And the development of the culinary arts has only exacerbated the problem by introducing salt and sugar to our diets. And now, with the introduction of artificial flavors and colors, preservatives, pesticides, excipients, and whatnot, it is more than our bodies can handle. Chronic illness and obesity are the inevitable result.

So what do grains, beans, potatoes, and dairy have in common that makes them so unhealthy that we have been unable to adapt to them over the last 10,000 years? Two things according to the theory: enzyme blockers and lectins. Plants use enzyme blockers to stop plant seeds from sprouting prematurely. And lectins are natural pesticides used by plants to defend against bacteria, insects, worms, rodents, and other pests that threaten their existence. And when you think about it, from the plants' POV, humans are just another pest that threatens their existence -- and thus lectins, defend against people too. Theoretically then, plant lectins are harmful to people. As for dairy, milk contains lectins because the cows eat foods that contain them -- and so they are passed on in the milk. I know that the Paleo banishing of milk will certainly draw the ire of the raw milk aficionados who regularly write into the Foundation espousing the virtues of raw milk -- most of which I acknowledge. But I find that complaint secondary to the fact that lectins are present in meat for the same reason they're present in dairy -- because the cattle eat them as part of their diet. So if you can't have dairy for that reason, how does meat get a free pass? In any case, this argument is somewhat specious since every living thing has defense mechanisms to protect itself from being devoured by predators large and small. For example, humans have immune systems (and antibiotics of their own creation) to defend against bacteria. How can anything "eat" those defenses, figuratively speaking? Because, quite simply, species are constantly adapting to be able to overcome other species' defenses and so use them for food. It is the way of life. But let's not dwell on the negatives; let's move on.

Since lectins are so fundamental to the Paleo Diet, let's explore them in a little more detail. Incidentally, this is not the first time I've explored lectins in some detail. Back in 2007, I discussed the validity of the Blood Type Diet, in which lectins play a prominent role in its theoretical underpinnings -- much as with the Paleo Diet.


Lectins are carbohydrate-binding proteins that are found in most plants, particularly grains, potatoes, and beans. The problem is that some lectins ape the glycoproteins on red blood cells, thus triggering immune reactions in sensitive individuals. And yes, there is no question that different foods definitely have high allergy potential for many people, but the problem appears to be less with the lectins, than with the ability of the digestive tract to fully break down the proteins in the food. And beyond that, lectins are not exclusive to plants. All foods contain lectins. Not all are harmful. Some are actually beneficial. In animals, lectins serve a number of biological functions, from the control of protein levels in the blood to removing harmful glycoproteins from the circulatory system to recognizing carbohydrates that are found exclusively on certain pathogens and thus targeting them for elimination.

For example, guava lectin may be useful in the prevention of E. coli infection of the gut.1 Even better, some studies have shown that lectins can neutralize cancer cells. Soy and peanut lectins appear to be particularly good in this regard.2

But not all lectins are good. Curiously, soy and peanut lectins, which may target cancer cells, are also among the most allergenic lectins in nature. One lectin with an especially bad rep that has been much in the news over the last few years is gluten. Like most lectins, gluten is resistant to stomach acid and digestive enzymes and does not break down easily in the gut. Once in the gut, it may attach to the intestinal wall and damage its lining. Gluten has been implicated in a whole range of intestinal diseases such as irritable bowel syndrome, colitis, Crohn's, and of course, Celiac-Sprue. More specifically, gluten, in those susceptible, can break down the surface of the small intestine, stripping it of mucus and causing the gut to leak -- allowing undigested proteins to pass into the bloodstream.

According to some proponents of the Paleo Diet, lectins may also play a role in diabetes by tricking cells into thinking they've been stimulated by insulin and also by causing the beta cells of the pancreas to release insulin. Yet other lectins may play a role in rheumatoid arthritis by attaching to cell surfaces and tricking the immune system into thinking that cells are actually pathogens, thus triggering the immune system to attack the body -- an autoimmune response. And to be sure, there is no question that certain foods definitely have high allergy potential for many people, but the problem appears to be less with the lectins, than with the ability of the digestive tract to fully break down the proteins in the food. As I've discussed in several newsletters, the use of digestive enzymes with meals and proteolytic enzymes between meals can often help reduce food allergies dramatically. In fact, there is little evidence that lectins, other than a handful of exceptions, present a problem for most people.

To conclude our discussion of lectins, let me offer some perspective. If the argument is that because "some" lectins are toxic to "some" people, then "all" people should avoid "all" lectins, we have a problem. We live in a world where food exists as part of a chain, with predators eating prey – and the prey develops defenses to protect itself from being eaten. Lectins are part of the circle of life and can’t be avoided; they permeate the food chain as predator eats prey. This means that if you wish to avoid all lectins, you would have to avoid all food, since all food contains lectins. To do otherwise implies selective belief in your theory. At least the Blood Type Diet acknowledges this issue and says that at least some groups of people have adapted to eating grains, beans, potatoes, and dairy.

So what should we eat on the Paleo Diet?

Meat (particularly organ meats such as liver and kidneys), poultry, and fish top the list. Remember, we're talking about "hunter" gatherers. In fact, according to some proponents, flesh should provide upwards of 65% of the calories in a Paleo Diet, with fruits and vegetables providing only about 35%. Eggs are also big on the diet.

Fruits and vegetables

Fruit and root vegetables such as carrots, turnips, and beets are okay, but not tubers such as potatoes, sweet potatoes, and yams. Incidentally, I find the exclusion of tubers requires a bit of theoretical bending. The argument is that potatoes are a "new world" crop and humans have only been eating them for maybe the last 35,000 years. But in truth, yams are an African crop that people have been eating since the dawn of time. So why are they excluded? And if that's your logic for excluding potatoes, then why is turkey okay? After all, turkey is a "new world" species, not even introduced into Europe until the 16th Century. Not that I personally think it matters, but I'm just saying.

As for fruits, berries of all kinds are good -- strawberries, blueberries, and raspberries etc. are good. From there, differences in Paleo's abound. Tree fruits are controversial. For example, some say apples are great. Others call them "bags of sugar." And still others say they're okay if you eat the low sugar varieties. And yet, if the theory is based on eating what hunter-gathers ate, then tree fruits would have to be top of the charts. Not to go Biblical, but I think it's pretty safe to say that tree fruits such as apples and pomegranates have been part of the human diet since the very first man and woman walked the earth. And I don't believe hunter gatherers selected their fruit based on the glycemic index. Again, I'm just saying.

Superfoods from Baseline Nutritionals

Also, fruits contain lectins3 -- just like grains. Apricots, bananas, cherries, kiwis, melons, papayas, peaches, pineapples, plums, and even berries are all known to contain lectins and cause allergies. In fact, fruit allergies make up about 10 percent of all food related allergies. So why are fruits allowed? Incidentally, new research has shown that allergies to fruit are actually made possible by pectin, the soluble fiber found in fruit. The pectin surrounds the fruit allergens in the digestive tract so that they don't get broken down and enter the bloodstream intact. Using a digestive enzyme supplement that contains added pectinase can help moderate that problem by breaking down the fruit pectin, which then exposes the allergens to digestive juices and enzymes.

Nuts and legumes

Curiously, nuts are cool on the diet -- pretty much all nuts except cashews and peanuts, which are actually beans. Yes, I understand that people have eaten gathered nuts since the beginning of the human race, but if allergenic lectins are your thing, nuts should be a "no no." Tree nuts including macadamia nuts, brazil nuts, almonds, walnuts, pecans, pistachios, chestnuts, hazelnuts, and pine nuts are high in allergenic lectins. And unlike grain allergies, which tend to be low level and chronic, tree nut allergies tend to be severe, and are strongly associated with anaphylaxis and even death. Walnuts (and cashews) top the list for the tree nuts most likely to cause an allergic reaction. Peanuts, incidentally, are legumes, which is why they are on the Paleo no-no list. As legumes, they are biologically unrelated to tree nuts; nevertheless, there is a high level of cross-allergenic reactivity between peanuts and tree nuts. So again, if peanuts are not allowed, why are tree nuts okay? I'm just looking for consistency in the theory behind the Paleo Diet and its application in the real world.

Another factor to consider is that tree nuts have the same enzyme blockers that seeds and grains have, and for the same reason -- to prevent premature sprouting. And like seeds, grains, and legumes, those enzymes are neutralized by soaking in water and exposure to heat. But that goes against the premise behind the Paleo Diet. So once again, we have to ask, "Why nuts?"

Incidentally, sprouting nuts will eliminate most of the blocking enzymes as well as many of the allergenic lectins.

Legumes, or beans, present much the same problem. They have blocking enzymes to prevent premature sprouting and toxins to keep predators away. Soaking and cooking will pretty much eliminate that problem, but because they have to be cooked, they violate the "Paleolithic theory" of no cooking and so are not allowed.

Are you kidding me?

I find the theory behind the Paleo Diet to be somewhat distorting of facts and highly inconsistent within its own logic. We've discussed a number of those inconsistencies already and will explore several more in a moment. However, it is important to keep in mind that just because an underlying theory may be wrong does not mean that the program itself is without value. For example, at one time, people believed that the sun was a golden chariot driven by a god that crossed the sky -- a theory that many scientists now believe to be flawed. Nevertheless, belief in that flawed theory didn't stop ancient peoples from being able to track the sun so accurately that they could determine the vernal equinoxes to the day hundreds of years in advance -- knowledge essential for agricultural societies. So once again, let me state that theory aside, the Paleo Diet has much to recommend it. But before we go there, let's examine a few more of the theoretical inconsistencies.

Location, location, location

The assumed diet of the hunter-gatherers modeled by the Paleo's is reflective of cave people living in Northern Europe in cold climes where plants did not readily grow. But the simple truth is that hunter-gatherer societies in other locations ate decidedly different diets. As Katharine Milton points out in an editorial in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:

"The !Kung might live in conditions close to the "ideal" hunting and gathering environment. What do the !Kung eat? Animal foods are estimated to contribute 33% and plant foods 67% of their daily energy intakes. Fifty percent (by wt) of their plant-based diet comes from the mongongo nut, which is available throughout the year in massive quantities. Similarly, the hunter-gatherer Hadza of Tanzania consume "the bulk of their diet" as wild plants, although they live in an area with an exceptional abundance of game animals and refer to themselves as hunters."4

And it's not just modern examples of hunter-gatherer tribes. There is solid evidence that suggests that Paleolithic peoples commonly ate grain, and even flour, as far back as 30,000 years ago.5 In fact, there is quite reasonable evidence that people were processing cereal grains for food as much as 200,000 years ago.6 The bottom line is that the fundamental premise that Paleolithic peoples did not eat grains and that they ate large amounts of meat is only "suggested" by historical records, not necessarily supported by them.

Another example is salt. Salt is a taboo in most Paleo Diets, and yet the evidence is that the people of the Lenggong Valley in Malaysia were not only eating salt 200,000 years ago, but had created tools for grinding it. And animals will eat/lick salt whenever they find it. Virtually all animals consume it. Salt is actually an interesting test for the Paleo Diet. Animals eat it. Cavemen ate it. And yet, it's taboo in the Paleo Diet. Obviously, the Paleo Dieters' faith in their ancestors' food choices only goes so far. And in this case, It appears they bought into a "golden chariot" theory. I wrote several years ago (and appeared on numerous radio shows) trying to tell people that the case against salt was largely misguided. And on May 4th 2011, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the results of a study corroborating that position.7 Stunningly, the study found that participants with the lowest salt intake had the highest rate of death from heart disease during the follow up (4 percent), and people who ate the most salt had the lowest (less than 1 percent). In the case of salt, cavemen really did know better; unfortunately, advocates of the Paleo diet, despite their professed belief in the caveman diet, backed the wrong horse: bad science.

Anatomical imperative

Another problem I have is that just because people ate certain foods does not necessarily mean that those were the best foods to eat -- merely that those were most likely the foods that were easiest to obtain in their local environment. If you were living in Europe on the edge of a glacier, mangoes were not part of your diet, not because they were unhealthy, but because they were not readily available. On the other hand, if you grew up in the Indus valley 100,000 years ago, a vegetarian diet would have been a strong option because fruits and vegetables would have been readily available.

As anyone who has been to college knows, you don't live on pizza and beer while attending school because they are a "natural" part of your diet; you live on them because they are readily available on campus and all your friends are eating them.

To me, a much better indicator of what foods we are designed to eat is your digestive tract -- from your mouth to your anus. Animals that eat particular foods have digestive tracts designed to handle those foods. Carnivores have sharp teeth for ripping and tearing flesh, and short digestive tracts for quickly eliminating waste once digested in the stomach -- so it doesn't have time to putrefy in the intestines. (Meat putrefies.) Animals that eat plants have flat teeth for grinding and long digestive systems to allow time to extract nutrients from plant matter, which does not putrefy. Human digestive systems largely match Chimpanzees, who eat mostly fruits and nuts and termites, but will eat a small amount of monkey meat when they can get it. For more on this issue, you can check out my series examining the digestive system.

Premise of health is arbitrary

The idea that the so-called Paleo Diet is inherently healthier is simply not supported by the evidence, either ancient or modern. What is supported is that eating modern highly processed, high-glycemic foods is unhealthy. Diabetes was virtually unknown in China until people began eating the modern Western diet. But before people started eating modern diets in China, they weren't eating anything remotely close to the Paleo Diet. They were eating a largely vegetarian diet grounded in rice and noodles. For centuries, they ate grains without problems. It was the introduction of refined sugars and oils and processed fast foods "what done em in," to quote Eliza Doolittle. As a side note, although meat consumption has gone up dramatically in China, with disease rates climbing right alongside them, it's probably not the meat that's causing the problem. It's most likely all of the refined, processed, fast food that's killing them. Then again, one of the most comprehensive diet studies ever conducted, known as the China Study, touched on this issue in some detail -- coming down in favor of the vegetarian diet.

India is another example of a largely vegetarian society that had few health problems until Western civilization moved in and hooked people on the modern diet. In fact, India is now known as the diabetes capital of the world. But again, the problem isn't grains, tubers, and beans -- the almost exclusive diet of India's poor. On the contrary, it isn't until people earn enough money to move away from that diet that they are afflicted with diabetes.8

If eating meat were a prerequisite for health, then vegetarians as a group would have to be unhealthier than heavy meat eaters, and that just isn't true. Study after study has shown that vegetarians (on a good vegetarian diet) tend to be healthier. On the other hand, eating meat by itself doesn't make you unhealthy. It is quite possible to eat meat and have radiant health. As I have explained many times before, health is determined less by the vegetarian/carnivore question than by other dietary concerns. In the end, the issue of meat is less a health choice than a personal choice. That said, let's examine the issue of meat a bit more.

What meat are we talking about?

The meat promoted in the Paleo Diet is not necessarily the same as the meat that was available way back when. While it is true that some Paleo advocates advise eating only lean cuts of meat that are either hunted in the wild, or grass-fed, most do not. And in fact, most people following the diet opt for lean cuts bought in regular grocery stores -- primarily because of convenience and cost. But grocery store meat, pork, and poultry come with a wide range of "bonus" goodies not found in Paleolithic times, including:

  • Growth hormones
  • Antibiotics
  • High pesticide concentrations
  • Heavy metals
  • Toxicity from over 100,000 manmade chemicals now found in the environment
  • Strontium
  • High levels of omega-6 fatty acids as a result of being grain fattened
  • Not to mention the fact that cancerous and tumorous meat is not necessarily removed at the slaughterhouse, and may quite easily find its way to the butcher's shop. If you think the USDA is actively preventing sick animals from entering the food supply, think again. Unbelievable abuses have been documented happening under the very noses of USDA inspectors.

As for fish, even if you catch it yourself, you're now looking at mercury contamination, dioxin, and sex altering hormones -- things Paleo fishermen never had to deal with.

Germs in meat

And now there's something else to watch for in today's meat. Scientists from Arizona's Translational Genomics Research Institute recently announced that 47 percent of samples of beef, pork, and poultry obtained from supermarkets around the country tested positive for Staphylococcus aureus, the bacteria that causes staff infections -- and 52% of those bugs were resistant to at least three kinds of antibiotics. S. Aureus already kills about 11,000 people in the U.S. every year. Thanks to contaminated meat, we can look for that number to climb.9

Cooking meat

Most Paleos cook their meat, even though cooking is the knock against grains -- one of those inconsistencies we try not to think too much about. Nevertheless, there is a small subset of Paleo's who believe that humans have not adapted to cooked foods, even though the evidence is that cavemen were cooking their meat almost since day one. And so this subset of Paleo's eats only foods which are both raw and early Paleolithic. Actresses such as Uma Thurman, Demi Moore, and Natalie Portman are/were believers. The concept is not without science. Cooking meat creates heterocyclic amines (HCAs), which have been linked to cancer. The higher the temperature used in cooking and the more the meat is cooked, the greater the risk. One study out of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics found that people who eat their beef medium-well or well-done have more than a 300% greater risk of stomach cancer than those who eat their beef rare or medium-rare.10 And yet another study linked the consumption of well-done meat to higher rates of breast cancer.11 But there's good news for diehard carnivores who love a cook-out or a tailgate party. More recent studies have confirmed that marinating meat sharply reduces the level of HCAs when you are cooking -- making it much safer. I'll bet that's something cavemen didn't know.

In any case, the evidence for when man first started cooking with fire ranges from 230,000 years ago (confirmed) to evidence at archeological sites in Spain and France that strongly indicate dates ranging from 300,000 to as many as 500,000 years ago -- with cooked rhinoceros meat on the menu.12

All in all, this brings up three conundrums.

  • Since most cave people cooked their meat, eating raw meat denies the foundation of the Paleo Diet -- i.e., eating what cavemen ate.
  • On the other hand, if you do cook your meat, then you're doing something potentially unhealthy, which denies the premise of the Paleo Diet -- that if cavemen did it, it's good for you.
  • And when did people first start marinating meat, which makes cooked meat healthier -- something that certainly started happening after the Paleolithic era?


So after all is said and done, where do I stand on the Paleo Diet?

As I said at the outset, there is much to recommend it. I'm all for cutting back on sugar and dairy. And as for grains, I'm all for cutting way back on those too. Considering the negatives associated with the excessive consumption of grains (most notably associated with high glycemic responses and allergies), I cannot argue with the basic premise espoused in the Paleo Diet for eliminating grains altogether. On the other hand, consumption of certain grains in moderation, if selected carefully, can provide significant health benefits with little downside. For example, sprouted grains and cereal grasses have all the positives associated with grains and virtually none of the negatives. Think wheatgrass juice. And let's quickly single out barley, maybe the king of grains. It's high in beta-glucans; it's one of the least acidic grains; and it's one of the lowest of all foods on the glycemic index. And when consumed in its sprouted, pre-sprouted, or cereal grass forms, it's a monster of nutrition.

I also have a fundamental problem with the consumption of high levels of meat. All meats, fish, poultry, and eggs are acid forming in the body. When metabolized, the proteins produce sulfuric acid and phosphoric acid. And fats produce acetic acid. The way the body handles them is to neutralize them by converting them into acid salts by combining them with the minerals sodium, calcium, potassium, and magnesium. Of these, calcium is the most important.

Now, here's the key: your body uses a priority system if there are not enough available minerals to neutralize all of the acids present. After extracting what it can from urine and soft tissues (creating a rich environment for the spread of cancer), your body turns to its great mineral bank -- your bones. So, if your diet is too acid-forming, your body will fairly quickly begin to leach calcium from your bones to balance the low pH and avoid death. In effect, your body says osteoporosis is preferable to death.

And in fact, osteoporosis is seen to start earlier in "pre-contact" Inuit, who relied heavily on whale and seal meat, than in the Eskimos eating a more modern diet, "post-contact."13 Even better, Masai warriors in Africa also partake of a high meat diet and begin developing osteoporosis in their 20's. The women of the tribe do not share in the high meat diet, and do not show early signs of osteoporosis. But keep in mind, meat is by no means the sole determinant of osteoporosis, and in fact its negative effects can be easily mitigated by higher consumption of offsetting minerals such as calcium, potassium, and magnesium, and through the use of weight bearing exercise to strengthen the bones. But high meat consumption is a contributing factor.

And one last issue concerns intestinal flora. High levels of meat in the diet disrupt the balance of beneficial bacteria in the intestinal tract. First, virtually all meat, chicken, and pork that you eat (other than organic) is loaded with antibiotics, which destroy all of the beneficial bacteria in your gastrointestinal tract. But that aside, heavy consumption of meat (of any purity) significantly compromises beneficial bacteria in the colon, resulting in a 1,000 percent increase in the levels of harmful bacteria and a concomitant 90 percent drop in the levels of beneficial bacteria.

In addition, epidemiological studies done at Harvard Medical School show that, "Men who eat red meat as a main dish five or more times a week have four times the risk of colon cancer than men who eat red meat less than once a month." They are also more than twice as likely to get prostate cancer. And a recent study found that women who had more than one-and-a-half servings of red meat a day doubled their risk of hormone receptor--positive breast cancer.14 To be sure, studies such as these do not differentiate between the consumption of hormone-laced commercial beef and organic grass-fed beef, which might produce decidedly different results. But a cautionary flag has certainly been raised.


As I said, just because the theory behind the diet may be questionable, does not mean that there is not much to take from the diet. I absolutely agree with the following:

  • Cut way back or eliminate all grains. And if you eat grains, opt for hypoallergenic grains that have been soaked, sprouted, or well cooked.
  • Eliminate all high omega-6 store bought oils from your diet. For low temperature cooking, use olive oil and coconut oil. For high temperature cooking, use avocado oil, grape seed oil, or rice bran oil. Supplement with omega-3 fatty acids.
  • Eliminate all added sugars.
  • When eating fruit, lean more towards berries than tree fruit; they're higher in antioxidants. But there's no need to be afraid of eating tree fruit, which tends to be higher in soluble fiber.
  • Cut back or eliminate all beans, and if you eat them, make sure you soak them before cooking, and then cook them well before eating.
  • Nuts are fine if you're not allergic. Use whole fresh nuts that have been soaked/sprouted. Do not use pasteurized or "roasted" nuts -- especially those roasted in oil.
  • Cut way back on white potatoes, but yams and sweet potatoes are okay in moderation.
  • Eliminate all commercial dairy from your diet. And if you do opt for some dairy, choose raw dairy despite what the government says -- or at the very least opt for organic, grass-fed dairy.
  • If you eat meat, use only organic, grass-fed meat. And keep consumption to less than 4 oz a day. And don't overcook it. (And here you're faced with another conundrum if you eat commercial meat. If you undercook it, you face the risk of bacterial infection (see above). If you overcook it, you face the risk of cancer (see above). If you want to eat medium rare meat, you're going to have to buy organic, grass-fed meat from a supplier you trust.)

As I said before, the Paleo Diet has much to recommend it. But then again, isn't what we've described above really just a very clean Mediterranean Diet -- light on grains, meat and dairy -- heavy on fresh vegetables, clean fish, and fruit.

Sounds good to me.

For more on diets, check out:

  • 1. Peter D'Adamo. "Fruit Lectins and E. Coli." Ask Dr. D'Adamo. Eat Right for Your Type. 3 May 2011. <>
  • 2. Peter D'Adamo, Catherine Whitney. "Eat Right for Your Type." G.P. Putnam's Sons. 1996. P 318 < +cancer&source=bl&ots=cArfgE8v2y&sig=nq3hEer1Op7IhEUrVO0zjEAXQvA&hl=en&ei=z8TATcf4O-_SiAKJo7 GuAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result& resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false>
  • 3. Roci´o Coutiño-Rodriguez, Pedro Hernández-Cruz, Héctor Giles-Rios. Lectins in Fruits Having Gastrointestinal Activity: Their Participation in the Hemagglutinating Property of Escherichia coli 0157:H7. Archives of Medical Research. Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 251-257 (July 2001). <>
  • 4. Katharine Milton. "Hunter-gatherer diets -- a different perspective." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 71, No. 3, 665-667, March 2000. <>
  • 5. Anna Revedina, Biancamaria Arangurenb, Roberto Becattini, et al. "Thirty thousand-year-old evidence of plant food processing." PNAS. Published online before print October 18, 2010. <>
  • 6. Murphy, D. "People, Plants and Genes: The Story of Crops and Humanity." Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2007. <>
  • 7. Katarzyna Stolarz-Skrzypek, MD, PhD, Tatiana Kuznetsova, MD, PhD, Lutgarde Thijs, MSc, et al. "Fatal and Nonfatal Outcomes, Incidence of Hypertension, and Blood Pressure Changes in Relation to Urinary Sodium Excretion." JAMA. May 4, 2011, Vol 305, No. 17, pp 1733-1824 <>
  • 8. Jason Gale. "India's Diabetes Epidemic Cuts Down Millions Who Escape Poverty." 7 November 2010. Bloomberg Markets Magazine. 3 May 2011. <>
  • 9. "Nationwide study finds U.S. meat and poultry is widely contaminated." 15 April 2011. Translational Genomics Research Institute. 3 May 2011. <>
  • 10. Ward MH, Sinha R, Heineman EF, Rothman N, et al. "Risk of adenocarcinoma of the stomach and esophagus with meat cooking method and doneness preference." Int J Cancer. 1997 Mar 28;71(1):14-9. <>
  • 11. Wei Zheng, Deborah R. Gustafson, Derek Moore, et al. "Well-Done Meat Intake and the Risk of Breast Cancer." JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst(1998) 90 (22): 1724-1729. <>
  • 12. Megarry, Tim (1995) "Society in Prehistory: The Origins of Human Culture." New York: New York University Press. <>
  • 13. Mazess RB and Mather W. Bone Mineral Content of North Alaskan Eskimos. AJCN (1974) 27:916-925 <>
  • 14. Cho, E., W.Y. Chen, D.J. Hunter, et al. "Red Meat Intake and Risk of Breast Cancer among Premenopausal Women." Arch Intern Med166 (2006): 2253--2259. <>

Click for Related Articles


    Submitted by Ed on
    May 17, 2011 - 12:44am

    This was an incredibly good article. Thanks for including the current references.

    Submitted by Carly on
    May 17, 2011 - 3:02am

    Most of the leading speakers in the paleo world actually advocate fermented vegetables and discourage excessive nut consumption due to high omega 6 content and high toxic lectin content. what I love about it is how receptive to new information and PROPER science the paleo movement is, there are always going to be new discoveries and it's nice to be part of a movement that doesn't just kick it's heels in and put the blinkers on. Alot of Paleo representaives do promote raw dairy too to those who can tolerate it and it is said again and again it's a FRAMEWORK, everyone is different and will have variations.

    Submitted by Jaime Silvano on
    May 15, 2011 - 8:37pm

    Hi Jon, you get a fan in Havana. Since I casually contacted you site some months ago, I always receive you letters very happy, since they are an excellent reference in the nutrition and health field. Indeed, not only your content is centered and very solid, but also is so good the way you write, something that turns you into a marvelous communicator. My very special congratulations to you. Keep on like this.
    Best regards,
    Jaime Silvano,
    La Habana,

    Submitted by mercy on
    May 26, 2011 - 12:27am

    Hi jon since i became a subscriber it has realy opened my since on seeing the bad kind of lifestyle we live on our diets.I try sometimes implementing what you teach and it helps alot thumbs up and thax


    Submitted by Martin on
    May 16, 2011 - 12:14am

    The diet of civilization has brought mankind into an awful STATE of diseased conditions and epidemics. No one is dying a natural death, without disease and these results are due to ignorance. It is so self-evident that the present diet of the civilized countries, of wrong and to much food, is the fundamental factor and cause of all present ailments And no animal on earth is so full of undigested, fermented and decayed foodstuffs from overeating and unnatural food as so-called civilized man.....

    Submitted by Ed on
    May 17, 2011 - 12:50am

    The life expectancy at the time of the Revolution, prior to pesticides, herbicides, artificial hormones and genetic engineered crops was about 27. I suspect that for paleolihic humans, it was even shorter. Why would I want to adopt a lifestyle that leads to such a life expectancy?

    Submitted by Heather on
    March 26, 2012 - 1:26pm

    They died mostly from extreme weather conditions and injuries sustained from hunting. Not disease.

    Submitted by Guest on
    May 16, 2011 - 12:36am

    well jon, you did it again.
    you are the premer exponent of sanity in the insane world of diet and health.
    if i lived close to you, i'd give you a manly kinda hug.
    thanks for the great article.
    mike hamilton

    Submitted by Alex on
    May 16, 2011 - 1:27am

    Well done!

    All these diet books are crazy I think ... I tell friends just cut out the sugar (that include baked goods, sodas, ice creams, etc) and fast food and then they will be on their way to good/better health and a leaner body! That's it ... Easy? Apparently not easy for most of my friends ...

    Submitted by Carole on
    May 16, 2011 - 3:52am

    Could you suggest some suitble fish to eat. I find it lighter on my digestion system, but still struggle with whats best.

    Submitted by Leo on
    May 16, 2011 - 9:57pm

    JD -

    I enjoyed your article and for the "most" part I agree. I don't want to touch on the points where I disagree; but I thought I would write a couple of lines to describe my paleo experience. I lost 15 lbs on the first month of strict paleo and 15 lbs afterwards. I keep a 70-80% "paleo" diet right now and have kept the weight off for over a year. I felt my body react differently (and still do) when I eat legumes and dairies (I feel bloated and most of the times pretty sick). I currently have more energy, eat less (no portion control, just don't have as much of an appetite) and I hope to stick to paleo on the long run. Just my 2 cents.


    Submitted by Jonathan Moore on
    March 30, 2012 - 7:56am

    I agree completely. Im in the Army as a combat medic and I've been on the Paleo Diet/Crossfit lifestyle for a couple years. Im 5% body fat and have maintained my strength and power throughout it all. I eat about 90% Paleo with an occassional treat meal that usually makes me feel like garbage. I know that treat meals are bad for you if you make them a lifestyle, so thats why I stopped. I dont drink, dont smoke, eat healthy, work out daily, and I feel like Im in the best shape of my life. Through 2 deployments, I feel like a super hero.

    Submitted by Chris on
    May 16, 2011 - 6:08am

    What about hi heat cooking with Lard, Gee or butter?

    Submitted by BaselineFoundation on
    May 17, 2011 - 11:15am

    Hi Chris,

    As for butter, lard, and ghee, they are not included in the Paleo Diet, which is what the article was about, so they were not discussed in the article. However, in other articles, Jon has talked about the benefits of grass fed butter, for example:

    Submitted by Bronwen on
    May 16, 2011 - 6:24am

    My interest is in the earliest diet of our African ancestors who lived on the shores of the great lakes of the Rift Valley. It is hypothesised that the large human brain developed as a result of eating pristine fish loaded with Omega3 fatty acids. The lake shores would also have provided abundant fruit and vegetables, including roots. The plant foods would have been the business of the women, who would have gone out daily with their digging-sticks, and who would have tested, over time, the viability of various plants as both food and medicine.
    I think that to limit thinking about the "paleo" diet to the period of our nearer Euro-Asian ancestors, who chased about after huge woolly mammoths, and who probably could not kill many of them, (while the women went on faithfully testing and gathering plant-food every day) is to miss the major developments of our foods/ourselves.

    Submitted by J.P. Ditto on
    May 16, 2011 - 3:29pm

    The widespread consensus that processed grains and contaminated meats are fueling the " metabolic syndrome " pandemic is a no brainer. All of us are responsible for the research and care of our health. Good to read your referenced material- only way too get the facts across. Never stop your work. Thanks, J.D.

    Submitted by Carly on
    May 17, 2011 - 3:03am

    Oh also, the China Study was completely flawed, google "Chris Masterjohn" or "Denise Minger" on this subject.

    Submitted by BaselineFoundation on
    May 17, 2011 - 11:20am

    Hi Carly, Make sure you follow Jon’s link to the China Study. (  Check it out since Jon doesn’t disagree with you.  He finds the study to be less than gospel. In the linked blog, Jon specifically says about the study, “The problem with the study's conclusions are that they are open to statistical interpretation.” He also talks about the case against meat being statistically flawed.

    Overall, what Jon said is that although the theory behind the diet is a bit screwy, it did not mean that the diet did not have a lot to recommend it. He actually liked it, with a few caveats. However, he did add that he has concerns with the long term consumption of high levels of meat. The health consequences of high tissue acidity and reduced beneficial bacteria in the intestinal tract (both resulting from heavy meat consumption), for example.

    Submitted by Dr Brad on
    May 17, 2011 - 3:39pm

    Excellent analysis of the Paleo Diets and optimal human diets in general. I will forward this on to my friends, family and patients, as it really sums up so much of what I have discovered and teach.
    Dr Brad West (com)
    ND, Nor Cal

    Submitted by Frederik on
    May 20, 2011 - 2:35am

    You seem to have some good points about the roots and the fact that lectins are in all foods, gluten is not however.
    There is no doubt that the moving from a pre industrial diet - to an industrial heavily processed diet, is the bulk of the dietary problem, which we face today, but there is pretty good evidence that a hunter gartherer diet is healthier than a pre industrial agricultural diet - when you look at the bones of pre industrial agriculturalists compared to hunter gatherers, they were smaller of built, and had more frail bones. Also look at the evidence in Weston Price's nutrition and physical degeneration - he doesn't mention it - but if look at the data he presents in the book, you will see that it is fairly consistent that those who live an agricultural lifestyle compared to those who hunt and gather, have worse health. They all have better health than those who eats heavily processed foods though.

    Again some of your points seem valid, but you can't argue that the concept is wrong, because some people disagree as to what to eat, or because Loren Cordain made some mistakes in his books. By the way the Paleo diet was published in 2002.

    Ohh and the fruit thing - you totally misrepresent the argument - the idea is that while hunter gatherers certainly ate all the fruit they could obtain - wild fruit is generally a lot less sweet, as it has much lower levels of sugar, and higher levels of fiber - also it would only have been seasonally available - translating into the advise to somewhat limit fruit consumption.

    Also - while our digestive systems definitely have common characteristics with the great apes, ours is significantly smaller, allowing for meat to pass through quicker (especially cooked meat), and limiting the amount of fiber we can digest. In other words if you want to look at the digestive system, the conclusion would be that we should eat a diet like chimps, but with more meat, and less fiber - in other words the paleo diet.

    Submitted by Guest on
    June 21, 2011 - 12:14pm

    I would say you have only reiterated what the writer did state already, so from what I can tell you are both actually in basic agreement.

    Submitted by Mr. Lasse on
    May 20, 2011 - 5:28pm

    A great read!

    I would still bet that what are the most unhealthy part of socalled civilized and modern life, is not the diet alone, but the lack of proper exercise (plus sun, fresh air, a healthy social life and too many worries).

    Ok, I'm gonna leave my screen now and go for a walk in my park ... :-P

    Submitted by GueHans Albert Quistorff, LMP Antalgic Posture Pain Speciast on
    May 21, 2011 - 8:59pm

    I think the diet distinction should be industrial and preindustrial. It is when the food is produced for profit that bad things happen. The industrial concern is higher profit not better nutrition and healthy energy. Also higher consumption means more profit therefore more addictive foods are favored as well as artificial means of making the food aper more attractive.

    Submitted by Tyler on
    June 22, 2011 - 12:19pm

    I'm sorry to post twice, but I forgot to approach this comment:

    "While it is true that some Paleo advocates advise eating only lean cuts of meat that are either hunted in the wild, or grass-fed, most do not."

    I would like to see more information supporting this claim, as I have seen almost NOTHING but support for grass-fed and locally grown meat from proponents of the Paleo diet. This was one of the main points of contention that I had, which caused me to question the validity and source of the rest of this article's assumptions.

    It's widely circulated that animals raised on a grain fed diet have a different makeup, particularly with omega-6:3 ratios.

    That's another pillar of the Paleo diet that I feel you glossed over, almost completely skipping: the Omega-6:3 balance is central to choosing what one eats. The average American diet's balance is typically somewere between 10-15:1 of Omega-6:3. We should ideally be somewhere between 1-4:1, most aiming for 2:1.

    This is why most nuts (contrary to what your said, only walnuts and macadamia nuts are generally supported, as their ratios are between 4 and 6:1, the rest being very high in 6's and low in 3's) are advised against. Almonds, for example, have virtually no 3's. Even when consumed, Cordain recommends keeping consumption at no more than 4oz a day, on occasion.

    It may be true that those who adopt the Paleo diet do so without first fully researching and educating his or herself on the science behind the diet, but this isn't a flaw of the diet: it's a flaw of some of its followers. I would argue, however, that most of the people who adopt the diet do so because they have become informed rather than simply picking up a diet from the shelf.

    Submitted by BaselineFoundation on
    June 22, 2011 - 2:22pm

    Hi Tyler:

    You mentioned that you have seen "almost NOTHING but support for grass-fed and locally grown meat from proponents of the Paleo Diet."  When Jon researched dozens of Paleo websites and forums across the net to get a better understanding of how people were actually implementing the diet, he found many sites that merely stressed the use of lean meat. Here, for example, is the Paleo Diet's main website  As you can see, there is no mention of grass-fed or locally grown meat – merely the specification that the meat be lean.

    And here on the Paleo Diet Lifestyle website (, they recommend many nuts – including almonds – other than walnuts and macadamia nuts.

    The bottom line is that Jon did not make this information up. And it is not coming from people making it up on their own. It is coming from sources that many people are turning to as authoritative guides to the Paleo Diet. You may not likeor agree with what they are saying, but they are indeed saying it, and many people follow their advice – and that’s what Jon commented on.

    Hope that helps you feel better about the validity and source of the article's assumptions.

    Submitted by Tyler on
    June 23, 2011 - 5:02pm

    I am curious as to where my first comment has disappeared to... (and I was told that this post contained too many links. since the word file was open, I am resubmitting it containing only two links) But you are looking at a mere two sources for a diet that has evolved beyond the Cordainian initial popularization. It is true that Cordain's website doesn't mention the necessity (or preference for) grass fed beef, but it is something that he touches upon in his book, The Paleo Diet. He also is a large proponent of grass-fed beef, as ruminants eating grains is as natural as humans doing so. A simple google search turned this up: While that may be a flaw in the presentation on the website, it is not a flaw in the diet. Regarding Sébastien Noël’s website, while he is a proponent of the diet, he is NOT one of the leading voices on the diet. Not only that, it seems the author's reading comprehension failed him, as the website concludes: "We learned that even if they are often loaded with vitamins and minerals, most nuts and seeds should be kept to a minimum on a healthy diet for a few main reasons: -Most nuts contain lectins that can irritate the gut lining; -Most nuts also contain phytic acid that bind to minerals and blocks their absorption; -Most nuts are very high in total polyunsaturated fat and in omega-6 fat, two things that should be keept to a minimum;" Hardly seems like a recommendation. Instead, the author has presented the information on all of the nuts--context building--and offered a position on their consumption, ultimately allowing the reader's new knowledge be the point of influence dictating their decision. Cordain, whose position on saturated fats, dairy, and diet soda are objected to by others like Sisson, Wolf, and Harris to varying degrees, says in his book that we should only be eating Walnuts and Macadamias due to their omega-6:3 ratio... in small amounts (no more than 4oz at a time). So we have "contrasting" opinions... what now? Another opinion? "My general take, as I see it, is that nuts shouldn’t make up the bulk of your caloric intake. It’s not that Omega-6s are inherently dangerous, especially bound up in whole food, nut form; nuts may even be beneficial to heart health, probably by decreasing systemic inflammation. It’s that they’re often too available, too plentiful, and way too easy to consume in excess." Hmm... By the author's omission, he made it appear as if, well, just let me quote: "Curiously, nuts are cool on the diet -- pretty much all nuts except cashews and peanuts, which are actually beans." Nuts are cool on the diet. No mention of moderation, which every source advocates. No mention the dire balance of omega-6:3's, which is a keystone to the diet and why Cordain chooses to restrict nut intake to those with a better 6:3 ratio. The author didn't even mention this balance anywhere in the article, which causes me to question whether or not he has even the most remote of understandings as to what the diet attempts to balance and accomplish. Anyone can make a blog and post their thoughts, but--as I initially mentioned in my missing first post--there are a few authorities that have done research and have garnished the most modern respect. You mention sources that people are turning to for advice, and as someone who actually follows the authorities, I can tell you that Cordain is widely considered outdated on a few fronts (although he says a LOT of good things) and Noël (while also saying good things) simply runs a blog some frequent. If you want to know who real authorities on the subject, who most people turn to and trust, look here: Mark Sisson Kurt Harris Robb Wolf Loren Cordain What you will find are a lot of diverting opinions on the intricacies of the diet, but the core of each stays the same: cut out grains, legumes, and processed sugars. Eat real food. Find the balance of diet to obtain approximately 40% or so of your calories from meat and fish protein, the other 60% from fruits and veggies. Again, while you are citing sources for these observations, the author has failed to do real research and understand what the Paleo diet actually is. Instead, he has picked and chosen to highlight what benefits his argument while omitting vital aspects of the diet. I still don't feel confidant in being able to trust the author's sources. To me, this article and sources it cites feel like the faux-reporting technique of saying "Some say..." and then just looking for someone to find what one wants them to say... and then not actually reading the source or article (as indicated by the author's failure to read Cordain's book or actually READING Noël's article before writing such a authoritative-sounding article condemning the diet). I would assume that more research--or simply reading--would be done before a report would be written on it. Reminds me a lot of the US News' recent portrayal of blatant ignorance. You can tell me that some people follow these aspects of the diet, and I believe you, but you are taking a step too far by extending that description to encompass the diet as a whole--which is not only inaccurate, but a big stretch of leap in logic. If you would like a true Paleo perspective on grass fed beef, see Mark's post on “the-differences-between-grass-fed-beef-and-grain-fed-beef”. He has one of the largest followings in terms of the Paleo community's trust. You can find minor, fringe advocates for anything. If you look hard enough, I'm sure you could find someone claiming to be Paleo but avoiding all meats, veggies, and fruits, eating only water and salt. This is the danger that evolving ideologies run--anyone can slap a label on it and call it what they will. I would recommend the author to visit and understand the opinions of the "experts" rather than just making a passing, wikipedia-style glossing, patching paragraphs together to build up a straw man called "Paleo". Thank you for the discussion. I would simply like for the Paleo diet to be portrayed accurately, as I feel this article has misrepresented it in many deceiving ways. Thank you for addressing my concerns and I look forward to furthering my understanding as to where the author has come from--as well as, perhaps, the author's admittance and willingness to consider revisiting the diet with an honest lens full of good sources. Thank you.

    Submitted by Robert on
    July 21, 2011 - 1:39am

    *Cut way back or eliminate all grains.
    *Cut back or eliminate all beans,
    *Cut way back on white potatoes, but yams and sweet potatoes are okay in moderation.
    *If you eat meat, use only organic, grass-fed meat. And keep consumption to less than 4 oz a day.

    I'm just wondering where are you going to get your calories from without heavy meat consumption?

    Submitted by Guest on
    February 6, 2012 - 3:32pm

    keep nuts to 4 oz a day. not meat. meat makes up 40%-55% of your diet. depending on the person's choices and preference.

    Submitted by Bob on
    February 7, 2012 - 4:42pm

    Meat for 40-55% of my diet? Are you kidding me? That is disgusting. Can you say heart attack? I eat meat, but once a week and load up on plenty of veggies and whole grains, and I even lost a ton of weight without ruining my health. When you just look at the carbon impact on the environment from eating that much meat, you Paleo people should be ashamed of yourself to promote this to the public. Very irresponsible!!!

    Submitted by Heather on
    March 26, 2012 - 1:33pm

    It's the carbohydrate in the presence of fat that leads to heart attack. Not meat.


Add New Comment