The Paleo Paradox

In conclusion, I asked how he'd reply to people like Zuk and Warinner, who criticize the very premise. His response, in its entirety: "'Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'" -- Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1973. A similar statement could be made: Nothing in nutrition makes sense except in the light of evolution." Like so many diet fads, it sounds like common sense. But the science of human evolution and biology is simply more complicated than our common knowledge. It can't be broken down into seven basic principles or delivered in a handy list of "the foods you were meant to eat." Any of these experts will tell you that even if we were meant to eat a Paleolithic diet, even if there was just one Paleolithic diet, and even if that diet included, for example, broccoli -- that broccoli would be an extremely different vegetable than one you could buy at a store today. For one thing, it wouldn't exist. Broccoli wasn't cultivated until approximately 2,500 years ago. Does that make it unhealthy? Of course not. Not even Paleo devotees believe that. In fact, look it up on their food lists and you'll find that, yes, broccoli is Paleo -- though it's not Paleolithic. This is what I find so concerning about this concept of Paleo as a lifestyle, rather than a diet trend. When, as a culture, we recognize something as a fad, we also recognize that it will likely fade. Elevating "Paleoism" to the status of a lifestyle gives it a sense of age and authority. It indicat...
Source: Healthy Living - The Huffington Post - Category: Consumer Health News Source Type: news