You can Vote for Paleo Diet

[PaleoPhil]

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets

You can vote for the Paleo diet at the link. So far it is kicking butt. Most of the other diets are doing abysmally, though Weight Watchers and Atkins are doing OK compared to the others, with rather mediocre ratings.

It's funny that the two diets that experts hate most, Paleo and Atkins, are doing better than most in the ratings of the dieters who've tried them. This is evidence of what Nassim Taleb calls "the expert problem."

Empty suit problem (or “expert problem”): some members of professions have no differential abilities from the rest of the population, but, for some reason, and against their empirical record, are believed to be experts: clinical psychologists, academic economists, risk “experts”, statisticians, political  analysts, financial “experts”, military analysts, CEOs. etc. They dress up their expertise in beautiful language, jargon, mathematics, and often wear expensive suits. http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/blackswanglossary.htm

[raw-al]

There's no raw/paleo diet selection. Did you try to petition for one?

[eveheart]

I voted on Paleo Diet section - close enough, considering the competition. Raw vs. cooked is the next bridge to cross.

[PaleoPhil]

There's no raw/paleo diet selection. Did you try to petition for one?

Since when is a raw Paleo diet not a Paleo diet? Seems to me that rawness is acceptable within the category, else this would be the "raw omnivore diet forum" instead of the "raw Paleo diet forum". The cooked Paleos don't have a monopoly on the term and this doesn't belong in hot topics. I'll be it's Tyler's extremism at work again.  

It's interesting that "Paleo diet" is kicking butt over "Raw Food Diet". If the raw aspect of Paleo was so much more important than the Paleo aspect, as some have suggested in the past, wouldn't one expect the opposite? Rawness is apparently more important for some folks, but that survey suggests that's not necessarily the case for everyone.

[SkinnyDevil]

Interesting. Raw food & paleo are both WAY low (18 & 20 as I look at it now), despite the fact that paleo has WAY more "yes" votes than many others.

[PaleoPhil]

That's because the dingbat "experts" rated them without even knowing anything about them, which they revealed with their ignorant comments.  Highly unscientific. Of course, an Internet poll of alleged dieters isn't scientific either, and probably skewed by the fact that Paleo dieters tend to have higher than avg Internet presence and are more likely to be motivated to vote by the anti-Paleo results of the "experts" poll, but the dieter poll is a bit more credible than ignorant "experts," and it's interesting how opposite the results were.

[TylerDurden]

I never ever trust polls, ever since mrs thatcher's conservatives were routinely described as failing in the polls only for them to win again and again in elections. And there is a definite anti-raw bias within the cooked-palaeodiet community so I don't see it as logical to lump us with the cooked palaeos. Hot topics fodder it sure is...

[PaleoPhil]

I won't let the cooked Paleos ostracize us into an obscure corner for crazies. Raw and low-slow cooked versions are the default natural Paleo diets, not modern-cooked versions, and more and more people, including experts like Stephan Guyenet, Dr. William Davis, and Dr. Michael Eades (creator of a "sous vide" low-slow cooking device), are gradually, if at times grudgingly, moving in our direction. It's not much of a leap from sous vide, lightly seared steaks and some raw foods to mostly or all raw. Heck, during an interview of Stephan by Chris Kresser, The Healthy Skeptic, there was even joking about Aajonus being right after all after Stephan promoted ancestral raw foods and low-slow cooking. The innovations of modern cooking need to prove themselves, not the practices of millions of years.

Say it loud! We rawists and mostly-rawists ("high rawists") are PALEO and proud!

Nothing wrong with HOT! BTW.