. Seems more a collection of actual unattributed quotes sadly....
Its basically impossible to be serious on this subject in an environment where people actually will rationalize the same 'why would I need to do x if people man did not' as an actual argument in a serious discussion while ignoring physical reality. This is 100% the problem, not paleo diets per se, at least IMO. A perfect example of this could be something as simple as cholesterol. Most of us agree that eating plenty of cholesterol is good and natural. or at least raw cholesterol. The thing is is that if your cholestrol is high and whether you eat paleo or raw or whatever, it might not indicate that you will have a heart attack, but what it does indicate is that you are not converting cholesterol to the advanced hormones, which means your health and diet is completely out of wack in other ways, and requires re-examination from the ground-up and not top-down. This is impossible when following a set of beliefs that already determine what is healthy and what is not based on religion. For instance, we know vegans can have high cholesterol with little or no dietary cholesterol or neolithic food, and yet in the context of the right diet, you can eat sticks of butter every day and have healthy total cholesterol, probably because it has SCFAs directly useful for energy and pro-thyroid minerals, but almost irrelevant why, as this is the reality. That alone says nothing about paleo diets being ideal or not for modern folks, but it does tell you you should probably check all theories against reality when people hand-wave about concepts as if they don't matter. Also when people cite that avoiding neolithic food is most -or even all- of the equation when fixing health problems...
For many, stone appears to dimiss food toxicity in the conventional raw or paleo sense as being particulary important. Im not sure that is accurate as it seems, but I tend not to be the targeted audience
or target of his stuff as I can form my own indepedent opinions, get regular workups, have temps 98-99+,and thus dont read it much. My guess is, a fairer view of what he says is if you fall below the line of what are obvious indicators of poor health, your purism, naturalism, localism, spiritualism, etc... Isnt working. Period. The key problem is, no matter how impossible it is to actually diagree with that, people will simply choose to disagree with that (something, eh), and just cite more of their dogmas and swear all sorts of reasons why others are wrong and excuses for their own health fly like one of those chip cans full of fake snakes. The absolute best is when you see someone take a complety anti-paleo theory like his or others and then say "ok, lets apply this to a paleo diet". But ultimately he's like every other diet, film, or social critic. He - like most people- has some masive bias against diets that did not work for him, and thus "don't work" (sound familiar?) for anyone even when they do. This part is totally false, if your actual version of paleo/healthy eating fulfills your known needs in actual analysis, and gives optimal results, or at least fares better than others without excuses.
short review:
the article is actually dumb and a pitch for a book. but this seems pretty reasonable:
http://180degreehealth.com/2012/02/paleo-myths#comment-57247note how he blatantly promotes things I 100% disagree with...
