19
« on: October 23, 2010, 02:08:28 AM »
I didn't really like the article. It keeps hinting at criticism of those who think the paleo diet is a 'solution' but some of the statistics used are taken a bit out of context. For example, speaking of life expectancy; when living a life of a hunter gatherer it is truly a case of survival and it wasn't as simple as living behind a brick wall.
I think this is the worst paragraph:
Research suggests the defining turning point from Paleolithic to Neolithic is – behavior. It shows extreme leaps and progress in the ability to plan, think, and assess situations on greater levels. The humans of the Paleolithic period are thought to be led by an extreme amount of fear, impulse and superstition. Much like a dog reacts to a severe thunderstorm or Brendon Frasier in Encino Man at MTV. What I find to be so fascinating by the Paleo phenomenon, is the desire to emulate such a savage and underdeveloped mindset. The glorification is beyond me. Especially since it is made mostly out of preconceived notion, rather than literal understanding of those times.
Regardless of what our diet was during the paleolithic era we would have had those same characteristics as at the time that was as far as we had evolved. But was it the paleolithic diet which helped us evolve and progress to become smarter and more intelligent beings?
What I hate the most are all the people bumming the writer in the comments section; to me it's just another flakey article worded to convince.
Edit: Also farming your own grains and storing/soaking them is a bit different to buying mass produced/treated grains off the shelf. I've read an article about this somewhere but I can't remember where. Again out of context.