Hot on the heels of yesterday’s article on the winding path of paleo, I thought it would be worth posting this fascinating discussion between Harvard University’s Matt Lalonde and Steve from Evolution: This View Of Life.
It’s of particular interest, because – as you’ll see – Lalonde
takes a scientific approach to evolutionary nutrition that amounts to nothing less than killing some sacred cows of the paleo diet.
The discussion includes:
- Why the “evolutionary theory” of paleo can never be true in absolute terms;
- Why the fact that our genes are identical to our hunter-gatherer ancestors doesn’t mean we should consume the same diet as them;
- Why grains, legumes and dairy may not be the antithesis of the paleo diet we’ve been led to believe;
- Why humans can adapt to new (neolithic) sources of food;
- Why self-experimentation is the only way to be sure of what suits us;
- Why grains and legumes aren’t optimal – but are also not the anti-nutrient time-bombs we’re often told;
- The fallacy of a single “best” ratio of macronutrients;
- Why intense agriculture is ruining the planet’s fertility;
- What the perfect scientific study of the paleo diet would look like;
- The best foods to eat as a baseline for good nutrition;
- Why dairy is OK for some people;
- How it’s possible to be a healthy vegetarian.
Interesting stuff. What do you think? Has this discussion amounted to killing some sacred cows of the paleo diet – or do you have a different perspective to add?