For the people who know about Paleo:

from my understanding as human beings we are considerably different from humans who lived in 1900, much less those who lived literally hand to mouth thousands of years ago. Why should we advocate the same approximate diet if our bodies differ so much?

Google seems to agree with me.

I don't understand.

the blood sugar/insulin hit is bad for us. (I disagree. The insulin hit isn't that bad because of the fiber in the vegetable.

But you don't get insulin from food -- your pancreas manufactures it to use glucose properly.

Root vegetables may be full of carbs, but they're still healthier than a donut, you know?

But that's me -- I can't imagine giving up anything I like, so.

Speaking as an anthropologist, I say bullshit.

Indeed. It's a hell of a lot easier to dig up some purple potatoes than chase down an alpaca, you know?

I don't understand.

Many of those links say he's green.

Basically, most modern Paleo folks are looking for foods that they already like that are on the Paleo-Approved list.

This is my beef (SEE WHAT I DID THERE) with the whole Paleo concept. Not the general notion of "foods that are less processed are better for you than Wonder Bread" but that it tends to come out in practice as "steak and eggs for breakfast every morning, rawr, I'm a HUNTER!"

I mean, I doubt many people on a modern "paleo" diet are spending the winter months living off of beef jerky and acorns.

mean, I doubt many people on a modern "paleo" diet are spending the winter months living off of beef jerky and acorns.

I would totally love to live off beef jerky and nuts (not acorns cause they taste like ass and have to be processed, ironically, in some way to be palatable).

In other news, we are moving in 11 days and I have to pack up and move my classroom in 6 days. I feel sick.

I'm not really on board with Paleo being into eggs, though, since an easy supply of eggs is a result of domesticated fowl, and they wouldn't have been available year-round in quantity in the real Paleolithic.

This is part of the argument I hear a lot. Personally, I'm into eating eggs because they have a lot of protein and a lot of nutrients. H/Gs eat eggs whenever they can get them, and they can get them, just not in the abundance we can. But that argument is true for ANY food - modern first-world humans have a larger and easier supply of all foods than our ancestors did. There's a similar argument over honey, and milk. H/Gs couldn't get honey very easily at all, and they don't drink milk because they don't have domesticated animals. OTOH, there are tribes like the Masai who are non-nomadic herders, who eat virtually nothing but the meat, milk, and blood of their livestock (and are overall incredibly healthy). As soon as humans domesticate animals and have access to milk, they start drinking it. (Except for areas of rural China where they think it's gross. There's always an exception.)

Basically, I think humans will eat, drink, smoke, and fuck anything. It may or may not be good for us. The sole fact that our distant ancestors probably did or did not do it is not reason enough for us to do or not do it. Humans have been consuming domesticated grains for thousands of years, and many (most?) of us have adapted to that food supply that we didn't evolve with. Some of us haven't. The fact that Jesus ate bread doesn't mean I should.

Many of those links say he's green.

Nope.

Humans have been consuming domesticated grains for thousands of years, and many (most?) of us have adapted to that food supply that we didn't evolve with.

Exactly. That's why the appendix is obsolete, for one. It was used primarily to digest raw (or rawer) meat, I think.