That bugs me less than it might. IMHO, the point is not historical re-enactment (even though some people do seem to approach it that way, which I tend to find aggravating) but using information about ancestral diets to make informed decisions about the optimal way to eat now.
Taking fish oil supplements (for example) to get closer to an ideal omega-3/6 balance doesn't seem out of keeping with that.
I agree, but it seems like I've seen people take the supplements thing way beyond fish oil while claiming it's all caveperson. And I have nothing against using ancestral diets to inform modern nutrition. And maybe it's just me -- being contrary and not wanting to be sold on something -- but I feel like I'm seeing an awful lot of high-pressure rhetoric claiming that ancestral equals good and modern/agricultural equals evil in a way that mirrors conspiracy talk. It sets my teeth on edge.
(But of course my teeth don't actually know anything.)
I dunno, I think the average GP is still not going to tell you "cut the grains and vegetable oil, eat more offal, and don't worry too much about saturated fat." Not unless they've been reading a lot of Gary Taubes. *g*
There are certainly points in common with standard advice (eat your vegetables, avoid processed foods, limit sugar, etc.), but also some major divergences.
GPs tend to be conservative, I'll concede, but it seems to be pretty common knowledge these days that the anti-fat craze of the 80s and 90s went too far. The major sticking point seems to be in the idea that by micromanaging macronutrients you can fine-tune how the body behaves.
I suppose the way I tend to see it is: if you avoid processed foods and allow larger portions of meat and natural fats back into your diet -- all of which seems to be in line with modern medical theory -- and if you don't over-eat, then the moderation of grains will tend to be a natural side-effect of that rebalancing.
But then the thing that seems to make paleo/primal a brand and not just repackaged medical orthodoxy is a lot of claims about "reprogramming your genes" and managing levels of hormones and tuning the diet for specific outcomes that I find fairly dubious.
I'm a big believer in doing what works for you, but I'm also aware that personal anecdotes don't add up to scientific data, and the way paleo/primal is marketed, it seems like we're supposed to treat everyone as being pre-diabetic and subject to Celiac disease, and then after hugely pressuring a person into making a big change, and then praising them for making the change on political and moral grounds, we'll ask the world to treat the personal anecdotes of people subjected to this pressure as data.
(And after all this ranting, I realize that what I really, really hate are the high-pressure sales I'm encountering in the fitness industry. Paleo could be gold on a stick and I'd reject it on those grounds.)
Re: Belated comment is belated
Taking fish oil supplements (for example) to get closer to an ideal omega-3/6 balance doesn't seem out of keeping with that.
I agree, but it seems like I've seen people take the supplements thing way beyond fish oil while claiming it's all caveperson. And I have nothing against using ancestral diets to inform modern nutrition. And maybe it's just me -- being contrary and not wanting to be sold on something -- but I feel like I'm seeing an awful lot of high-pressure rhetoric claiming that ancestral equals good and modern/agricultural equals evil in a way that mirrors conspiracy talk. It sets my teeth on edge.
(But of course my teeth don't actually know anything.)
I dunno, I think the average GP is still not going to tell you "cut the grains and vegetable oil, eat more offal, and don't worry too much about saturated fat." Not unless they've been reading a lot of Gary Taubes. *g*
There are certainly points in common with standard advice (eat your vegetables, avoid processed foods, limit sugar, etc.), but also some major divergences.
GPs tend to be conservative, I'll concede, but it seems to be pretty common knowledge these days that the anti-fat craze of the 80s and 90s went too far. The major sticking point seems to be in the idea that by micromanaging macronutrients you can fine-tune how the body behaves.
I suppose the way I tend to see it is: if you avoid processed foods and allow larger portions of meat and natural fats back into your diet -- all of which seems to be in line with modern medical theory -- and if you don't over-eat, then the moderation of grains will tend to be a natural side-effect of that rebalancing.
But then the thing that seems to make paleo/primal a brand and not just repackaged medical orthodoxy is a lot of claims about "reprogramming your genes" and managing levels of hormones and tuning the diet for specific outcomes that I find fairly dubious.
I'm a big believer in doing what works for you, but I'm also aware that personal anecdotes don't add up to scientific data, and the way paleo/primal is marketed, it seems like we're supposed to treat everyone as being pre-diabetic and subject to Celiac disease, and then after hugely pressuring a person into making a big change, and then praising them for making the change on political and moral grounds, we'll ask the world to treat the personal anecdotes of people subjected to this pressure as data.
(And after all this ranting, I realize that what I really, really hate are the high-pressure sales I'm encountering in the fitness industry. Paleo could be gold on a stick and I'd reject it on those grounds.)