[csallen]

>> "The claim most paleo advocates seem to be making is that you should eat food that the body is adapted to eating."

In full, their claims fall closer to the following:

  P1. You should eat healthy foods.
  P2. Foods that the body is "adapted" to eating are healthy.
  P3. If paleolithic humans ate something, it means our bodies are "adapted" to it.
  C. We should eat what paleolithic humans ate.

The problems with the above line of reasoning are numerous. While most everyone would prefer to eat healthy when possible, the word "adapted" is ambiguous, and the argument that it's healthier to eat foods we're "adapted" to lacks evidence and is overly ambitious.

It's hard enough to examine healthiness on a food-by-food (or even an ingredient-by-ingredient) basis, so labeling broad categories of food as healthy or unhealthy is bound to be even harder.

[Exenith]

Let's put that straw man logic more realistically:

  P1. If you want to have a good degree of health without requiring modern medicine, you should eat food that gives you a good degree of health without requiring modern medicine
  P2. Successfully reproducing in an environment without modern medicine requires food that supports or does not tarnish a good degree of health
  P3. Paleolithic humans successfully reproduced in an environment without modern medicine
  C. If you want to have a good degree of health without requiring modern medicine, eating what paleolithic humans ate will support or not tarnish that goal

Of course the problems with your reasoning are numerous. That's why intelligent people who eat the paleo diet don't make them. And they likely wouldn't propose the logic I did here. That's why they use studies comparing the health of hunter-gatherers to neolithic farmers. That's why they discuss scientific studies in support of meat/fat, and in opposition to grains. That's why they get angry at people who misappropriate their views.

[csallen]

Au contraire, plenty of intelligent people who follow the paleo diet make the flawed argument I just presented. I know a few myself.

In addition, I'd argue that the reasoning I presented falls much more closely in line with what's found on Wikipedia's "Paleo diet" article and top Paleo sites than does yours, which, strangely, seems to focus heavily on avoiding modern medicine. But this is irrelevant, since you yourself claim that "intelligent" followers of paleo likely wouldn't propose your logic, either.

So I must ask you: What reasoning would these people propose? "Using studies" is a supplement to proposing a logical framework that justifies a conclusion, not a replacement. Research isn't cited in a vacuum: it's cited to argue for or against some premise or conclusion. Also, the types of studies you refer to could just as easily be used to supplement the framework I provided as it could yours or any other. Thus, the fact that some paleo advocates would cite these studies isn't an argument for or against the accuracy of my characterization.

It seems a bit disingenuous to label one's reasoning a strawman without providing specific reasons as to why, or even providing the allegedly correct reasoning. If a group refuses/fails to articulate its position clearly and publicly, then who is truly to blame for those views being misappropriated?

[bruceboughton]

>> P3. Paleolithic humans successfully reproduced in an environment without modern medicine

Many paleolithic humans did not successfully reproduce. Many died before being able to. Humans continued to exist because enough successfully reproduced.

Unless your personal health goal is that a sizable proportion of your cohort survive to reproduce successfully, this is not particularly helpful reasoning.

In any event, you are highly likely to make it to child-rearing age in economically developed countries. Our health problems occur later.