Which moniker do you prefer? Paleo 2.0 or Post-Paleo - PaleoHacks.com

Which moniker do you prefer? Paleo 2.0 or Post-Paleo

2011-04-02T19:11:29Z

What name would you prefer for a new, more nuanced understanding of paleo? Dr Harris' post about 2.0 will surely become very famous, but now he has posted on why he has chosen the name http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2011/4/1/why-paleo-20.html.

In a comment to the 2.0 post, he says "I considered 'post-paleo' but it has echoes of postmodern which I don't like". Obviously Dr Harris is not God, he is not perfect and has his hang-ups like everyone else. Personally, I like the designation of post-paleo for exactly the same reason, that Paleo 2.0 really is the post-modern equivalent of paleo. I'm don't fully get post-modern theory, but paleo 2.0 seems to me to be a deconstruction of what Eaton/Cordain/Wolf labelled paleo, and attempt to repack it more objectively.

Answer by Turnkey for Which moniker do you prefer? Paleo 2.0 or Post-Paleo

2011-04-02T19:40:30Z

My preference would be post-paleo, but that is mostly due to the 2.0 moniker being a bit over used at this point (Web 2.0 being the big thing right now).

Although pre-agriculture would be what I really prefer, as not everyone understand what "paleo" entails. Most people would get pre-agriculture from the name.

Answer by oliverh for Which moniker do you prefer? Paleo 2.0 or Post-Paleo

2011-04-02T19:40:45Z

no one owns this thing, I like the idea of trying to bring everything into one bracket though, at the end of the day the general goal is all the same - good health - which is basically what K Harris is saying, he takes a swipe at Art de Vany mind (70000$ land rover, chill) - I don't like the idea of any one person trying to own this movement, sorry, but if that is going to be the case, it needs to be some charismatic Jack Lalanne figure, which there isn't... Mark Sissons is closest, if so. No Paleo 2.0 sorry, nor post paleo or primal - paleo (plus cheese and salt) please...

Answer by Mikey for Which moniker do you prefer? Paleo 2.0 or Post-Paleo

2011-04-02T19:53:44Z

I hate labels. I don't eat grains and I don't eat crap. That does not make me a caveman and I did not get here by trying to emulate my ancestors. I got here by eliminating the foods that made me sick, fat, miserable, or diseased. I understand the urge to label it as something so it is easier to sell the concept (figuratively) to people, but I deeply believe that this should not be a trend or a thing. It should be the SAD for most.

Answer by Scott for Which moniker do you prefer? Paleo 2.0 or Post-Paleo

2011-04-02T20:28:42Z

Can't we name it something cool like Ookla the MoK?

Answer by Cacktus Wayfinder for Which moniker do you prefer? Paleo 2.0 or Post-Paleo

2011-04-02T20:30:48Z

I would not embrace either paleo 2.0 or post paleo. I don't mind calling it paleo, and then explaining to the best of my abilities to the person what it means to me and how I am understanding it. I have had good results with that- people seem really interested, the information "clicks" with them, and they often mention later that they did buy a book or visit a recommended website. Even better, some even try the paleo diet and of course they, like I did, become hooked.

I think that people are capable of nuanced understanding of terms, definitions, and meanings in the "paleosphere". I don't believe that people's thinking needs to be controlled by tightly defined terms that limit complexity. Understand this way of eating/living/playing/health etc. is evolving, and besides it is utilized by unique people in unique circumstances. The application of into ones body and citrcumstances of paleo or paleo 2.0 or post paleo or whatever one calls it is an art, in my opinion.

Answer by Stabby for Which moniker do you prefer? Paleo 2.0 or Post-Paleo

2011-04-02T20:45:01Z

I like Evolutionary Nutrition. In the same way that evolutionary psychology takes what we know about evolution and then formulates a hypothesis with it to attempt to explain human behaviors in a systematic way, that is exactly what we do and should continue to do with nutrition. It goes like:

P1 Organisms adapt to their environments due to natural selection P2 One major component of an organism's environment is diet

C1 Organisms adapt to diet via natural selection (from P1 and P2)

C1 Organisms adapt to diet via natural selection P3 Biological adaptation often moves in the direction of health and vitality C2 Organisms adapt to diet via natural selection in order to obtain better health and vitality from their diets.

C2 Organisms adapt to diet via natural selection in order to obtain better health and vitality from their diets. P4 It takes time to adapt to an environmental factor P5 It hasn't been so long since we ate a predominantly hunter-gatherer diet.

C3 Organisms may not have adapted to new environmental factors introduced to them in the near-past in such a way to make them optimal for health and vitality, and thus we are likely best adapted to a hunter-gatherer diet with regards to health and vitality, since a hunter-gatherer diet was the norm for a substantial amount of time and agriculture is a new thing that we might not be biologically adapted to to beget the greatest health and vitality.

Okay last one is a bit messy but it definitely follows. Nowhere is there a contentious assertion since I make sure to use words like "probably" or "likely" instead of an assertion of fact from what is in truth an assumption.

Of course it doesn't follow that any particular element of "what grok did" is necessarily best. Higher carb or lower carb? Some Groks ate more carbs than many around here do. There is no one paleo diet, but there might be an optimal diet. It doesn't follow that a neolithic food is necessarily bad, either. Just because we didn't see it before doesn't mean that we can't be adapted to it. The paleo axiom is only an a priori speculation, and we actually have to test these things with observations if we want to be sure.

But the point is that we have a firm theoretical framework to base our hypotheses and skepticism upon. And that is what evolutionary nutrition is.

I was thinking that what Cordain came out with was Paleo 2.0 since Paleo 1.0 was thousands of years ago, and so this would be 3.0. I just prefer evolutionary medicine, nutrition, etc a lot more. It communicates what we ought to be doing which is making informed hypothesis with a sound theoretical framework.

Answer by Carl_Stawicki for Which moniker do you prefer? Paleo 2.0 or Post-Paleo

2011-04-02T23:36:23Z

I would prefer the word "Evolutionary" when describing both diet and fitness because, really, our genes can be traced farther back than the paleolithic era. The word "paleo" has always been merely a metaphor anyway.

I understand the whole "what's in a name" way of looking at it, but having a name makes it easy to quickly describe the diet and gives people a good search term.

Edit: I would also add that eventually the phrases "paleo," "primal," and "Evolutionary nutrition" will blur together more than they already have. I think Evolutionary covers the real underlying concepts nicely.

Answer by Adam Crafter for Which moniker do you prefer? Paleo 2.0 or Post-Paleo

2011-04-03T14:38:37Z

I like paleo 2.0 a bit more. It implies that we are still learning more and refining, and that there will be a later version (paleo 2.5) as we do further genetic and population studies.

We are still learning, I like to try to remember that.

Answer by Paul for Which moniker do you prefer? Paleo 2.0 or Post-Paleo

2011-04-03T19:18:56Z

i really like the idea of a label. Paleo 2.0 sounds better to me than post paleo. Whenever someone is asking what diet I'm following, i can tell it in one word. Before paleo 2.0 i've told I'm on panu. If they get interested they will find a kickass post by Kurt Harris.

I'd never tell i'm on paleo. Just google it! The Homepage of Loren Cordain is the Top Search Result, where you find something like this:

While skinless chicken breasts and turkey cutlets may still qualify as your best bets, even red meat can be healthy if kept lean and eaten in moderation. For the leanest ground beef, look for ground round (the leanest), followed by ground sirloin, ground chuck, and then regular ground beef (but aim for at least 90 to 95 percent lean, which contains about 5 grams of total fat per serving). ... No matter what recipe you’re preparing, though, trim the visible fat before cooking meat — even if it’s lean.

http://thepaleodiet.com/steaks-health-benefits/

this sounds so much better, doesn't it? :

Start eating proper fats - Use healthy animal fats or coconut fat to substitute fat calories for calories that formerly came from sugar and flour. Drink whole cream or coconut milk.

from the Getting Started Guide linked on http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2011/3/30/paleo-20-a-diet-manifesto.html

Answer by Erika for Which moniker do you prefer? Paleo 2.0 or Post-Paleo

2011-04-05T04:21:24Z

I am all for paleo 2.0... I am planning to run with it... I have been saying a modified paleo when I talk about nutrition and my lifestyle.... I like paleo 2.0 alot and the hopes of paleo 3.0 and 4.0 as research comes in over the years and we learn more!!!!

I just want to eat healthfully for my body and teach others to do the same... I don't like the whole cave man connotations all that much- thats not really what it is all about....

just my thought.... WE are still Learning constantly!!!!!