I'm just full of questions today.
There seem to be many different approaches to the paleo diet, and I love that it can be customized to individualized needs. That being said, I am curious as to whether a "broad to narrow" plan of action is more affective than one that is "narrow to broad", or vice versa.
This might be confusing to some people, so let me clarify.
A broad-to-narrow approach would begin with a focus on eating real high-quality foods while excluding NADs. There might not be too much of an emphasis on macro-nutrient ratios, supplementation, or meal frequency in the beginning. As time progresses, the individual could then choose to further "hack" at his or her lifestyle and implement different strategies to accomplish whatever their individualized goals might be.
A narrow-to-broad approach involves the exact opposite. The individual starts on a strict protocol (for example Dr. Kruse's Leptin reset, or something similar) that proscribes a specific set of parameters that is very detailed and involves multiple facets of diet and nutrition. Once the individual has followed this protocol for a period of time, they may choose to re-introduce certain foods into their diet (increase carbohydrates, add back dairy, etc.) perhaps because this strict phase helped their body heal.
What are your thoughts on these approaches? Do you think one is better than the other? Why? Please consider the fact that the success of these plans is measured not only in their ability to heal disease/promote well-being, but also in the rate of compliance. A diet could be perfect, but if it is nearly impossible to stick to it, it's value goes down significantly