Perfect illustration of the problem of Matt Stone's philosophy (paraphrasing):

Matt: See I fixed her and now she's perfect! Sean: But she's still 60 lbs overweight Matt: That's ok. She's perfectly healthy and all her other numbers are perfect so I have fixed her. Yay me!

If you are o.k. with working hard to become "perfectly healthy" but remaining significantly overweight or becoming even more overweight than when you started and can be brainwashed into thinking that the extra weight doesn't matter then I think I think he may be a good option for you. Otherwise I'm not so sure.

Matt seems to be a decent guy who is passionate about his beliefs and truly wants to help people. He seems to be a very likeable guy. I just think he's misguided.

It seems legit to offer my n=1 responses; many are diametrically opposed to his "outcomes" talking points of what supposedly happens after 6 months of paleo:

• paleo did not shut down my ability to think outside the box; if anything, it set it free
• my ability to recognize and listen to my body's signals exploded in intensity rather than fading
• his statement that we should use more than just evolutionary info is fine and I think we already do
• he seems to think change always equals improvement; I don't, otherwise why do we say it's important to lose from your mistakes?
• my dark, puffy eye circles went away
• my sleep improved
• no return of (my many documented) autoimmune issues after 10 months
• hands and feet are finally warm for the first time
• for the first time I am NOT suffering from anxiety in the absence of acute stress
• (I agree some diets work short term but may fail over the long haul)

I found his "listen to your body" piece the most valid and had no serious disagreements and I basically agree with his warning to avoid evangelism/dogmatism--but I'm not sure he's following his own advice.

I was ready to stop listening at the 12-minute mark but forced myself to keep going. He never came out and said so but I think he believes that short-term improvements are really hormesis and not directly due to what you're eating since he believes that you can reverse the changes later and achieve positive reactions again.

Current evidence does support his statement that it's possible to be both overweight and healthy, but the odds of being in the healthy group aren't that great as I understand it. I also agree that "dieting" is neutral at best and harmful at worst--but that's not what we do here. We preach against it. And he seems positively inclined toward IF.

I STRONGLY disagree that you have to get healthy before you can lose weight; that may be partially true to avoid rebound weight gain though--I think you need to lose and work toward health simultaneously. I also don't agree that you should avoid forcing your fat off--forcing isn't the word I choose but I do think you need to "shake up" or "shock" your metabolism (think IF, ADF, leptin reset, etc.) to reset it for sustained weight loss.

Okay, he's still got 20 minutes to go and I just can't do any more. Over and out.

Okay, as a person who has took a bunch of anthropology courses and continues to read on the subject (biological anthropology to be exact), MATT STONE has no leg to stand on.

The problem is that he is not just wrong. We all can be wrong about a thing or two, that does not really matter. The problem is HE IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG.

I am sorry, I try not to be negative, but my blood boils when I think of this guy. And just to think that we are all listening to this cr@p???

Okay, let me spell it out for you:

1. He is wrong about the way he presents human evolution.
2. He is wrong about the cause of the advent of the agriculture.
3. He is wrong about animal protein consumption that lead to development of our species.
4. He is wrong how he presents the use of fire and the ramifications of that. Neanderthals used fire. He cannot claim things he does not know without citing legitimate sources!!!
5. He is wrong about the reasons why people are tall now and got shorter when the agriculture was developed.
6. He is wrong about the population explosion when humans became farmers. He does not name the real reason for it. This is like Anthopology 101!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Basic stuff!!!!!
7. He is wrong about Weston Price research. Has he even read Weston Price or is it a deliberate lie?

I can write a paper 100 pages long stating the obvious facts that he is wrong about. But I don't have the time in my life for this.

Dear Beth,

Next time you want me to go into a deep rage, please post something by David Wolfe.

I lasted 10 min. Won't waste my time.

Okay, I'll add my two bits. I applaud Sean for having an alternative. For those of us hoping to never be paleovangelists, I think it is good to hear alternative arguments.

That said, Mr Stone made me raise my eyebrows. Anyone who says "obviously" and "clearly" that much seems to be wanting things to be clear or obvious when they maybe aren't. Example, from around 10 minutes in, (paraphrasing) "Obviously having agriculture when things weren't going so well was a good thing" -- without considering that it may have been a steady food source, but that doesn't mean it is a good food source.

Secondly, the problems he says he's seen with patients -- body temperature, autoimmune issues, etc -- I only see anecdotal evidence. Personally, I'd like science. Someone like Dr. O'Bryan was able to point to studies. (I actually want to contact him to find some of these papers on gluten issues to pass on to family).

Third, paleo ideology is very in-line with a lot of what I already think. It's also lowered my BS meter even further. I get that for some of us that it is a part of identity, but I don't see how that it leads to not making adjustments to diet "six months in". How many of us have fiddled around with the amount of carbs, or types of fat, etc, so that we keep feeling our best?

Fourth, I question his understand of epigenetics or genetics. Yes, we can adapt. But just because we can adapt doesn't mean we should adapt, to a point. We were adapted to SAD, but it wasn't ideal. Here, like with my other points, correlation does not imply causation.

I don't mind paleo criticism, but personally, I'd like some sounder logic. It seems to me that he has an overly simplistic view of paleo as something static, rather than a dynamic, day-in, day-out approach to what we put in our bodies.

Stone is wrong.

How did this guy makes the speakers list?

Paleo people ate refined sugar too? We are adapted to thrive on what Matt Stone says?

I (for one, it seems) got a lot out of his presentation. He essentially encouraged an open mind and paying attention to your body; most of his "debunking Paleo" was aimed at the tenets of low-carb Paleo, which certainly doesn't include all of us here. The only other "anti-Paleo" idea he put out there was that eliminating certain foods isn't always necessary and may sometimes be detrimental. He even advocated low-carb and IF near the end.

There are a bunch of small statements you could quibble with, but for the most part what he's saying isn't too radical. Here are the points I agreed with:

• Pay attention to your body; don't let the logic (or dogma) of a diet overrule your individual response.
• Short-term weight loss protocols often lead to stress & re-gaining weight. Focus on optimizing your health, then chose safe, slow methods to eliminate excess weight.
• Eliminating large food groups from the diet can cause personal and social stress, which can exacerbate health problems.
• Carbohydrates can be beneficial, while low-carb can be harmful in the long run. (Kurt Harris & the Jaminets have educated us about the benefits of starches, which Stone recommends over grains, and there is a lot of data out there showing negative long-term consequences of low-carb dieting)
• There are positive aspects to both low-carb and high-carb diets, especially when used in the short term.

That's the "what not do to" section; as for the "what to do" section, he seemed to focus mainly on rebuilding metabolism, although he didn't get into specifics (I assume that's where the book comes in). I'm not 100% sold on the theory, mainly because I didn't get much data to back it up, but there seem to be a few prominent people in the post-Paleo community championing the thyroid/metabolism idea, so there's probably something to it. As he says near the end, it can't hurt to give it a shot. Despite the fact that Matt Stone would personally profit from us buying his book (just like most people on the summit), he came across as well-spoken, well-intentioned, and very reasonable (although his blog may be a different story). I'm glad he was a part of the convention.

OMG, I just couldn't take another minute listening to this crap after he got into the story of the woman who was doing so well, but still was 60 lbs overweight, but hey, that's OK cause she's "healthy". People can fault Kruse and Jaminet for pulling stuff out of their a$$es, and they might not agree with them, but at least you can tell that they have both thought hard about it. Rather than hearing Matt go on and on about her, I kept drifting to the imaginary presentation where either Jaminet or Kruse would talk about their recommendations for this woman. My attention never returned to this presentation.

It's great to be skeptical, but he makes broad, sweeping statements apparently based on what? Theres is certainly lots of room for critique in the paleo world and I'm comfortable with the questions he asks. I'm less excited with the answers he feels compelled to provide based on his personal observations. As I said in the Paleo Summit comments, I sometimes get the feeling (from some glimpses at his website) that he's more of a contrarian than and genuinely innovative thinker.

I agree with Dan. Matt's presentation was interesting, informative and made good points. Further research on his website interested me enough to buy his ebook (only $20). I'm a fast reader and am almost finished. My take away is that he's a Paleo advocate but rather than going 80/20, he prefers 60/40. I've actually come to find some of the problems he's descirbed (I've been Paleo for a few years with period breaks due to being out at sea for the summers) and have had some of negative side effects. I'm not going to start chowing down on bagels and pasta tomorrow, but it's definitely knocked me out of my 'Paleo is perfect' attitude. Back to Kurt Harris' agnostic ways.

The problem with Stone is that part of his "schtick" is his being haughtily dismissive of all other diets, approaches, labels, names, etc, save a few. As someone noted above, when it came down to it, very few of his "paleo myths" addressed anything authentically paleo and in the end agrees with much. And this, thus, is what bugs me about Mr Stone and few others in the blogosphere: what contribution they may make/could make is greatly overshadowed by the ill-will, unproductive controversy, and confusion they seem determined to create simply to increase traffic and carve their niche.

Dunno if I'll get to live blog on this one. It's quite long too -- kudos to Sean for airing an alternate view.

I think it's worth a listen. The best part was Matt discussing how this fallacy that carbs cause IR has been perpetuated. I just wish he had backed that with some of the evidence rather than an anecdotal account.

Matt's gone a little woo woo of late with the RBTI stuff. Thankfully that is not discussed here.

another talk filled with "ya know". the message i took from him is that low carb is bad and people should not be too invested in how they approach eating because their needs will continually change. oddly, he seems very invested in "low carbs is bad".

It seems to me that what we have here is a young guy, trying to find his niche in the health services world, which means for any entrepreneur, being different, having a different perspective.

I am a 60 year old professional person who only discovered in her 59th year that her now-throbbing OA and digestive issues are grain-related and sugar-related. I continue to have dairy and have the ideal local source of the best in milk, yogurt and Gouda cheese, so I keep it in my foodway and try not overdo it (struggle=issue?). Like everyone in these discussions, this is what I need and what works for me personally. I haven't checked but I have not heard any reports where, for example, replacing grains and legumes with a variety of other plant foods is unhealthy. Another anecdote: A few people have asked me about what I did re the OA and when I told them about food changes I've made, they decided to try it too. Each person has experienced notable lessening of inflammation.

I am still on a journey to feeling fully healthy (sinusitis!), and I thank the communities of people on this and MDA for helping me to re-think my choices and to find my own path to being where I am now.

I've just listed to this tslk - I forced myself to listen to the whole thing. The other talks have had science, logic and studies to back-up their findings. Matt Stone just seems to have anecdotal "evidence".

He seems to be debunking Paleo as a diet that adheres to strict macro nutrient ratios (mainly low-carb); I just don't think that is what Paleo is. None of the Paleo folk I;ve met are that dogmatic about their diet.

Come back with science, logic and a proposed "alternative" to Paleo - and I'll listen.

Hard to click on the button to watch this one. However my take away is I may visit Ray Peats web site a bit more.