I don't know if this is actually an answer but "not paleo" to me can be the constant questioning of "can I eat this, is it paleo?" on nitpicky stuff. And the ridiculous amount of attention given to macro nutrients. Somehow I don't picture "Grok" questioning everything he put in his mouth. Stick within the basic parameters, eat real, unprocessed food, enjoy your life and quit constantly asking "is it paleo?".

It's like pornography. I know it when I see it.

I'm not a fan of the phrase in question but I haven't seen anyone come up with q better way to express the idea. It's "not paleo" because it doesn't fit within the framework of the paleo diet as outlined by our collection of luminaries. Clearly a Snickers bar, much to my dismay, is "not paleo" but there is a whole lot of grey area depending on how you, yourself, define the diet. So the framework, as I see it is no grains, no seed oils, no legumes. Beyond that I think the phrase used for a food you find unacceptable should be "it's not MY paleo". Eating a banana in January is "not paleo" to Jack but I think he's mostly alone on that one. Eating white rice is Paleo to Paul and most everyone agrees with that....sort of. It's the "not paleo but all the cool kids are doing it so we think it's pretty awesome" category of paleo. I'd throw chocolate in there too maybe?

One of the best things about eating a paleo diet is that the user gets so much input. One of the worse things about paleo is the user has to make so many decisions for him/herself so there are a lot of areas of disagreement within the community.

I look at it like this, processed food = NOT PALEO

Everything else...more than likely good to go. I'm not as strict as some, but it has definitely worked. I've lost 26 lbs in just over a month.

I agree with Karin that fretting and obsessing about the fine print is not paleo.

I have moved on from the term paleo in general and (at the moment) subscribe to the label on Kamal's thread--deep nutrition.

That said, "not paleo" probably has a better level of consensus behind it than paleo; to me, it means "not healthy" or "not going to rebuild/promote health." It probably has some use value.

I wasn't going to answer until I got to your question about PH, Eric. I don't think I've used PH to define or even fine-tune my personal definition of deep nutrition. Rather, I've used PH to feel less alone in avoiding processed foods without joining the vegan crowd. I've received inspiration, reinforcement and annoyance but most of the time I have not found it boring. I've found much discussion and consideration of labels and ratios, but I'm not detail-oriented so those aren't really compelling.

My definitions have come from my reactions to Archevore, Gnoll and many others. I'd even use the word principles as my level of commitment is pretty deep.

Food wise, as has been said, processed != paleo.

For lifestyle stuff, since I (and probably many) live in a high tech world and have a desk job, paleo is about maximizing my interaction with my environment. When I run, I go barefoot. When I run or bike, I make sure to be aware of my body, and try to take it in view around me. At work, I mainly sit on my ass, so I make sure to get up frequently, go outside, chat with coworkers, etc.

I've noticed this means different things to everyone. Generally a good rule of thumb is the processed foods rule, as stated above. I know some people don't consider potatoes paleo, but I eat out so frequently that it's easier for me to go out and enjoy myself socially if I eat potatoes. Plus I like them, and I'm not horribly overweight, so why not? I have kind of noticed two schools of thought on pure paleo which are the (1) whole-30 non-starchy people and the (2) avoid processed foods get the best of what you can eat your starches if you want them and sometimes have a bowl of rice people. I tend to fall into #2, but admire those who can stick with #1. I wish I could, but I enjoy eating too much to restrict myself so severely.

To me, not paleo is treating your body very very badly.