What do you think about KGH’s latest comment about the value of Paleo?
A commenter on Carbsane’s blog said “"i am currently confused as to what value there is in a paleo/ancestral approach to nutrition and health."
KGH answered here at Carbsane's blog. Here are some excerpts:
I am not sure there is any now. There might have been, but just from the total inability to coalesce around core recommendations, and the radical variability in approaches we see under the label, anyone could be forgiven for thinking paleo is a lot of ideologically-driven a priori narrative-based dietary faddism.
. . .
The paleo label actually is kind of finished. It does not represent any scientifically respectable approach and has such few reliable core elements as to be a heuristically useless concept. It has nothing to add to reading Michael Pollan or and just adding some red meat, or Weston Price sans sourdough bread.
. . .
PS My comments are about the state of "paleo" as a meme. It is of course useful to use an ancestral approach to nutrition in some ways. The problem is, in order to instruct someone in it, I would have to specify how to do it and WHO is doing it correctly and not just making up stories, etc. And then, I would be roundly criticized for trying to constrain the libertarian wonderland that is paleo on the internet, where every idea is a beautiful snowflake that deserves a fair hearing and is somehow "contributing to the conversation" - as if dialogue about diet were a useful good for it's own sake.
I would be considered a "hater" who is not interested in "helping people" by being so negative as to point out which of the beautiful paleo flowers are really just weeds.
Has the value of Paleo diminished because of the beautiful snowflakes and the "hater" talk?