This is gonna be a fun one. Gonna approach in a pretty similar manner to Matthew. Full disclosure: I hold a BA in Physical Anthropology from university that houses some of the "rock-stars" of evolutionary psychology (a branch of physical anthropology).

Just the question as it stands, really. Is anyone out there familiar enough with this academic community to know if the diet has taken on? And when I say anthropologists I mean the scientific kind (physical anthropology, etc.), not the ones who use Foucault to analyze video game culture in Japan or whatever (cultural anthropology, etc.).

My guess is that eating Paleo within the physical anthropology community is about the same as the general population.

And in fact, a popular anthro blogger, John Hawks, has taken issue with the Paleo diet.

From: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/humor/caveman-diet-nytimes-2010.html

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/future/drug_pathogen_load_2005.html

“Somehow people never seem to mention that the great "caveman" diet that kept us so healthy in the Pleistocene HAD EVERYONE DYING BEFORE 50! Instead of French Women Don't Get Fat, we could just as easily be buying Erectus Women Didn't Get Fat, which would almost certainly omit the likelihood that THEY LIVED WITH CONSTANT HUNGER AND FREQUENT STARVATION.”

Really? This is his argument?

Let me explain why it doesn't bother me the least bit that anthro profs have not jumped on the Paleo Diet. Because, most, but obv not all, are classic "experts" that know little about little.

Allow me to illustrate: In one of my anthro classes when a prof explained how he modeled hunter-gatherer hunting – he assumed that their prey would be randomly/evenly distributed across some landscape – and HG behavior would be predicated upon that and he then drew a number of conclusions about that. Namely, this mean X, Y and Z.

I remember cringing in class as it was painfully obvious he had never been hunting or stalking in his life as any hunter knows that animals like certain habitats more than others and there is even at times a temporal component to where they can be found. Not to mention seasonality, time of day, wind and water conditions etc etc Bottom line: thinking that prey is equally/randomly distributed across some landscape is madness and makes for a hideously bad underlying assumption about the behavior of HGs.

To be clear, the stereotypical redneck who hunts possums and squirrels with a .22 would know that, but an anthro prof at a pretty decent university who studies hunter-gatherers didn’t.....

That is why I don't care much for the opinion of the typical anthropologist.

If they don't we can ask why not. Which takes us into territory we have explored before, even if not conclusively: skepticism about the rate of genetic change with respect to diet

There should be cogent skepticism about this. But don't fret - it isn't coming from the academic anthro community.

(as in this paleohacks thread, or

this post, or at the end of the blog entry from this guy, who dares to be witty about our very own Melissa and John); or perhaps lack of consensus about the facts of paleolithic food consumption within the anthropological community (see this paleohacks thread for example);

If there were "consensus" - we'd be in big trouble.

or perhaps anthropologists of the scientific variety are just lazy, like doctors who smoke cigarettes.

But the main question is just an empirical one. Anyone know if anthropologists have been eating paleo? Shouldn't we expect these people above all to be following the diet, and if they're not isn't that disconcerting?

Why would we? Anthropologists aren't hyper-rational robots - they are people just like you and me. I know plenty of intelligent people that see the benefits of eating Paleo but continue to eat wheat because they couldn't possibly imagine a life without pizza and pasta.

The reason anyone decides to eat Paleo is because a diversity of evidence exists to support the idea. Some is anecdote, some is theoretical, some is clinical, some is based on "studies". Much is completely unknown and unknowable.

One has to synthesize all this evidence (and lack of) and figure out for themselves if Paleo makes sense.

But I'll end on a high note. The folks behind the Ancestral Health Society are trying to change the way Paleo is being percieved in the academic world. More info here (and plenty of academics): http://ancestryfoundation.org/Presenters.html

But the main question is just an empirical one. Anyone know if anthropologists have been eating paleo?

I have no data but I would say they don't, at least no more than any other group of people.

Shouldn't we expect these people above all to be following the diet, and if they're not isn't that disconcerting?

No it is not disconcerting at all for the following reason. Most people do not base their choices in life on how those choices will affect their short or long-term health. This applies to food as much as anything else. Most people eat because of habit, tradition and personal taste.

If everyone rationally decided, based on best evidence, what was best for their health and then acted on those decisions the world would be a very different place. Most food and drink manufactorers would be bankrupt and everyone would exercise daily and no one would smoke. This is generally not how humans work.

If you do base your decisions on health this is hard to understand in the same way that a religious person finds is hard to understand why others would choose not to be religious. It seems so obviously the correct thing to do :)

Do cancer doctor's still smoke. Lots of them do.

Sugarholics are a lot like alcoholics. A few bites won't hurt and hey, everyone is doing it! But the big difference is instead of having a bunch of tv commercials constantly reminding them that it is bad for them, they instead have a bunch of tv commercials constantly assuring them it is good for them! Really, it is quite amazing that anyone ever does paleo at all when you think about all that stands in the way.

Also, I think it is just SOOOOO ingrained into societal thinking that for some strange reason, we all 'naturally' crave things that are bad for us (like 'unhealthy' saturated fats), and that it has always been that way. If you ask them but why would we naturally crave something that is both natural and bad for us? As logical as that question is, the statement goes against everything they have ever been taught and requires an entire shift of world view, plus recognition that something they love and are addicted to, ie sugar, is bad for them. So they just don't want to believe and they are in the company of plenty of others who don't want to believe. They all agree not to believe something they don't want to believe. The end result is it is easy for them to go on believing their addiction is 'health' even despite occasional evidence to the contrary. And all that old paloelithic fossil evidence can be interpreted in a variety of ways , so there is plenty of space for wiggle room.

Interesting though that the lab techs, after seeing it in the lab day in and day out, find it much harder to not notice the truth.

I remember reading in one of "BONES" books (by Kate Reich) that the main lead (dr. Brennan, forensic anthropologist) was eating more meat because of what she was reading on the diets of paleolithic people. Which means the author must have been interested in it as well.

Not anthropologists, but I seem to recall Robb Wolf recounting in his podcast that the lab-techs and bench researchers at the lab he worked for (doing various chemical analyses) all ended up on a "paleo" nutrition plan by seeing what foods did what to blood chemistry. They just all gravitated to meat and veggies and avoided sugars, grains and "fake" fats. What other professional research ends up leading those in the field to a paleo approach?

None of the cultural anthropology courses I took in college had professors that were even remotely paleo.

Muslims don't eat pork, Hindus don't eat beef, Darwinists shouldn't eat grains....

"Eat whatever you like, You're still going to die." Demonstrates how little the science you have studied informs your decisions regarding your health. What is your opinion of Mat LaLonde? I believe he is an "actual scientist" as well, and I do believe his studies have had an impact on his food choices.

I have a BA in anthropology, even though I ditched it in favour of another discipline because I couldn't stand the dweebs using Foucault to analyze video game culture in Japan. Do I count?

Yes, I do.

Please enter at least 15 characters.

The cultish responses here make a mockery of the "paleo diet"'s claims to be scientific.

Eat whatever you like. You're still going to die. Just please spare the rest of the world your self-absorbed silliness and all the pseudoscience about your diets.

Signed, an actual physical anthropologist who has stalked, killed and butchered his own meat on more than a few occasion.