I'll confess I didn't understand all the science mumbo-jumbo in the latest podcast from Chris Kresser: http://chriskresser.com/rhr-what-science-really-says-about-the-paleo-diet-with-mat-lalonde
But, at 22:21 minutes into it, during the section: "Why typical claims about antinutrients are wrong",
It sounds like there's a major disagreement about a fairly fundamental aspect of paleo between Mat Lalonde and Loren Cordain. Mat said he didn't want to bring it up "for the sake of the community", but then did.
Could someone please summarize in plain English what's the heart of the disagreement,
Could someone tell me who's right, who's wrong, and which health guru I'm supposed to follow?
I have respect for Robb Wolf because of his willingness to change course and down-size his recommendations on fish oil in the face of new oxidation information. (I like my guru's to be open to new ideas and not to be soo invested in past positions that they refuse to consider new information).
I have tremendous respect for Chris Kresser. He seems like he really keeps up on the latest, latest studies (and reads them); I like that he does't speak in sweeping generalities and doesn't over-sell his points. I like that he seems to pick the best pieces from several philosophies.
I'm not sure what I think about Mat Lalonde.
PS: you can stream the podcast from the link above, and drag the mouse right to 22 minutes into it.