I've been following the feud between vegans and paleo eaters for a while, yet my intuition naturally throws me into a median position. I would therefore like for someone to "hack" this simple evidence towards one or the other tip of the scale. In few words, prove me wrong, if possible.
Please avoid posting research extracts. I have read hundreds of them by now and it is obvious to me that nutrition science and biology can't predict precisely and comprehensively the relationship between nutrition and health just yet. The fact the lipid hypothesis is being attacked so vehemently and the very existence of this debate proves it.
------Undeniable Evidence (Facts): ---------------------------------
-Humans can generally digest diverse amounts of all macronutrients.
-Humans can thrive for the entirety of their life cycle on either a mostly carnivorous diet (eskimos) or a vegetarian diet (induists).
-Overall, the various forms of nutrition available to human beings haven't impeded the increase of the population and thus reproductive capability in a culturally appreciable manner. (We still have to use contraception regularly, after all, even when sexual disease is excluded.)
-No specific diet has proven the undeniable ability to erase or lower the overall disease rate. -Focusing on one macronutrient above all others leads to nutritional deficiencies. -Demonizing one macronutrient above all others leads, again, to tricky-to-circumvent deficiencies.
According to the undeniable evidence in my possession, my stance is therefore: The lack of processed foods in the diet coupled with appropriate calorie consumption and expenditure in relation to personal metabolic rate plausibly minimize the rates of obesity and affluence diseases, as long as varied dietary habits are maintained.
Now, without having to go all the way of cavemen, which is speculative at best, the simple denial of processed foods brings me basically to the Paleo diet, without the low carb-high fat flair that many seem to give it and argue upon. Fruits, berries, vegetables, tubers, meat (animal-insect-fish-shellfish), offal and bones, sprouted nuts and legumes in relative moderation (therefore no grains, because who'd eat raw wheat?).
A background of light to moderate physical activity completes this simple logic. A predominantly healthy individual (with no insulin/leptin resistance to start with) can eat all these foods without disrupting their health and figure, as long as their diet is always varied and energy balance is maintained. Finally, we can take note of pollution, soil depletion, lack of necessary nutrients in industrial meat and ease of consumption of various aliments to compensate accordingly (through integration or limiting quantities of single aliments).
I didn't need nutrition books, long scientific analysis or some weird food religion to come to this conclusion, therefore i don't see the point of debating something which we clearly can't prove reliably for many years to come, like the "ideal diet".
Many however use the Paleo and other diets for therapeutic or weight loss purposes. This difference should be noted. There is no logical reason to try to assert one specific diet culture or macronutrient ratio when no evidence subsists of its absolute value other than fragmentary research (i keep constantly seeing fringe or out of context research being quoted and argued on vehemently here).
In conclusion, while i personally enjoy both conflict and discussing research, i believe my point is superior as long as one is only concerned with general health and finding an "appropriate diet". Our body is adapted to consume various foods in various novel environments, after all.