Myth: Human genetics has been basically the same for the last 2.5 million years, with the ideal diet unchanged during that time.

Reality: You and all humans alive today belong to a species called Homo sapiens. Our species did not come into being until about 200,000 years ago. So through over 90% of the Paleolithic, the human ancestors that existed (and there were many) were by definition genetically different from us because they were entirely different species!

So for only up to 5% of our species existance, according to this argument--10,000 of 200,00 years, have humans consumed domesticated grains in the proportions we would recognize today, actually we are consuming far more in the very recent history not to mention the potential effects of GMO grains which are increasingly being consumed. Seems silly to think that every human, including those who have only been exposed to grains like wheat--nearly every indigenous population in the world whose health is most negatively affected by adopting the SAD like Native Americans, Polynesians, and Australian Aboriginals for example--simply because their DNA is different enough from earlier hominids to be considered separate species.

Myth: Humans ate a lot of meat and bone marrow they scavenged from kills made by large predators, starting 2.5 million years ago.

Reality: You need zero science background to see through this assertion. First, predators tend to be protective of their kill. They hang around the neighborhood and guard it, not being too eager to share with a bunch of primates.

PFffff! The author has clearly not spent much time in the woods. Any woodsman worth his salt has come across cougar or other predator kills that were unguarded in the wild. Imagine you were born in a time when people weren't raised to be immasculated pansies, you might try something like this.

Myth: Grains are unnatural and dangerous foods for humans, who did not eat cereals until agriculture corrupted their diets.

Reality: Studies of whole grains prove they are beneficial for health. Whole grains have been shown in hundreds of studies to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and some cancers. If you hear people accuse whole grains of being unhealthy, ask for their source of information. Unless it is a peer reviewed medical or nutrition journal, forget it. Someone just made it up.

Sigh... it takes only a few seconds to find a study on the authors revered Pubmed that confirms the existence of non-celiac wheat sesitivity. source

Myth: Humans need to eat a diet dense with animal protein to be healthy and thin.

Reality: High levels of animal protein have been linked to increased risk for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and kidney stones. This protein can be inflammatory, and pave the basis for just about any chronic disease. Read The China Study for a gripping account of the health damage from higher intakes of animal protein.

Firstly anyone citing the China Study ought to consider the many valid criticisms raised by Denise Minger and others. Secondly, if animal protein is implicated so strongly with health damage then explain why India and China have been swapping positions for the diabetes capital of the world in recent history when both consume substantially less than we Americans do, (like less than half as much in China and far, far less in India)? Source

The last point only concedes that the Paleo diet is superior to the SAD diet; "A plant-based diet is the ideal our ancestors thrived on and that works optimally for you today, not Paleo and not the standard American diet. The Paleo Diet works as a bed time story, not as a guide to stake your life on." This does presupposes that Paleo has to be both primarily meat-based and that grains and legumes are necessarily a part of a "plant-based diet." I can tell you that not only do I eat more plants on Paleo I ate more on Atkins than the average person and quite frankly I probably eat more vegetables than the average vegetarian I know who tend to eat primarily grains and beans. Look, the only way anyone can construct a coherent, plausible argument against Paleo in general is to select a very strict and narrow version to assault with broad arguments of a very generalized nature as more direct studies that contradict the entire narrative are basically non-existent.

Umm... this sound like its written by a hardcore vegan, really we are made to digest whole grains? Lets think about this one.. Okay our digestive system is not enzymatic/bacterial based 4 chambered stomach, which can counteract many anti nutrients found in grains.

Also they are quoting pubmed, really? People are ignorant and don't know that the research that supports this evidence that we are herbivores comes from big agra/monsanto pushing their food pyramid of death on us. Trying to get us to eat all their GMO corn/wheat products which Berkeley research also says GMO's are safe

Read this Does meat rot in your colon?

These next two links kind of have something to do with this whole eat grains movement (I think its the inner conspiracy theorist in me) but codex, monsanto, agenda 21, spells trouble with the future of our food, you probably heard they want to do away with organic food? They want us dependant on their food. remember he who rules the food rules the world....

Codex Alimentarius: Population Control Under the Guise of Consumer Protection

Agenda 21

With the popularity of Wheat Belly, I would imagine the whole grains argument is losing a lot of steam. As to the China study, this person obviously hasn't examined the data with an objective mind. On a good note, the author does advocate a whole food diet void of processed food, at least we have something in common. Janice (the author) can eat all the trees she wants, I will gladly enjoy my bacon.

-Matt
PhysiqueRescue.com

I actually think that most "mainstream" people are weary of yet another diet. The term Paleo itself is misleading, too vague and needs interpretation. When I tell people I am Paleo, the first thing they say is "What is that?"

Here are some diet names that "sounds" right (does not really mean that they are right for you):

The Optimal Health Diet The Optimal Nutrition Diet

Diets named after people always sound okay. The Atkins diet, The Dukan diet - nobody knows what it is about, but the names sound intriguing.

Also, when people do not know anything about Paleo and just hear the term, what comes to their minds?

A bunch of cavemen wrapped in animal skins, armed with spears and clubs, beating a woolly mammoth to its death. Not a pretty picture, but it is very Paleo. Flinstones did more harm than good in people's interpretation of this term, and I am not even counting the cereal.

So when you are trying to explain Paleo (and remember, people tune out after the first 10 seconds) all they catch is:

You eat the way people ate during Paleolithic times, before the advent of agriculture.

People do not understand it. They always ask to clarify it. So here you go:

You are allowed to eat vegetables, grass-fed fatty meats, fish, seafood, berries, fruit, nuts but you cannot eat grains, legumes, dairy, sugar and processed foods.

That DOES NOT sound Paleo. The only way to label this way of eating would be..."the optimal nutrition diet", but this term is already taken.

What other terms could cover it? The Nature's Way diet? The Species Specific Diet? The Ancestral Health diet? The Healthy Way Diet?

Even Dr. Cordain's diet sounds better than Paleo.

So when you tell other people you eat Paleo, you have to be careful about how they perceive that term, rather what it really stands for.

The only way I would rebuff that article is by saying, "The person who wrote that article has misinterpreted the Paleo diet and does not have a good knowledge of it. Those so-called myths have nothing to do with Paleo. I eat vegetables, meats and fruits and stay away from processed foods - what is wrong with it?"

Tell them they deserve every disease and health problem they give themselves.

The standard American Diet is actually corn based; soda includes high fructose corn syrup, bread includes it to, even pasta sauce includes this nasty ingredient. Many other foods on the SAD diet are wheat based, it seams to me that grains are a problem. Believers of this artical are ill informed.

Read her "About" page:

http://perfectformuladiet.com/about-janice/

At the end of the day, the real underlying premise of paleo is: question authority, question everything you've been taught, and think for yourself.

People who think for themselves are always viewed as a threat. Especially by those that benefit from the status-quo. It's not a coincidence that the harshest criticism of paleo comes from groups that benefit from the current dietary mindset.

"Consider the source" and "follow the money" are phrases you should keep in mind. In this case, the author makes their money by promoting a diet plan that is incompatible with paleo ideas. Every person that takes up paleo is one less potential customer for her. Is it surprising she would be harshly critical of paleo, given that its widespread adoption would destroy her livelihood?

'There are many ways to skin a cat (although some don't work at all). Whatever works for you.'

Today I had some peanut butter, whole wheat bread, whole wheat spaghetti, some natto, (fermented soybeans) and I just topped it off with some yogurt! I'm 6ft tall, 200 lbs, 9% body fat.

Oh, and I love milk!