[MODERATOR NOTE (for PaleoHackers who view answers by 'vote' and not 'oldest' or 'newest'): the quotes in this answer are from another "answer" to this question - linked here.]

"However, modern meat is taken from obese animals on the order of 33% body fat whereas wild animals have about 4%"

I killed a small whitetail buck last December and had most of the meat ground up into hamburger. When I had it butchered, I told them to toss in any carcass fat to fatten the hamburger. This did not include the leaf lard from around the kidneys, or the abundant pericardial fat, which I harvested separately when I field-dressed the animal. The resulting ground meat was so fat that it exceeded the fat content of the 20% fat ground round from the supermarket. In addition to this anecdote, there are plenty of references that directly contradict your claim for this low fat percentage. You are probably being confused by samples of lean cuts of muscle and not counting all the surrounding fat, to say nothing of the copious fat in offal, tongue, mesentery, etc, all of which were preferentially eaten by archaic peoples (for example, plains indians)

"There is evidence of shore-based tuber extraction as early as 1.5 million years ago in Olivai Gorge. But, nothing like this would have occured during the depths of the Ice Age when the modern human emerged."

Behaviorally modern humans emerged during ice ages - in EQUATORIAL africa. The consequently arid climate made it highly likely that starchy tubers were indeed a substantial part of the diet, as the aridity made animals more scarce. Given the latitude, it is not as if Kenya was buried by a glacier and there were no plants. One might argue that subsequent ice age cycles as H. Sapeins expanded through the Levant and into the near east, norhtern europe etc. had periods that would have allowed us to lose our ability to eat starch, but we seem to still be able eat fruits just like the presumed common ancestor of 7 mya so why would we lose our starch tolerance and keep our fruit tolerance? You do advocate fruit, I believe.

"Now what about roots and tubers? They are always a poverty food, even for our ancestors. They are extremely difficult to capture and an inferior source of nutrtion and energy from an energy efficiency point of view."

I am sorry but the totality of the paleoanthropology literature does not support such a claim. Sweet potatoes and Cassava and many root vegetables are highly nutritious. I agree that bread and some grains are poverty food, but not because they contain starch. And of course dead animals in general are more nutritious and safe to eat than dead starchy plants. We are omnivores, though, and the fact that high blood glucose is bad does not make polymers of glucose bad. That is just bad analogical reasoning and incorrect medical science. Our cells don't "see" glucose in the diet, they only see it in the bloodstream. If glucoregulation is not first disturbed (or irreversibly ruined) by hepatotoxins like excess fructose, wheat and linoleic acid, starch is a fine fuel source.

Art DeVany got me interested in evolutionary fitness, and a Paleo type of eating. But, I now think he is too full of himself. I agree with Robert's statement, "I'm old but really healthy, and oh yeah, I'm really this laid back guy. So therefore I'm an authority."

I will not be buying his book; Wolf and Cordain's are enough for me.

Don't know much about LaLanne; but he seems kinda flaky. As the old adage goes, "Vegetarians don't live longer than non-vegetarians, they just look older than non-vegetarians."

"There's no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary."--Brendan Behan

While the quote may not always be true, every social or political movement is led by a cast of characters, who may vary in content and style of presentation.

A quick look at paleo/primal "leadership" shows a wide variety of styles and emphasis, from the no-nonsense accuracy of Kurt Harris, to the laid-back west coast articulations of Mark Sisson, to the no-holds-barred scatology of Richard Nikoley.

Some may say that Nikoley, especially, with his irascibility and penchant for "F-bombs", detracts from the overall message of paleo. I strongly disagree. I find his personal story inspirational, and his style does not offend me in the least.

You cite LaLanne and his jumpsuits as an example of self-parody. I would venture to say that if you look at the totality of Mr. LaLanne's influence on the "fitness movement" it is overwhelmingly net positive.

Eccentricity is acceptable. Of course, outright violence or craziness, a la Ted Kaczynski or Timothy McVeigh, is another matter.

In summary, there is plenty of room for eccentricity in promoting a paleo/primal lifestyle. If Art gets too far off-message, he will fade into obscurity. So the situation will be self-correcting if that happens.

Jack Lalanne was an early cousin to us.

Jack Lalanne - Sugarholics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJVEPB_l8FU

Poke around YouTube, listen to him talk about the pure carnivore diet for his dog, praise eggs and meat for every breakfast, and rant agains sugar and floured treats, too.

Sure he's in black and white and is playing to his paid audience, but he still had so many things right.

I saw Devany on Fox and Friends in that outrageous shorts and shirt combo and just winced.

A few reviews are coming in on my book. I find them to be so-so. A nice tone, and the a retreat into either a stereotyping of the diet as "low fat" or lacking in complex starches. Another point sometimes raised is that it attempts to mimic the ancestral diet, whereas what I say again and again is that it is a model for making your own choices, not a plan that must be followed.

What seems to have happened is that the Paleo community has grown and splintered into a large number of sub-groups, which is to be expected and is a healthy development. There is no guru or head nutritionist and it is a spontaneously organized community full of diverse individuals broadly following a somewhat diffuse model.

Is my diet low in fat? I have no real idea how much fat I consume, nor does anyone really have an accurate idea. Nor is there any evidence that there is an optimal level. So, this is a distinction without a difference.

I have posted that there is no evidence from large meta-studies that link saturated fat intake with mortality. So, anyone who asserts I fear fat is wrong. However, modern meat is taken from obese animals on the order of 33% body fat whereas wild animals have about 4%. So, even eating lean cuts of meat (and saving money) will supply all the fat anyone needs. I eat so much meat, that I go for the cheaper, leaner cuts.

Modern meats do have oxidized fats and AGEs, formed by feeding the cattle corn and other grains. This produces high levels of hydrogen, which the cattle sequester in their fat. This is where other toxins and excess antibiotics are stored as well. Going leaner, and trimming the oxidized outer fat a bit helps to reduce this load of AGEs and oxidized fats.

More importantly, eating leaner meats, with my abundant intake of ribs and fatty fish, gives me all the fats I need without engorging me with excess energy. So, in the end, this is a strategy for keeping energy intake from going out of hand. Easy to do in this modern world. When energy stacks up in the mitochondria they emit free radicals in abundance. It is simply hard to be active enough and still live in this world and earn a living to offload the energy intake you get from eating as much meat as I do unless you go for leaner cuts.

So, by eating leaner meats I can eat a lot of it and still stay lean. I think this is not understood by those who call my diet low fat---it is high meat and the lean cuts let me do that without excess energy intake while still getting all the fat I need. People are thinking proportions when they should be looking at total intake, a big failing of the macronutrient models of nutrition.

Now what about roots and tubers? They are always a poverty food, even for our ancestors. They are extremely difficult to capture and an inferior source of nutrtion and energy from an energy efficiency point of view. There is evidence of shore-based tuber extraction as early as 1.5 million years ago in Olivai Gorge. But, nothing like this would have occured during the depths of the Ice Age when the modern human emerged. And, in terms of optimal foraging, this would have been a marginal source and only for fresh water shore-based populations.

But, a more modern take on tubers is that they are high in proteins that plants use to protect themselves from bacteria, fungii, worms and other pests. Being soil-bound they must rely on chemical defenses. Consider lectins: they disarm the immune system in strange ways. They alter the markers on molecules and cells that the immune system uses to identify self- and non-self proteins. A most clever evolutionary defense that can disrupt immune system signalling.

Suppose you were to eat more tubers AND more fat. Now you are mixing the two things that send your insulin soaring in large bursts. I suspect that some who read the book are not seeing the completely modern material I develop in support of the more general model of metabolism I work out in the book. It is more a high-tech Paleo model, not a model that seeks to closely mimic the ancestral diet. Be sure to read the Endnotes for a sketch of this model and the research that supports it. The mitochondria in our cells do not belong to us; they have their own DNA. Yet, they are the fundamental instrument of apoptosis, the cell suicide program. The book is really about keeping these energy-producing protobacteria happy and healthy.

Amusing, but not informed or interesting.

Just so you know, Fox insisted I wear the work out shirt. I did not wear shorts.

I fail to understand the ego point. I am friendly and helpful. My stats are just facts, nothing more. Go to my site and see nothing but science.

LOL@this thread. Yeah, Devany looks somewhat silly in that outfit but I am sure I look silly in my clothes! Let He Who Is Without Sin ........ LOL!

Seriously, though, Art is a HUGE braggart and almost comes across as an old geezer in this regard, always directing the conversation back to his favorite topic: HIMSELF!

I was sort of shocked when I saw Art De Vany in the (British) Sunday Times style section for the past two weekends. Nothing to do with his character, just the fact that he advises lean meat, draining bacon, chicken breast, canned fish, all that jazz. He was also anti tubers and it sort of struck me that without a lot of fat OR carbs.... where does one get one's energy? I prefer high fat low carb but others might feel better on moderate fat no carb.... hmm. Does anyone on paleo hacks actually follow this kind of eating plan?? Unfortunately the Times is behind a paywall so I can't direct you to the original articles.

Live and let live, I guess.