Do we overestimate how good adopting a paleolithic lifestyle is because it has worked for us?
Prior posts provided anecdotal evidence of 'paleo failures'. However, has it been systematically studied so we better know under what circumstances a paleo lifestyle, inasmuch as it can be narrowly defined, fails? I ask this because if the contention is that adopting a paleo lifestyle leads to better health for those without severe ailments (slippery definition, I know) such as hereditary genetic defects like hemophilia or retinoblastoma, then someone should look for sound couter-evidence.
I would think the standard paleo detractors would fund research that could accidentally answer this question, but I've never found a trial identifying a group of people (or conditions) for which the paleo approach has been demonstrated to fail.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts, Mike
EDIT for Clarification: Thanks everyone for the comments that illustrate how inclusive (despite being about what not to eat) the paleo approach is. Although there are many paleo approaches, shouldn't we be able to test when the physiological effects they all have in common are insufficient to combat some pathology? As an example to give this question focus, what if adopting a well-defined paleo approach increased the risk of some cancers but decreased the risk of others? One could then study the origin of this differential effect.
I push this in part because I feel that paleo is in danger of being written off as 'another diet' whose effectiveness stems from the prolonged calorie restriction that not eating a type of food and finding a supportive community enables. Inasmuch as the paleo lifestyle gives a window into nutrition, it could provide a much-needed change of direction in nutrition research. But, to really change the SAD (thinking public health here) there is a preponderance of evidence one needs to accumulate...