I appreciate Dr. Harris's recent stance on Paleo (Paleo 2.0) and I love his new classification(http://www.archevore.com/archevore/).
I'm interested to see who is an archevore, and who tries to imitate the Paleo-human in modern times and why.
I am girl. I eat chocolate. I supplement with animal fats and some fleshy bits. I add vegetables for color.
I follow most (10 of 12) of the dietary recommendations on Dr. Harris's site. I don't really care what he's calling it these days, not being interested in labels.
I'm here in Paleo-land to optimize my health.
I favor good results and science over re-enactment, but have found most of my starting clues from evolutionary history.
However, I've never thought that everything neolithic must perforce be neolethal.
Dr. Harris' approach fits my style, and so I follow his sage advice.
i am probably adherent more to the panu/paleo 2.0/archevore protocol than i am of any of the others. it's given me and the people i love results ranging from great to damn near miraculous.
The main reason I call myself paleo is because the word makes for an easy search term for anyone who's interested in what I'm doing. All the other variants can be found and researched from there.
I think we need a prominent voice of Paleo like Dr Harris to take the lead on the current face of Paleo. We've all been tossing around the idea of what to call this way of eating (and in some respects... way of living) for quite a while.
Here's a thread from a Chris Kresser post about Paleo from several months back. This was before I was even on PaleoHacks at all. You can even see below that lots of people chimed in and we had a pretty worthy discussion.
But nobody was stepping up. Then Dr Harris finally grabs the bull by the horns and makes a couple of bold suggestions. And like all "out on a limb" suggestions, it's bound to be loved by some and hated by others, but that's the nature of the beast, no?
I think that whatever we all choose to call it, it won't really change what we do. We eat the healthiest foods based on what's currently available to us in modern times and what's currently understood to be most beneficial to the body. If the "Paleoheads" want to have a conference call to nail down a rebranding then that might work... like if Harris, Stephan, Kresser, CMast, Sisson, Wolf, and whoever else gets in on it and wants to hash it out and make an executive decision, then I'd say they are the folks with the largest 'sway' on this community.
Right now, Dr Kurt Harris made two bold and direct moves. Paleo 2.0 and Archevore. That's where we're at right now. But I think PaleoHacks as a group is a pretty loud voice too. So if someone else on here wants to step up and make somethin happen, then do it.
I don't like the "...vore" construction; people around here call themselves "locavores" and it bugs me. It just sounds really pretentious.
Other than that I'm pretty much with gilliebean, although I would sat I eat the fats and fleshy bits, and supplement with chocolate.
I'm inclined toward Dr. Harris's thinking, but I really don't care for labels. I've stopped calling it paleo when I explain to people how I eat. I just explain why I eat what I eat, and why I don't eat certain things. (I only offer this when asked. My soapbox broke and I can't afford a new one. ;-) )
Everything neolithic isn't lethal and everything under the paleo umbrella doesn't equal a panacea.
I don't really care for the labels either. They get hyped and commercialized and trendy and then I feel kind of silly for using them. I just tell people I eat meat, fish, fruits and vegetables and leave it at that.
I supposed labels are a necessary evil though.
Anyone know what happened to Archevore? 12 Answers
Far too confusing... help! 11 Answers