Let's keep in mind what Stephan said under Recommendations:

"I've organized this weight loss strategy into five different "levels" based on the desired outcome. Some people may want to use this strategy in a preventive manner, or to address metabolic disorders other than overweight that are related to excess energy intake (insulin resistance, fatty liver, etc.)

For a weight loss strategy, I think a lot of this makes great sense. Some people need to BUCKLE down. Others not so much. No salt on food? No yummy seasonings? Don't add butter? Sounds like punishment, but I would bet that these little nuances are only for a time, until you reach your desired goal(s).

I went super low carb, and had a terribly narrow diet for about 3-4 months (mostly out of ignorance). It was quite difficult to know what to eat for a while. I cut out almost everything except meat/butter/veggies/coconut oil. Then started adding things back in but that was after correcting my metabolism and dropping down to 148 from 163. It wasn't until I was already fit and lean until I started adding back in starch and heavy cream and fruit and nuts etc etc. Now I enjoy food more than ever before. I feel very rewarded, every single day, and I remain fit and muscular.

I don't think Stephan is saying don't ever slop butter onto your sweet potato. I think he's laying out a "military strict" 3 to 5 step process to really correct your health via nutrition. Good on him for that.

Stephan is a nuanced writer and thinker. Sometimes people misunderstand where he's coming from. I know I do sometimes. In this case, he really doesn't appear to be advocating any of this as a typical diet for the non-obese.

This would be a great post for that person who can't lose weight on a paleo diet or is stalled. I think the audience is that 5-10% of the population that has severe metabolic problems.

As for me, I will continue what has worked for me so far (Cayenne pepper at every meal! Added salt! Poach everything in coconut milk curry! That's my thing...).

Interesting theory, though. For the severely metabolic-challenged it could be a revelation.

Foods can be highly rewarding. I know that I have "trigger foods" that I need to avoid at all costs (e.g. pizza, homemade mac-n-cheese). When they are around, I eat them until they are gone. Even if I am uncomfortably full, I'll have just one more slice/bite. So I think his premise is close to dead-on.

The place where I disagree is in the thinking that we need to remove enjoyment of food entirely. Behavior theory tells us that mostly we should not be looking to eliminate behaviors, but to replace them with appropriate substitute behaviors. Rather than enjoy food that's horrible for me, paleo has taught me to enjoy food that is healthful and sustaining. I don't need my "trigger" foods any more because I have moved on.

I also don't think his diet is sustainable. He says himself in the post that the only diet that will work is one that is sustainable. Especially by the time you get to the upper levels, no one would enjoy living that way. Paleo works because I love my food and don't miss what I've left behind.

From the top:

Level 1 and Level 2 make total sense to me. I don’t think any person on the planet would be worse off from following these steps. Good stuff.

Level 3 gets squirrely. Step 1 is wise but not necessary. Step 2 is good obviously. Step 3, while something I myself do regularly, is prolly not going to sit well with people.

Level 4 we hit a roadblock: salt. I believe we can thrive adding salt to our food. And to be frank, while I like the overall theme he’s going for (ie that food is more fuel than desirous treat), salt is the one kind of redeeming factor that really brings out plain old tasty flavor in everything I eat. And I like curry.

Level 5 is again wise but not necessary. Anecdotal but interesting is that many physique competitors do just this: get a small bank of food choices and repeatedly use them. Simplicity and accountability are the two real pluses here.

Like the others, he starts to lose me around level 3. There seems to be an underlying theme that you should "develop" or "progress" to the point that you no longer enjoy your food.

I have an inherently hedonistic tendency to ignore any advice that sounds Puritanical. As soon as people tell me that I should seek to limit the flavor in my food, I stop listening.

This is one message from Mark Sisson which I think is great -- the food that is the best for you is food that tastes great. Fat is ok, and so is flavor. Food that is flavorful and satisfying makes you feel better and it is easier to limit your diet to these foods and eat reasonable portions of them because they are satisfying and delicious.

This is also the underlying theme of traditional French cooking, which is my favorite cooking style. Use the best ingredients, prepared simply but to maximize flavor and variety, with ample fat, and take your time both preparing and eating the food. Sounds like a great way to eat and live to me.

I like it. I would skip level 5 other than that it looks great. It is not too original. It is well organized.

Having read it, I like step the first few steps - but I HATE the idea of food being prepared and eaten with the intention of not enjoying it! No salt, no herbs, no flavourings - no butter on broccoli or on potatoes, for goodness sake!

I can see it transforming life for those who very much want to lose weight - but I can't see anyone sticking to it.

My two pence worth....

I will just cut/paste my email to you! God forbid I don't share my thoughts with everyone. :)

I was with him for the intro, he lost me with the food plan. It just doesn't fit with what has worked for me. I recognize that I was not always obese. I was slim as a child, then overweight as I got sedentary in the older years, then obese (more due to depression and using food as a reward), then less overweight, then obese, now within healthy BMI. My body probably doesn't have the set point issues of those that have been obese for a very long time.

Level 1:

I still like to eat the high reward foods once in awhile They make me happy. I realize that's the issue, but I think you have to learn to control it and not just avoid it. Everyone knows I believe in snacking. I wouldn't have ever stopped binging without it.

Level 2:

This one is okay.

Level 3:

Not adding fat to your food seems a little overboard. I like to eat butter plain too, so that I can do, but I also like it on my sweet potato. I can do without, but I don't think it's causing me any issues to mix the two.

Level 4:

The single ingredient thing just seems to hard core. I'm not even an herbs and spices person. I eat a lot of my food plain, but I do want my food to taste good. I don't think making food not delicious will solve everything.

Level 5:

Yeah. I'm never going to do that one. :p

Here are my ramblings as I sit in the afterglow of reading the latest on Whole Health:

I didn't learn anything really new (which is not to say that I don't agree with Steve, I stalk him and read him too much maybe) except that carbs and fat can be highly rewarding foods. I guess I always knew that. But, in the context of food reward, one trying to lose weight or maintain control over portions should be careful not to make high carb high fat foods highly palatable by adding herbs, spices, salt etc. and saving the tasty additions for the protein.

Also, I think you are right in that this concept isn't going to blow the socks off of "paleo" dieters or those who avoid junk foods. But, I live in a town where people bow down to the Golden Arches every day. Removing highly palatable foods/additions from that kind of a diet would be huge. I think that it would be a great tool for a person trying to rewire their taste buds to apply these ideas strategically.

By the way - I eat butter like it is cheese - thin slices from the freezer - still good on its own.

omg Levels...its PALEO INCEPTION