Clearly, many people want to lose fat by eating/living paleo, get frustrated when it doesn't happen, and feel like they've been duped or that they must be uniquely messed up* because this lifestyle is supposed to allow one to "easily" and "simply" lose fat, and yet here they are, unable to do it.
I'm wondering whether the problem might come from the definitions of "easy" and "simple" and the fact that we tend to apply the terms interchangeably.
I would define a "simple" fat loss prescription as one that has a few basic rules requiring minimal analysis, i.e., don't eat grain/sugar/veg. oil, eat whole foods when you're hungry, sleep a lot, move around, don't stress. If there are many rules or if following them requires a lot of complex thought, then I wouldn't consider it "simple."
I would define an "easy" fat loss prescription as one that requires minimal effort, whether to change a habit, give up a pleasure, expend a lot of time, etc. That is, an "easy" fat loss solution would be one that garners minimal internal resistance from the body or the brain. If you have to plan a lot or do things you don't consider pleasant, then I wouldn't consider it "easy."
So here's the question: if you were advising your average person looking to shed some pounds, would you refer to the paleo lifestyle as a "simple" or "easy" way to go about it? Both? Neither?
Do you think the framing matters? Clearly the question of whether something is easy/simple doesn't answer the question of whether someone should do it, but maybe the framing would affect people's adherence or expectations.
*Note: Of course, some people are uniquely predisposed to defend fat, I just mean that most people who give up trying to lose fat on paelo probably aren't compared with the general population.