The BBC article was not written by Paleo advocates, but by a reporter, who has written many different articles on many different diets. The article refers to people who are not already ‘out-and-out’ Paleo advocates, but people who wish to do research on “how the food eaten by hunter-gatherers could enhance modern day nutrition.” Why not give the research a chance??? you’re already knocking it before it has had a chance to be conducted. Thats not a very scientific way of doing things now is it? Try to see with without blinkered vision. Tuyre in his comments above state that some people treat these issues as if they have a belief like a religion, and its certainly seems to be the case on this forum.

My personal take on milk (from a lay-persons point of view): We are born, and we drink our mothers milk from birth. As we grow older, the proteins/enzymes that help us break down milk get less and less as we age. In some people milk is no longer palettable at all, whilst others have no problem consuming it in reasonable doses. The human race is not programed to consume milk throughout a persons lifetime, and certainly not programmed to consume milk of other species throughout our lifetimes. I do however dissagree with the BBC article where it states we are 100% adapted to milk, because we are only adapted to our mothers milk whilst we are young. Some people (races) have adapted to it more than others, as in many countries milk causes most people to have stomach problems when drunk in adulthood. People who seem to be Ok with drinking milk throughout their lives aren’t necessarily adapted to it, but their race have become de-sensitized to it, and no longer result in allergic/intollerant reactions to it; however it doesn’t make it good for us necessarily, especially milk produced in countries like USA, where growth hormones in cattle and cows bred with enlarged udders mean that milk is contaminated with puss (reasons why USA milk is banned for import into many countries). Its American culture that is now exported worldwide that has resulted in obesity, purely because of a relience on sugar and cerial products with most things we eat and drink.

When Paleo books/websites use the term ‘toxic’, some people immediatly think of the word ‘poisonous’ in their minds. The two are not the same. If you read Paleo books, they do go on to explain what they mean by this… our bodys do not produce the enzymes needed to break down certain types of food when eaten raw, and even when cooked, our stomachs are left with by-products that are not good for us.

Pulses: Paleo books/websites state that pulses should not be eaten for the above reason, but since not much extensive research has been carried out, you may get differences of oppinion, that is to be expected. The comment on pulses was not a quotation of Dr Berry, but maybe an assumption by the reporter. I bet if you were to email the reporter (Philippa Roxby, BBC Health reporter), you would get clarification on this.

Let the research be carried out, and then find fault with it. its not good to anyone to knock it before its been done.

Samuel

And a professor Simmonds says: “We need to decrease our reliance on refined sugar and a heavy carbohydrate diet, and replace some of the things we have lost.”

Well, whoopy do, hurrah to that, but you don’t need a Paleo diet to achieve that.

The answer seems to be no. There are a number of companies now looking at researching the Paleo, the biggest I heard of so far is Unilever [http://www.unilever.com].

The BBC has picked up on the Paelo story, reporting about Unilever’s research:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11075437

Companies will only persue a diet if there is profit to be made, so if they thought it was dead, they would certainly not throw money at researching it.

Also the sales of Paelo books have picked up in 2010, not reduced. Looks like the answer to the aforementioned question is not is Paleo dead, but is this webpage dead? I think so.

In terms of the Paleo argument we’ve seen, I think that that there are those that take one side and others the other, and its like arguing about a religion, you can’t seem to change each others minds. What’s more some who put their arguments forward, do so in a way that seems to try an belittle those with an opposing view, and also claim to be scientific about it. I see no science in people that argue a point in that way. I don’t think its helpful for someone like me who is on the fence to read those types of things, but the ‘for and against’ facts are certainly interesting.

Keep it non-personal chaps! We’re not worshiping at the alter of a religion here.