You don’t even need to omit the grains. You can just eat Dinkel or Urkorn, two very common (like, in every bakery) types of grain that existed even in the paleolithic times.

EDIT: Seriously, how is this not contributing? Please provide a comment if you think it is not contributing.

Those grains aren't good for paleo though since we didn't really eat them while evolving. Our bodies haven't been primarily digesting them for very long.

I don't think that we have very solid evidence on the diet we ate "while we were evolving" (when did that period stop?).

I think you underestimate how fast evolution happens. Lactose tolerance is a fairly recent, but widespread adaptation.

Yep, rates of evolution (in particular mutation rate and drift) are proportional to population size, and we have a larger population size than we ever have in the past.

~2 billion base pairs * ~1 in a billion error rate = 2 mutations per generation (on average)

Edit: Slight clarification and a brief (and greatly oversimplified) lesson on how this works.

Let Ne = effective population size. And I'll define "fitness effect" as the advantage conferred by a particular mutation in a particular fitness landscape. e.g., If you're an E. coli, the fitness conferred by penicillin resistance is very high if you're sitting in a pool of penicillin, but generally mildly negative otherwise because you're wasting energy.

When the fitness effect size is much larger in magnitude than 1/Ne (or 1/2Ne if you're diploid, like us), the fate of the gene is largely determined by natural selection. (But add the occasional coin toss in there b/c the real world is messy.)

When the fitness effect size is much smaller in magnitude than 1/Ne, the fate of the gene is largely determined by genetic drift. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift (tl;dr Mostly chance mod a few other effects, like if the mutation of interest has a physical location close to another mutation with strong selection pressure)

However, there are slightly deleterious or slightly advantageous mutations, whose fitness effect size is close to 1/Ne (or 1/2Ne for diploids), and things get kinda interesting, because it's a combination of genetic drift and natural selection. For instance, if it's a slightly deleterious mutation, it will decrease Ne slightly (increasing the proportion of mutations that are considered neutral of the new value of Ne), and the previously "slightly deleterious" mutation may now be effectively neutral for the new value of Ne.

There is a lot of evidence that the "slightly" deleterious and the "slightly" advantageous mutations contribute substantially to evolutionary dynamics.

This is further complicated by the fact that the fitness (whether a mutation is deleterious or advantageous) is not constant everywhere geographically, or over time.

Speed of evolution depends on how strongly the adaptation influences reproductive success. It's possible that grain causes subtle long-term damage that mostly kills people past reproductive age, whereas lactose tolerance is of immediate benefit. If this is true then grain tolerance would evolve much slower than lactose tolerance. But note that the "subtle long term" damage argument applies to all foods, and it's uncertain if grains are significantly worse than any other.

> It's possible that grain causes subtle long-term damage that mostly kills people past reproductive age, whereas lactose tolerance is of immediate benefit.

Sure, and it's also possible the human body has already adapted to processing grains without long term damage, and it's possible that there was never any damage by consuming grains in the first place (the body is highly adaptable). All this line of argument is stating is that without any information, we have no information.

What Retric was stating is different though. There exists digestive adaptations that have happened relatively rapidly in relatively recent history, therefore merely the fact that foods were not available in more ancient history is not sufficient to argue that they "aren't good" for the body.

And, as many gluten-sensitive (but not allergic) people told in a recent thread on reddit, where the topic came up, they have next to no issue with the hand-baked bread you find in small bakeries in Europe, but the issues often only show when eating mass-produced bread.

It’s more likely that gluten sensitivity is just caused by a cross-interaction with an additive used for bleaching or similar.

More likely glycophosphates (roundup)

Aren't lactose tolerances wildly different between populations? With e.g. Northern European ancestry people having very high lactose tolerance and East Asian ancestry people having much lower lactose tolerance?

Of course paleo is absolute BS, so why does it matter?

rather than just saying an absolute, why not give some facts as to why "you agree with those who say paleo is BS".

I'm not suggesting it isn't but your dismissive comment doesn't enlighten those who are not aware of the controversy.

Not explicitly about paleo, but with lots of anti-paleo evidence: http://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically-eb...

Is there a controversy? Eating more nutrious food and fewer calories (assuming a previous diet of too many calories and poor nutrucian) typically benefits people whether it's paleo, vegan or just a regular healthier diet.

Paleo's basic premise is loosly based on the malnourishment seen when we transitioned from a diverse hunter-gatherer diet to a much less diverse agricultural diet (largely caused by iron deficiencies). Its a misunderstanding of history. We ate those foods before, but they weren't the ONLY things people ate. The result is ultimately still restricting diet to healthier foods which means it's nutricious, but still unnecessarily restrictive and without a realistic premise.

I don't get why paleo diet is not congruent. So our DNA is build upon iterations(generations), and the aliments that were eaten in the majority of those are better suited for our current generation.

Any argument?

The "vast majority" of our ancestors were single cell beings.

Right, so including how close in time were those generations happening(compared to the actual one), then that diet would be still valid?

Valid for what? You have no obligation to eat what your ancestors ate. Our ancestors certainly didn't, which is why they didn't eat like single-celled organisms. If what you are thinking were true, it would be true for them as well.

Not to mention the fact that your food has evolved as well.

I didn't say obligation. After reading here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091895/

My question was an oversimplification.

No matter the seed you will find in the vast majority of cases they contain anti-nutrients that are toxic to mammals. Lectins, glutens, phytates, etc.

Since when is gluten "toxic", not just "leads to an allergic reaction in a minority of the population"?

There is far more in wheat than gluten. Seeds of many kinds are filled with specific chemical compounds that are toxic to mammals. Plants actively participate in chemical warfare at many levels, via the roots, leaves and seeds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_predation#Seeds_and_their...

How dare you let reason get in the way of the pitchfork masses.

"Reason"? I think you spelled "assumption" wrong.

But fermentation (like in sourdough) can fix this right?

Yes, fermentation lowers not only the gluten it also reduces the toxic chemical defenses built into seeds as well in many cases. Beware though, most "sourdough" available in anything less than an artisan bakery is generally standard white dough with lactic acid added to it and some weasel words on the label to make it sound like it's naturally leavened.