What arguments do the various Dieticians Associations put up regarding the paleo - primal diet?
Firstly, they say it is a fad and might be unhealthy. Fair enough comment in the sense that there are a lot of diets and many of them are fads.
They say it might be deficient in macro and micro nutrients. No references or further rationale provided. Google around and you can find references regarding macro and micronutrient breakdowns of paleo versus other diets. Some of these were done around 15 years ago - so they are hardly new information. They clearly show that Paleo primal is better than the conventional western diet. Better still, get onto Fitday or one of the other web sites that lets you run a few diet simulations yourself. Try out a few meals with meat, fruit and vegetables and see how this runs against the "conventional" diet with grains and dairy products. The numbers don't lie and will tell you the truth. Meat (including fish & organ meats) , fruit and vegetables (& tree nuts) will win hands down. This was the diet our species (and ancestors) have eaten for nearly 5 million years - until the advent of agriculture a mere 10,000 years ago.
Another common criticism is that there was no single paleo diet..... I seem to recall reading a couple of papers about ranges of foods being consumed and a pretty clear relationship between the equator and the arctic\antartic poles. Near the equator lots more fruit and vegentables growing in a tropical\temperate climate and being eaten... but still quite a bit of meat. Nearer the poles a lot more meat and little fruit and vegetables. One thing to be aware of. When the anthropololgists did the first version of this research they did not count fish as meat. So, second time around when a re-count was done meat (& organ meats & fish) were more than half the diet. The eskimos and others living nearer the poles consumed a lot more meat as plants don't do so well in the cold. Two things stand out - no grains. no dairy.
Try eating wheat or similar grain seeds raw and milking a horned wild cow with young - if you are from the coutnry you understand how difficult either actually is.
If you have the patience to pick individual grain seeds by hand for the few weeks they are "ripe" then you have to eat them Hypothetically, eating raw wheat seeds or equivalant requires a prelude of starvation to generate the apetite necessary. The seeds are hard, need to be chewed a lot and have no flavour. I honestly wouldn't recommend anyone eat raw wheat or similar as the various antinutrients are present in quite high concentrations in the raw product. Eating the cooked product may increase your risk of various diseases over time. Eating the uncooked raw product may mean you ingest a sufficent amount to lead to acute toxicity (toxicological language for poisoining). Processing of seeds and grains requires technology of various types that was not present in the paleolithic era such as something to put those picked seeds into other than your hand, something to grind them down with other than your teeth, something to put the ground down powder into, a means of cooking it etc.
Before agriculture there were no tame cows. For dairy, you would need a cooperative lactating wild animal or one that is dead and lactating. Live lactating wild mammals with horns will not stand still and permit you to take milk from them as their young will be deprived of it. If you have milked a horned cow you will appreciate the hazards in dealing with a large, horned cooperative animal tied up in the stalls. That can be dangerous let alone trying to approach and milk a wild animal.
Either way this cuts down the window of oppurtunity ie access to animal, animal is lactating. In nature, herbivores do not lactate all year around, in modern farms various measures are taken to keep cows lactating for most of the year including feeding them various supplements including hormones. Milk is filtered blood and these hormones end up in the milk. These hormones can interact with and be absorbed in the human gut with biologial effects resulting. The point is that in nature wild humans consume a lot of human milk for a few years after birth. In the wild, humans have either no or extremely limited oppurtunities to consume milk from other animals with the result that none or very little is consumed. It is also conceivable, under good conditions that hunters might deliberately spare lactating animals with young and let them remain with the wild herd ie so that they can feed the young and it will grow up to provide food later on.
That would limit oppurtunities for consuming milk from dead lactating animals (this one is a bit of speculation on my part).
In this life, you get to decide what you should eat (or do not eat). The original food groups are meat, fruit and vegetables and I'd stick with them - at 10 minutes to midnight (ie about 10,000 years ago) - humans started eating grains and drinking filtered herbivores blood - you can eat those things if you want to. Some body said you should not believe everything you read on the internet and so you should do some basic research before you make up your mind about eating, or not eating, grains, dairy or anything else for that matter. What we eat\drink is a choice we all get to make - make yours carefully as you rather than me (or dieticians) bear the consequences of the choices that you make.
PS Oh, according to some of these Diteticians Associations some of our ancestors were Neanderthals! Well, generally speaking, about 5 pc of yours and my genetic material is Neanderthal. But humanities predominant ancestry is Homo Erectus leading to Cro Magnon followed by Homo Sapiens. Although, some scientists now believe there was breeding between Neanderthals,Cro Magnon and possibly a 3rd as yet undetermined type (Denisovans?) and this "hybridisation" process may have significantly contributed to the evolution of humanity. Some also believe there may have been a 4th type - whether this was Homo Erectus or some other unidentified type is not yet known.
PPS some Dieticians also think that the Paleolithic diet will compromise bone health because of a lack of calcium. Again, I'd get onto Fitday or one of the equivalent sites and run your own analyses. if you do go paleo the only nutrient you wont be able to get enough from food is vitamin D. This is a no brainer. Thats because you need to get some safe, sensible, (non skin burning) exposure to the sun. Unless you ingest neolithic vitamin D supplements, the only way you can get enough vitamin D is to get out into the sun. Too little sun is as unhealthy as too much. The only wild humans that ingest large amounts of vitamin D are those living in arctic areas where large amounts of seafood including liver is consumed which contains significant amounts of vitamin D ie presence of this vtiamin D and its consumption are adaptations needed by sea creatures and humans to deal with the long dark periods in the artic winter and in humans (eskimos) the need to cover up the skin and keep warm. Now in temperate and tropical areas people cover up a similar surface area of skin to the eskimos and don't eat vitamin D rich seafood liver but, that's another story for another blog post.
On strengthening bones, keep you protein intake up (~1.5 g protein consumed per kg of bodyweight each day has been suggested by some scientists). Protein is used by the body to make the scaffold that calcium is added onto. 1.5g/day is around the bottom end of the paleo diet and a bit above what a typical person would eat on the conventional Western diet. Make sure you eat a range of paleo foods to ensure you also get adequate amounts of the various other vitamins and minerals that appear to be directly or indirectly involved in that process (eg Vitamin K2, Magnesium, boron etc). Also, regular physical activity that puts force through the bones is important (eg walking in unpadded shoes, skipping or jogging would be better than slow impact activity like gentle bicycling, calisthenics, swimming on a highly padded surface (painting a picture of impact here, not the many other elements of a total exercise system). Of course, too much impact too soon would be as much of a problem as too little impact (to late). If barefoot appeals it is worth trying some of the barefoot like shoes - they provide some protection against things contacting the foot from above or below. Walking barefoot can result in cuts or abrasions that could easily be prevented by Vibrams or several of the other barefoot like shoes.