By "extreme" I mean that paleo insists not only that certain foods will affect our bodies in certain ways, but that some foods are "natural" and some are "unnat

By "extreme" I mean that paleo insists not only that certain foods will affect our bodies in certain ways, but that some foods are "natural" and some are "unnatural" using pretty iffy logic. It ultimately translates to "fewer carbs and less gluten" and that can be effective for some people, though I can process gluten problem-free and I find the occasional carb coma vastly enjoyable/not super detrimental to my long-term health. The pseudo-dogma that revolves around the diet is unnecessary. > If you harvest seeds of wheat which we cannot eat normally (we're not birds!) and have to grind it up into a fine powder, then add water, leavening, and sometimes sugar to make it "palatable", which is the more extreme diet? Is that more extreme than relying on specific animal species to eat and process foodstuffs we wouldn't find "palatable" on our own, then letting biological process transform that into material which we're capable of harvesting off their bones, cooking using an artificial heating process, and then putting into our bodies? I'm not saying that raising animals to kill them is particularly "extreme", I'm saying that if you want to, you can make any food process sound like it's much more "unnatural" than it is. I wouldn't eat chicken feed, but I'll sure as heck eat the eggs that chickens poop out. Or the things we squeeze out of a cow's udder – who saw udders and thought that was a normal thing to do?