The problem with the "paleo-diet" is that it's not really an area of knowledge (like for example, plant evolutionary biology). Judging from the published studie

The problem with the "paleo-diet" is that it's not really an area of knowledge (like for example, plant evolutionary biology). Judging from the published studies it looks like proponents of the diet make up the plans and then studies by actual scientists later confirm some of the positive (and negative) benefits. There are some scientific studies on the "paleo-diet" as an actual dietary plan, searching pubmed for "paleo-diet", "paleo diet" or "paleolithic diet" reveals 77 results, a few of which are concerned with how modern man might benefit of an old diet. Some of the published stuff is positive about paleo: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21139123 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21139123 > Furthermore, doubts have been raised about the necessity for very low levels of protein, fat, and cholesterol intake common in official recommendations. Most impressively, randomized controlled trials have begun to confirm the value of hunter-gatherer diets in some high-risk groups, even as compared with routinely recommended diets. It also seems to be good for sufferers of Diabetes Type II: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20144375 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20144375 So it seems that the usual recommendations for nourishment and sports (that's always good) are pretty good, but the evolutionary science behind it is quite hokum. A lot of this knowledge that has been published outside of academic circles in books is slightly contradictory and is, in the worst case, broscience [1]. The wiki-page for this diet has some great points: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=broscience http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=broscience