I'm pretty new to this paleo idea. If I get this right, the idea is that we can't be adapted for a diet that changed only recently, so therefore we should eat

I'm pretty new to this paleo idea. If I get this right, the idea is that we can't be adapted for a diet that changed only recently, so therefore we should eat the diet we are likely to be more adapted to. So this kind of makes sense, in a "sounds reasonable" way. It's certainly true that switching to a system of agriculture resulted in a drop in nutritional health, in the short term. But, equally, what about the argument that goes: when we used to eat this diet, we died a lot younger than now. ok, they were lots of reasons for that, but we died a lot younger, so it's not unreasonable to imagine that diet was part of the cause. Both arguments seem reasonable without being rigorous. I don't see why you'd choose one over the other. Having had friends who studied nutrition at a top UK university, and read a bit about it myself, it seems to me that we know very little about nutrition in general. The best advice appears to be "eat a well-rounded diet with plenty of fresh fruit and veg, and don't eat too much junk food." The idea of switching to something as radically different as a paleo diet, compared to what we've been eating for thousands of years, without a full scientific understanding of what is best, seems a bit reckless to me. I think the burden of proof lies heavily on the paleo side. And that requires not just a handful of empirical studies; I read a bit about one of these studies [1], and was not well executed - it didn't even use a control group. People adopting the diet without substantial evidence in its favour might be gambling with their health. Anyone recommend good books on the topic? I'd like to read more. [1] Effects of a short-term intervention with a paleolithic diet in healthy volunteers. Osterdahl M, Kocturk T, Koochek A, Wändell PE.