My objection to this article is that it's posing a false dichotomy. Choosing our diet based purely on good solid science is not an option, because our scientifi

My objection to this article is that it's posing a false dichotomy. Choosing our diet based purely on good solid science is not an option, because our scientific knowledge is still too limited. Any honest scientists will admit there's still a lot of complexity we don't fully understand. Which is precisely why there's so much exciting research going on right now (example: https://twitter.com/whsource https://twitter.com/whsource) Wherever we have solid evidence it absolutely needs to win out. But that's not the issue here. What we have here is a lot of fuzzy, plausible ideas that are extremely difficult to prove via experiment. If you want to say categorically that "the paleo diet" (or almost any other) is good or bad, then you need to do a gigantic, long-term, prospective, randomized study of actual human beings. Which is not practical. So we're left doing the best we can. We rely on heuristics to fill in the gaps. Eating the same things that your ancestors ate is not a bad start. (Granted, that's not necessarily "paleo").