Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that even the guidelines are murky, and that it isn't clear what foods our "evolutionary past" intended us to eat. The best that the evidence seems to suggest is that diets varied widely in early humans. So basing your diet, even loosely, off a false or unclear understanding of the diets of early hunter gatherers, is probably a worse strategy than following more contemporary research on the health benefi…
>is probably a worse strategy than following more contemporary research on the health benefits of different dietary strategies. You've implicitly assumed that the strategy is not also informed by contemporary research, but the particular framework being criticized, that of Mark Sisson, makes extensive reference to contemporary research. In fact, a reader of Mark's Daily Apple is probably linked to more peer-reviewed…
The article above makes a pretty good case for why building your diet from this foundation may not be the most reliable framework. If Sisson is using the latest scientific research to develop his system, then fine. But this is hardly a "Paleolithic" diet then. Why not just say "Avoid processed foods because they have been shown in numerous studies to have negative effects?"