Can a Paleo Diet Really be a Good Thing?

Recent times have seen a surge in popularity of the so called “Paleo Diets”. These dietary guidelines are based on the premise that the human race has not yet developed the necessary adaptations to refined grains, or indeed any form of agriculturally reared crops for them to be efficiently consumed as a food source. Advocates of these dietary regimes claim that consumption of such food items is linked to obesity and other diseases, and that only by reverting to pre-agricultural dietary regimes can we hope to avoid the diseases of the modern world. 

It is an interesting thought. Advocates argue that the human race has developed a digestive system over the course of 6 million years or so, from the last common ancestor we share with the great apes, and that the advent of agriculture is essentially a disruptive force. Agriculture, they hypothesise, has resulted in us depending upon a food source that we are not equipped to consume. 

These arguments have two main criticisms that can be leveled against them. First, is that evolution is actually driven by disruptive events. The introduction of a new food source would provide evolutionary pressure towards a digestive system that would manage agriculturally sourced foods, if not already present. By avoiding such foods in the diet, the dieters would essentially be isolating themselves from this evolutionary pressure. 

The second major criticism is that the Paleo Diet hypothesis ignores the fact that the human civilisation only really came into being as a direct result of the development of agriculture. For the first two million years that homo sapiens were around we existed as hunter gatherers, spending each moment of our lives either sleeping, eating, hunting, gathering or procreating. Agriculture was the breakthrough that first allowed homo sapiens the luxury of plentiful food. This in turn allowed the highly developed human mind to be set free for the first time. For the first time we were able to apply our imagination, intellect, creativity and powers of reason to things other than the pursuit of food. Granted, agriculture must have been the first of these great breakthroughs, and so must have occurred through a food surplus arising through other means. Arriving combined with a moment of inspiration and good fortune perhaps. However, once this milestone was met, great advances came quickly. Astronomy, writing, mathematics, pottery and a series of other seminal leaps forward came in an avalanche beginning around 10,000 years ago, at the start of the agricultural era. 

Placed into context, the human species survived without many significant advances being made for a period of about 2,000,000 years ago  until around 8,000 BCE. While we have no evidence of written language from before 4000 BCE, written language being that key advance that divides what we call history from prehistory, we do know from dating of remains that early humans learnt to use stone tools and fire between 3 million and 1.5 million years ago. We also find evidence of cave paintings and burial rituals as the first humans enter the fossil record, within the last 100,000 years. All of these things point towards the development of cultures. Learning was achieved by one generation and passed down to the next, perhaps by some form of oral tradition, perhaps by example. 

Then comes the Neolithic revolution, the “new stone age”. Here we have the development of agriculture. All of a sudden food supplies become a matter of planning rather than a dependance upon chance and skill. Central food reserves become possible, and as a result, human beings begin to live in larger communities. There is a greater sharing of knowledge and information. Skills are borne and refined out of this increased interaction. We learn to communicate more effectively, and develop written languages. We learn to navigate from place to place using the stars. An understanding of astronomy demands with it a basic understanding of mathematics. Number systems are developed, allowing the first clear examples of an abstract philosophy. The journey of our species begins to pick up speed at this point. The human population, which has remained at a steady 3-5 million individuals for over 50,000 years suddenly jumps to over 100 million in just 8,000 years. Clear evidence of the benefits of an agricultural food source. 

Looking back, it’s not hard to argue that the move away from a “Paleo Diet” was what took the human race off its knees and put us firmly in charge of our environment. Every great advance since has been based upon the social and scientific developments that arose directly as a result of agriculture. To this day it provides the central occupation for the majority of the world's human population. 

While there is truth to the idea that only with plentiful resources are problems such as obesity and type 2 diabetes possible, it also because these diseases become apparent only at the expense of famine, hunger and malnutrition. All who live are destined to die. A statistical analysis will, of course, show a 1:1 ratio between births and deaths. By observing 20th century trends in causes of death, it does not seem reasonable to equate them in terms of direct causality to an event that occurred 10,000 years (or 400 generations) ago. While it is also true that 400 generations may not be enough to witness significant genetic change (through the domestication of animals shows clear evidence to the contrary) it seems unreasonable to assume that any disruptive effects occurred as a result of the development of agriculture, save for those that were overwhelmingly beneficial to the human species.

Put in other words, humankind struggled for well over a million years (by any estimate) to break free of the shackles of hunting and gathering. When those chains were finally broken, we rose up and separated ourselves from all that had ever lived on Earth before, by becoming a highly technological civilization. We rose quickly, and we continue to rise quickly. What has become evident in recent times is that the speed at which we are able to assimilate cultural and social change is not as swift as the rate at which we are able to effect it with our technology. Perhaps this is the mirror with which we should reflect upon ideas such as the Paleo Diet. The instinct to resist change. To disagree with new thinking and claim old ideas as an authority in a world that is moving too quickly for us to feel any sense of control in. The desire to find solutions in ideas simple enough for us to understand easily. The basic need to feel relevant. Is this not the driving force behind so much of what gains popular appeal in today’s world? Such is my own dietary recommendation for thought.