On Monday, LabRat pointed to an article on NPR blogs that sought to dismiss paleo dieting on a variety of collectivist all-seven-billion-of-us-are-in-this-together grounds, with a dash of anthropology thrown in for credibility. But the author--a doctor with some serious anthro training--seems to be going off a bit half cocked in her halfassed snark:
Our ancestors began to eat meat in large quantities around 2 million years ago, when the first Homo forms began regular use of stone tool technology. Before that, the diet of australopithecines and their relatives was overwhelmingly plant-based, judging from clues in teeth and bones. I could argue that the more genuine "paleo" diet was vegetarian.
"X predates stone tool use, and Y is only common after hominids started using stone tools. Therefore, X is more authentically paleolithic than Y."
Didn't think that statement through very carefully, did'jya, doc?