If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I think the NYT article is unfairly dismissive of the lifestyle. Using terms like 'tribe' throughout the article, using the term 'caveman', and summarily referring to 'experts' on paleolithic humans who dismiss the primal/paleo diet. The reference to 'experts' is I believe a subtle wink at 99 percent of readers, to let them know that 'this is all bullshit'.
The article could at least acknowledge that primal/paleo is a legitimate theory to account about health, nutrition and fitness. I.e. there is a legitimate debate between CW and primal/paleo.
On one level it is nice there is any attention. However, I found the article to be 'cutsey' and even condescending - exercise is = avoiding a mastodoon. and the petty bickerings over tomatoes. It wasnt' precisely positive and not quite negative. I felt the writer assumed it would 'speak for itself' with a little nudging of the reader with repetitive terms. Not sympathetic, but not a total roast, either. With 'vegan' being close to 'hipster' status I felt this article assumed the reader was naturally laughing at the 'cavemen'. Maybe I'm wrong - but, I cringed a bit reading it.
Ah, I say any publicity's good publicity, so people at least know where we're coming from. I didn't find the article too bad, it got the main points across clearly, which by mainstream media standards is good going.