On NPR's website, there is a science blog, which I often enjoy quite a bit. Today's contribution was titled: The Paleo-Diet: Not the Way to a Healthy Future. Written by anthropologist Barbara J. King, it addresses the global sustainability of paleo eating and the lack of scientific foundation for de Vany's and Cordain's tenets.

The Paleo-Diet: Not The Way To A Healthy Future : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

Notably, she made no mention of Mark Sisson or the very adaptable approach he recommends. She points out that human populations adapted to available resources depending on where they were. PB is consistent with that, it would seem, as there is an enormous variety of choices available from which to make our appropriate regional, seasonal and personal selections.

She also seems to think that all advocates of a paleo approach think that everyone on the planet should be eating this way (she cites the population of 7 billion). Mark explicitly states that this is not a recommended approach where animal protein is hard to come by and caloric resources are largely plant-derived. And he explicitly states that, given a choice, free-range and grass-fed are preferable to grain-fattened anything (one of King's objections is the need for more grain-fed animals raised in factory farms).

I'm curious to see what rebuttals you more experienced Grokkers would offer Ms. King, if you could chat with her and set her straight, at least as far as the PB approach goes. She makes a variety of points, but I see flaws in many of them. How about you?