I don't bother defending Paleo/Primal, any more than I bother defending my atheism. Sometimes I'll correct clearly erroneous facts, but beyond that I see no reason to try defending it against those who are determined to be hostile. Why are they so fearful and angry that they have to lash out and berate me for my choices? Beats me. But I receive no benefit from getting angry in response, and rising to their bait only gives them fuel for their own fear- and anger-driven sense of righteouness.Originally Posted by Lewis
Eating LCHF Primal (combined with IF) works for me, but it's not the optimal choice for everybody. For some, my diet would be an outright terrible choice. And in the future, as I keep tinkering and experimenting, and my body changes, I might find myself needing a different macronutrient ratio, or I might benefit more by doing longer fasts once a week or month, rather than daily IF. What I do is not carved in stone, and does not have to be--it just has to meet my health needs right now.
There is no single way of eating/macro balance that is right for every single person. There is no One True Way to Dietary Heaven. There is nothing that needs defending from unbelievers. Anyone who is truly interested in P/P (or whole foods ketogenic diets) will explore those options for themselves. But those who need enemies to feel alive, and thus go on Internet crusades for their faith or their diet? Why should I even bother responding to that? I mean, really?