Dear Mark: Anti-Paleo Guardian Column (Plus, Did Big Brains Need Carbs?)

For today’s edition of Dear Mark, I’m answering one question. First up is the latest anti-paleo piece of clickbait, this time from the Guardian. Apparently the ancestral health movement has had a really bad year or something, and we’re barely hanging on after being dealt a series of devastating blows from the scientific community. Will we make it? Find out below. I also use the original question to springboard into a larger discussion on the new study claiming that carbs were necessary for the evolution of the enormous human brain. The media is selling it as a total refutation of the Primal way of eating, but I’m not so sure. It turns out we have way more in common than you might think from reading the headlines.

Let’s go:

I would just so love you and your team to tear this pile of rubbish to shreds…..

What Paleo diet experts think – and why they’re wrong

I am tempted to do it myself but I fear I would use the words ‘uninformed’, ‘cherry picking’ and ‘moron’ too frequently….

All the best,

(Primal Blueprint certified) Jess x

It’s difficult to know where to start. I don’t want to tear into it too hard because that’d be like beating a six-year old in a game of pick-up basketball, so I’ll just go down the line and gently address each piece of evidence for paleo’s “bad year.”

Let’s start with the beginning. The author’s first piece of evidence is Jamie Scott’s retirement of the That Paleo Guy moniker late last year. Does that hold up?

Well, ask Jamie. The link provided by the Guardian sends readers to Jamie’s response to the Guardian column. How meta.

As it turns out, Jamie Scott didn’t leave paleo because of a sudden realization that the tenets of paleo eating and living weren’t supported by the scientific literature. He still finds value in the ancestral perspective as an effective framework for human health, fitness, and nutrition. Instead, Jamie viewed his departure from the movement as a disavowal of the paleofication of processed junk food — treats, cakes, cookies, and other things that are only nominally paleo because they contain almond flour instead of wheat flour — and a step forward, not back, for the  movement as a whole. Jamie felt his “disavowal” of paleo was being taken out of context and used to support a false argument, so he asked the Guardian author (James Bry) to remove his name from the article. Bry declined, and I’m actually glad he declined because anyone who follows the provided link will get the true story from the blogger formerly-known-as-That Paleo Guy himself.

Next, Bry mentions the low-fat/moderate-carb study that just came out. The implication is that the study threw the entire community into disarray, but the reality is that we took it pretty well. In my coverage last week, I didn’t trash it, get defensive, or discard its conclusions. I admitted it succeeded in doing what it set out to do but also that it wasn’t the nail in the coffin for the efficacy of low-carb diets for a few reasons:

  • Metabolic chamber studies, while helpful for elucidating mechanisms, aren’t representative of real life dieting — and the author of the study agrees.
  • The low-carb group had to burn through their glycogen before they could really turn up the fat burning.
  • Results weren’t homogenous, with insulin sensitive subjects burning more fat on low-fat than insulin resistant subjects.
  • It was only six days long.

Oh and of course, paleo is “meat-forward,” even though we eat more vegetables than most vegetarians, our plates are dominated by mounds of leafy green things, our idea of dessert is a bowl of colorful berries, and I’ve argued for the essentiality of plant foods.

Bry’s diatribe isn’t really worth much more space, but he does bring up (and continually refer to as a refutation of our entire movement) an interesting new paper about the importance of starch in human brain evolution. Contrary to the media coverage of it, the actual Hardy paper is a hypothesis. Does the hypothesis set us back?

Of course not. First of all, the importance of starchy tubers in early human diets isn’t some huge blow to ancestral health. We’ve been talking tubers for years, and it’s well known that tubers are fallback foods for many extant hunter-gatherers (who, again, aren’t perfect corollaries for paleolithic hunter-gatherers, but they’re important pieces of the puzzle). For my money, tubers are the best source of concentrated carbohydrate a human can eat (provided that human needs a dense source of carbs).

Second, the Primal eating plan isn’t necessarily low-carb. I’m not sure how many times I need to say it for it to sink in. I regularly recommend upwards of 150 grams of carbs per day, and even more for highly active individuals who can actually use the carbs. 150 grams of carbs is more potatoes than you think.

Third, although the media coverage tended to present human brain evolution as dependent on either carbs or meat, it’s not a binary choice. Hardy’s hypothesis suggests that starch made a vital contribution to human brain size — not the only contribution. It isn’t one or the other. Hardy merely presents starch as a contributing factor, albeit a necessary one, of human brain evolution. I don’t disagree.

Fourth, Hardy’s hypothesis appears to rest on the correlation between the invention of cooking and the increase in copies of genes coding for salivary amylase. That is, as humans began cooking their starchy, fibrous tubers, the amount of salivary amylase humans produced increased to allow greater utilization of preformed glucose formed by cooking, and this prompted an acceleration in human brain growth beginning 800 thousand years ago (kya). This is compelling, but I’m not sure it all lines up. According to a recent paper, salivary amylase gene duplications arose in humans sometime after our divergence from Neanderthals 600 kya and before our adoption of agriculture 10 kya. If that’s true, our brain size began accelerating before we started making more copies of the salivary amylase gene. Though cooked starches still could have (and likely did) played a role, it appears that salivary amylase gene duplication wasn’t involved, at least from the start.

Overall, the likelier hypothesis is that cooking of food in general allowed greater calorie intake and a bigger brain. There’s nothing special about preformed glucose. Whether we ate glucose directly, made it from protein or fat, or ate enough fat to reduce our glucose needs throughout the body and reserve it for truly essential organs and physiological processes, the important thing is that we had access to concentrated sources of calories. Cooking made that possible. I think starches were necessary but not sufficient (both meat, fat, seafood, and marine fat (PDF) would have something to say about that), and Hardy would likely agree.

Heck, my favorite sequence in the article occurs when Bry criticizes me for recommending 100-150 grams of carbs per day, only to reference Hardy’s 150 g/day recommendations as a refutation of mine. We’re not so different after all.

Back to the Guardian: C’mon, journalists. I understand the draw of spending a couple hours writing a quick and easy clickbait article that you know will get the views, but spend a little more time. You can do a lot better. Or maybe not. There was that professor who wrote an entire book arguing against ancestral health, presumably spending more than an afternoon on it. She ended up agreeing with most of what we actually say in this community, arguing against anonymous internet commenters rather than actual thought leaders, and recommending a closer look into evolutionary mismatches between our genes and our environment (which sounds awfully familiar to me). I guess the problem isn’t your arguments, or the amount of time you spend on them. It’s that you’re arguing against a way of living, eating, and moving that just works. You’re arguing against a moving target, a health movement that follows the evidence and reevaluates old tenets when necessary.

That’s tough to beat. Good luck to you.

What do you think, folks? Did the Guardian article land a serious blow to the movement? Are we having a bad year? And what about the carb/big brain paper — does that change how you approach diet?

Thanks for reading, all.

About the Author

Mark Sisson is the founder of Mark’s Daily Apple, godfather to the Primal food and lifestyle movement, and the New York Times bestselling author of The Keto Reset Diet. His latest book is Keto for Life, where he discusses how he combines the keto diet with a Primal lifestyle for optimal health and longevity. Mark is the author of numerous other books as well, including The Primal Blueprint, which was credited with turbocharging the growth of the primal/paleo movement back in 2009. After spending three decades researching and educating folks on why food is the key component to achieving and maintaining optimal wellness, Mark launched Primal Kitchen, a real-food company that creates Primal/paleo, keto, and Whole30-friendly kitchen staples.

If you'd like to add an avatar to all of your comments click here!

59 thoughts on “Dear Mark: Anti-Paleo Guardian Column (Plus, Did Big Brains Need Carbs?)”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. People can write/say whatever they want–I’m sticking with what works for ME!

    1. Amen. When I read these anti-Paleo articles, it’s immediately clear that the writer doesn’t know what he or she is talking about. In any case, I really don’t give a rat’s patoot what other people think or eat. Paleo/primal works for me.

  2. I feel sorry for all the people who are starting to investigate Paleo now, trying to find their way through such foolish articles, Paleofied foods, gluten-free cookbooks with low nutrition recipes, etc. I’m so glad I stepped into this world years ago, and my main source of knowledge was Mark, Dianne Sanfilipo, and a tiny handful of others. Thanks Mark, for your gentle and thorough response to this article. I love your style.

    1. +1 on all that you said! There wasn’t as much static 3-4 years ago around this.

  3. As reluctant to change as people are, they are running out of excuses as to why they shouldn’t embrace ancestral health. I look forward to 5/10/20 years out where the fruits of our efforts will really become evident.

    I hope we can get a targeted dose of ancestral nutrition into our schools to build healthy brains and bodies for the next generation!

  4. I love the way that comments aren’t allowed on that article. God forbid someone put actual, real, information that wasn’t biasedly cherry picked on that page.

    1. If you’re referring to the Guardian article, there are over a thousand comments. Look toward the bottom of the screen, below everything else.

      1. On closer examination of the comments to the Guardian article, it would appear that most of the pro-Paleo comments have been deleted. Aside from a very few, the existing comments are pretty simpleminded.

  5. I laughed and laughed while reading the link provided to demonstrate how Jamie turned against Paleo only to find a well structured article describing the twisting and off-point writing of Bry.

  6. My six-year old challenges you to a game of pick-up basketball. She’s hard-core primal and she’ll give you a run for your money

    As an aside, THANK YOU because you are the reason she’s primal.

  7. The people writing these disproving paleo articles usually have a real basic knowledge if any at all of what a paleo diet actually is. They also usually come to the same conclusions as what the paleo diet says anyway.

    1. It’s usually a refutation of the caricature they think of: Fred Flintstone with his giant rack of brontosaurus ribs, and maybe a side of bacon. People have told m that paleo/primal is unhealthy, and I always ask what it is I’m missing or doing wrong, exactly. Nobody has come up with specifics to date.

    2. They may even know that they are writing lies, but it pays the rent — so. Just
      like some people pretending to be scientists set up studies exactly to get the results they want.

  8. Not too long ago I might have been thrown into a tizzy of doubt because of stuff like that. But then I can demonstrate physical improvement by only a short (so far) foray into Primal. So I’m not quite as defensive or insecure as I might have been.

  9. Yay press! I’ve been reading “Antifragile” lately which has offered a great mindset change. These articles are certainly missing their mark trying to turn people off of Paleo. They’re bringing the controversy further into the spotlight and allowing thought leaders to take the stage and present their stance to people following the conventional diet who might otherwise not have heard about an opposing view.
    Really the more people write about the movement, the more restaurants and food producers are aware of our growing market segment and providing food I can feel good about purchasing. When I first started “gluten free” wasn’t even a known idea. Asking for “no bun” was like asking for raw burger. Now most people know if I say “I’m Paleo” I’m not talking about living in a cave.

  10. His previous 2 articles are about upside down ice cream cones and spaghetti in a cone, to which he gives good reviews.

    Yeah, I’m not gonna take diet advise from that guy.

  11. People can write whatever they want. It works for me and my family and that’s all the confirmation I need. I feel healthier, stronger, more agile and I recover much faster. I sleep better at night and I have taken a far more active role in how we, my family, acquire, produce and eat our food. So its a win-win for us.

  12. Humans have likely evolved to thrive under greatly varying conditions of carbohydrate availability -through gluconeogenesis and different energy pathways. The Guardian article totally misses this fundamental point, imho. In general, I think our ability to thrive under conditions of varying carbohydrate availability causes us a lot of confusion; it is unclear how much carbohydrate we “need” since our bodies can adjust to different conditions.

  13. I’m still baffled by the anti-paleo/primal articles. They put all this effort into slamming the lifestyle and then end up recommending what the lifestyle provides….except they just don’t call it paleo/primal.

    I read a Yahoo click bait piece against paleo/primal last week. They said we got it wrong, carbs are ok, just stick with vegetables and starchy tubers as your primary source and avoid processed grains.

    Huh? How is that a slam? That’s the standard paleo/primal line of reasoning.

    These articles remind me of the classic clueless self centered character we see in sitcoms and movies where they reject what their friend says, and then turn around and say the exact same thing, but act like it was their idea. Then everyone else agrees and the friend, who actually came up with the idea, just sits there fuming.

    1. Its easy. Follow the money. Grain based and highly processed foods are cheap and very profitable along with being easy to grow and produce. Meats and whole vegetables have freshness limits, can be complicated to manage, aren’t that profitable, and cost a lot to produce.

      Its an addiction thing too. Processed foods are engineered to taste good and make you want to eat more of them.

  14. “I don’t want to tear into it too hard because that’d be like beating a six-year old in a game of pick-up basketball”

    Copy & save this one for when the occasion arises and there will be many 🙂

  15. I’ve been primal for about three months now. When i got to work this morning i realized I’d forgotten my food at home. I worked as usual, ten hour day, and ate out of a small box of nuts i keep with me. I’m a welder and work physically, and i was neither hungry nor tired with this unplanned fast. Primal works! Thank you!

  16. This article present the exact reason why (particularly the British, and I’m British living in England!) need educating about primal/pales lifestyles…I am beginning to feel the need to start a new branch of AA: Ancestrals Anonymous – I’m Alex, I’m primal, but I eat carbs!!!! Mark, please bring primal kitchen to the UK!

    1. Edit: why the public…

      Clearly being primal has addled my brain cells and rendered me incapable of constructing a coherent sentence….gimme bread and junk food – that’ll solve all my problems 😉

  17. This was an effective rejoinder to put Bry in his place. There are two sides to this debate, but only one of them can be made to look ridiculous.
    Bry’s article, however, highlights a larger issue. It seems most people perceive Paleo as a strictly carnivore regimen. Cavemen and women sitting around a fire twirling rabbit on a spit. Even when the top dogs (Mark, Kresser, Jaminet, etc.) recommend the inclusion of vegetables and starch, the mainstream view remains ignorant of these points. And when a juggernaut like the Guardian trumpets this misinformation, it’s easy to see why.
    A good smear campaign doesn’t have to be true – it just has to reach lots of people. Sadly, Bry’s idiotic article has reached many.

  18. Yup, those millions of successful, N=1 Primal/Paleo experiments, have not yet knocked some sense into the metabolically damaged Conventional Wisdom writers. Let them eat…Cake!

  19. I think this is all just so interesting. It seems that science – like statistics – can be tweaked and twisted in whatever way or form so as to highlight the opinion of the researcher. We keep an open mind. Nutritional science is young and evolving, and human beings are very, very complex creatures: we’re not just what we eat, but an ever-changing kaleidoscope of all our experiences ever lived.

    The development of the human brain – not just in terms of intelligence, but also the evolution of consciousness – has been on my mind recently. My gut feeling is that agricultural carbs have played a big part, nutritionally (intelligence) and socially (consciousness).

    This is just off-the-top-of-my-head, but hunter-gatherer indigenous cultures, for all their incredible knowledge of ecology, art and history, have not, like, invented an iPhone. Compare to a country like India, for example, where the people are incredibly unhealthy due to a diet based on rice and legumes, and yet are, and always have been, exemplary in all areas of human endeavour (science, medicine, art, literature, history, philosophy etc).

    Mark’s response is, as always, balanced and informed, and this is what we need most to embrace: to avoid hard-dualist reactionary opinions (no-carb / high carb, raw / cooked, vegetarian / carnivore, allowed / not allowed) and coltivate a movement which encourages education, informed choices, the sensitivity to listen to one’s own body, and the sensibility to respect the choices of others, wherever they may be on their own journey of health and consciousness.

    1. I think your are mixing up the advances that come with civilization ( staying in one place and being able to produce an abundance of calories so people can develop specialties) with a grain based diet. These two things (being stationary and an abundance of food) are the foundation of advanced civilizations from the Egyptians, the the Mayans to modern India. The extra calories could come from anywhere, as long as you can produce them you’ll have time for art and science.

      Many would argue that the traditional Indian diet is quite healthy. The modern version that’s based around rancid industrial seeds oils, sugar, and fried refined grains isn’t. Which is more or less true of all traditional diets. They all seem to work fine until you Americanize them.

      1. Hi Clay,
        Yes, of course, you’re right. The abundance of food is what made the difference, and it just happened to be grains and not cauliflour. As I said, it was just an unrefined (Ha!) comment off the top of my head, the sort of thing that might pop out of my mouth if we were sitting in a pub chatting over a beer. Which we wouldn’t be, of course, because we’d be more likely to be sitting under a walnut tree with a bottle of water.

        The modern Indian diet is astoundingly bad. I went there for two weeks after my first 50 days of Paleo, and suffered terribly. The big news at that time were the deaths at the female sterilization camps, and the Genetically Modificed strains of rice to make rice healthier. (News sponsored by Monsanto? Possibly.)


  20. Mark, thanks for always providing a clear voice of reason against the detractors and critics; and delivering the message with fact and tact.

    I doubt any of the journalists could understand what it’s like to bring yourself back from critical illness, in mid life no less, to a state of extraordinary wellness by disavowing traditional medical and nutritional advice and embracing the primal living basics.

    Personally, I wish I had found your message sooner in my journey. The terrible thing is, there are millions still suffering who are on the fence about how to heal themselves, and the journalists are pushing many away from what we know is the answer.

    1. Hey, easier than when 65 or older. I’m not planing to live to 130. Just morbidly obese, but I didn’t take the bariatric surgery, which at best makes one defendant on medical care.

  21. I don’t even read these articles anymore. While I’m hardly strictly paleo/primal (whatever we should call it) these days as a matter of my own self-experimentation, there is no denying the power of two things:

    1. Exclusion diets. (Cut out EVERYTHING suspect so you have an honest point of reference.)

    2. Human evolution as a basis for making sense of health choices. (Did we really evolve to eat/do this?)

    I’ve been cooking with heirloom grains lately (because, for real, I love bread and baking has been a passion for years), but making a single loaf a week, eating it in moderation and being aware of what ingredients go in, why they go in and being mindful of any adverse reactions is so completely different than what I was doing a couple years ago that it’s unreal.

    The health and diet world is really obnoxious in terms of, “hur, hur, hur paleo/vegan/low-carb/high-carb/vegetarian dieters are morons… so says this study that I not only didn’t read but did terrible research anyway.” I have friends and family that now regularly email me articles for my opinion and even when I agree with the gist, I find myself disgusted that the article needed a clickbait title, a misleading introduction and was probably supported by a study that was either observational, had like 5 participants or did a poll an asked people about what they ate. Media abuse of observational studies is completely insane.

    I’ve been reading MDA for years because, in general, I find the content here presented in a refreshing manner, realize that health is about more than just diet and exercise and because I don’t feel like I’m regularly assaulted with clickbait crap.

    Come for the Weekend Link Love and stay for the recipes.

  22. I’ve learned to avoid the dreck mills of the web unless I’m feeling morbidly curious.

    I think most of us go straight to our trusted authorities on topics when we want to have an engaging or stimulating conversation about that topic.

    I find a lot more value in what people like Mark Sisson, Art Ayers, Tim Steele and the like–who have been exploring and experimenting with this stuff for years–over some clickbait “journalist”.

    Most of us are constantly experimenting, comparing notes and adapting based on evidence. The Guardian article’s author completely misses that and really missed the boat, chasing after something that might have somewhat resembled the concept of Paleo YEARS ago.

  23. (I don’t see any edit button…)

    I meant to add this; I think most of us are much more interested with what WORKS rather than whether it dogmatically fits what our Paleolithic ancestors might have eaten.

    Clearly the SAD doesn’t work so why are people so damned defensive about it?

  24. I’ll stick with what works for ME, and that isn’t a SAD diet.
    I love my paleo/primal food and I eat heaps of veggies, at least 70% on my plate for at least 2 meals a day.
    More and more people are finding their health, weight and energy levels are so much better eating this way and are turning away from overly processed foods, oils and grains that big business wants everyone to keep eating, the bottom line on their balance sheets are starting to shrink and that’s scaring the s*** out of them.

    I found this quote;

    “All truth passes through three stages.
    First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

    – Schopenhauer

  25. Primal works for me. I’m not fat anymore and FEEL great, but I can almost guess what this author looks like. Wants us to join the fat sick club. Need to eat his grains and processed food to keep his big business friends pockets lined. I buy meat from a small farmer (it is delish). Fresh Eggs from a local farmer(won’t eat white egg slime anymore). Random veggie and fruits from seasonal farmers. I eat more veggies than most people I know. In fact more than most vegetarians that eat grains beans and processed crap. I Agree that when I see “paleo” products that it makes me cring. If it needs a label that says paleo it kind of defeats the purpose. Once again Mark thanks for changing my life. Listening to the “experts” only gave me years and years of being fat and miserable.

  26. This is easy: both sides eat their foods and when it’s over with, the last one standing wins. Pretty easy to see who’ll win though. His initials are G-r-o-k. Oops. I let that slip, didn’t I?

  27. I read the story and this was clearly written by someone without relevant expertise (or a scientific mind) after a pretty modest/shallow bit of research. To be fair, Bry is a freelance writer (according to his bio on Amazon), so he has to churn out content to keep food on the table. The Gaurdian isn’t the NYTimes — caught up with things like editing, fact checking, and so forth — so this level of content isn’t too surprising.

    Thanks Mark for the even-handed and measured rebuttal — despite the author’s snark wrt MDA. Primal is definitely not synonymous with paleo (especially these days with paleo becoming more of a buzzword to sell junk food).

  28. I have given up. I am not anti-science, I am anti-scientist-with-vested-interests…or even just anti-scientist-trying-to-refute-something-specific

    I still read the articles, and I still try really hard to avoid confirmation bias…yet I feel like while I (the layman) am trying to avoid confirmation bias, the scientists and organizations and journalists and publications who publish these things not only embrace their confirmation bias, but refuse to entertain any view that is not exactly in line with theirs. Whatever happened to non-partisan science and impartial journalism??

  29. I love The Guardian but time and again they publish shallow, badly-researched articles on health and nutrition. I do think they have some kind of anti-alternative-health agenda. Thank you, Mark, for your thoughtful reply. I’m in complete agreement with others on here and could never go back to the vegetable-deprived, muffin-top-producing, fake ‘food’, SAD diet. Btw, I’ve noticed recently that more and more people here in the UK are battling weight problems and bowel/digestive problems.

  30. I heard about this on a Science programme on BBC radio. A good source you might say, but the presenter signed off with – “so now all you Paleo guys will have to join us with the starchy tubers for your brains – thank goodness I started the day with a bagel” What?! Science reporter?

    1. I listened to this as well, and was infuriated by the apparent lack of understanding, and disappointed because I often listen to this, enjoy it, and until now had assumed that it was fairly well researched. Here’s a link for those interested…

  31. Go Mark!

    I use to get really pissed off reading crap articles like that. When you dig a little deeper often times you realize these anti paleo/primal/caveman pieces are commissioned in some form or another by the food industry (ie. soda companies)

    It took a while but I’m okay with the occasional criticism on my diet, exercise and lifestyle habits. I poop better, sleep better and feel better! What more could I ask for? Ain’t changin’ my mind!

    Take care

  32. The Guardian has form for posting articles like this on Paleo. In March of this year it published an article by Jason Wilson in which he described Paleo as ‘anthropologically naive’, intellectually bankrupt’ and ‘anti-feminist’. I couldn’t believe what I was reading and wrote a post on it:
    Such increasingly ridiculous articles seem to have proliferated this year in the UK press and I am always torn between not wanting to waste energy in replying and feeling the need to defend something that I feel so passionately about.
    I think this was always going to be the case though as certain people and industries (for whatever reasons – but we can guess) feel threatened. There is a lot at stake – including the reputations of governments, health bodies and nutritionists – and I have a feeling that we have certainly not seen the last of it.

  33. Urgh some people. I found Paleo and more importantly Primal Blueprint almost 1 year ago and have never looked back. I went from 295 pounds to 235 pounds in a year without doing *exercise* except for yoga twice a week (for my sanity) and walking. I have not felt this good in a very long time. My constant burning feet that drove me crazy, high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes disappeared almost instantly. My health and what I have managed to accomplish by eating clean wonderful fresh meat and vegetables is all that matters. I stay away from Paleofied food as it defeats the purpose for me. All the cells in my body are thanking me for the wonderful nutrition it is receiving and I will never go back to eating low fat high carb ever!!! Thank you Mark for teaching me to take care of me. Love and respect from South Africa, Bel

  34. As Eric Bruenner @ebruenner told you on Twitter, “your article misses the central crux of the GMO debate. Consider @nntaleb precautionary principle”

    I have with Eric. Mark, please read this paper on the Precuationary Principle by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (author of The Black Swan, Antifragile) and his co-authors:

  35. As a Brit, the Grauniad – as its somewhat affectionately known due to its reputation for mistakes – has of late been engaging in some chronic click baiting for its readers; this is a prime (primal?) example of this.

    Summer holidays, less people visiting the site, reduced editorial control, let’s wind up our intelligent regulars with some nonsense a contributor has spent five minutes thinking of.

    Similar things are happening all over the paper at the moment. Not that I’m excusing them, at all. ’tis a pity, as it was a great paper, but is in danger of disappearing up its own backside these days.

  36. OMG! Mark, thank you for taking my question! I knew you and the the marksdailyapple worker bees would smash it!

    I couldn’t love this website more <3

    so much love to you all! x

  37. Perhaps the Guardian want to realign themselves with miners on strike eating baked beans on white bread with margarine: not with wealthy people sunning themselves in Malibu. Newspapers are there for the profit, like most publications.

  38. I’d be interested to compare the writer’s levels of health, fitness and well-being against the average Primal eater’s. These people generally try to trash success in others (rather than investigate it openly) because they’re angry.

    I feel so much better than I did – I don’t know the science of why, I just know I do.

  39. OMG! Mark, thank you for taking my question! I knew you and the the marksdailyapple worker bees would smash it!

  40. I believe it’s going to be a long slow process to educate most people on the fact that FOOD = MEDICINE when you live and eat primal. I have so many friends who ask me questions about my ‘diet’ and I try to be patient and explain things, but most of them don’t even know what a ‘grain’ is!!!! Yikes!
    Keep up the good work and know that I always recommend this site to my friends who have questions!