Paleofantasy: What Evolution Really Tells Us about Sex, Diet, and How We Live

This book really deserves two ratings--one for the evolutionary science and one for its coverage of the paleo diet.THE SCIENCE:Paleofantasy has a lot to offer you if you are interested in evolution in general and human evolution in particular.Zuk's central argument throughout the book is that evolution is a continuous process that didn't stop for humans in the paleolithic and that different traits evolve at different rates. She places particular emphasis on the fact that sometimes evolution can act very quickly, even in as little as a few generations. Of course the idea of rapid evolution is not new--it was termed "punctuated equilibria" in a 1972 paper by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould.Even as an avid reader of evolutionary science books, I was treated to several new examples of rapid evolution at work such as:-The alternating increase and decrease of beak size in the same population of finches due to changes in weather and food availability-Changes in breeding age and size of guppies due to placing them in environments with different levels of predation (an example of "experimental evolution")-Decreases in fish size and breeding age as a result of human fishers continually removing the larger fish.Of course the question we all really want the answer to is not just could rapid evolution happen in humans, but has it happened?The answer is yes, and Zuk gives many examples including:-Blue eyes were only thought to have arisen 6,000 - 10,000 years ago-Rapid selection of the CCR5-D gene variant that makes some people immune to HIV-Lactase persistence (production past the age of weening of the lactase enzyme that digests lactose in milk) is only dated back to about 7,500 yearsPerhaps even more fascinating is that she describes ways that different populations of humans have independently evolved the same adaptation in different ways! The ability to digest milk into adulthood, for instance, arose as lactase persistence in some populations and increases in lactose digesting gut bacteria in others.For the science of the book, I give it 5 stars. I was thoroughly entertained and learned a lot.THE PALEO DIET:Zuk's points about the fallacy of the magical 10,000 year barrier between us and the environment our genes were supposedly adapted for, the variety of diets different groups would have eaten during the paleolithic, and even the flawed notion of "perfect adaptation itself" are all well taken--and certainly correct.However, in reducing what is actually being said by people in the paleo community to a monolithic, one-size-fits-all diet, Zuk commits one of the same fallacies that she sets out to debunk.She references some of the well-known paleo advocates, but, troublingly, the primary source of what paleos are doing seems to be blog comments and internet message boards (long recognized as bastions of "intelligent" discourse...).Moreover, she rubs many of us the wrong way with her continual characterization of people following the paleo diet as extremists who look down on using modern prescription glasses, donate blood to simulate regular blood loss, and eschew vegetables (in fact, many paleos claim to "eat more vegetables than a vegetarian").Certainly shenanigans do go on in the paleo community, but at its core the conversation isn't, "was this food eaten 10,000 years ago?" but "is this food nutritious and does my body respond well to eating it?" The arguments for what exactly makes this so for a particular food are more nuanced than whether or not Grok ate it.Lactase persistence, for example, is already well known in the paleo community. Mark Sisson advocates "n=1" individual testing in acknowledgment of the fact that we aren't all adapted equally to the same foods. The pre/post-agricultural era consumption of a food is only one clue to whether your body will respond well to eating it--not the final word.Although Loren Cordain's formulation of the diet was rather strict in regards to dairy and grain consumption, ideas in the paleo community have, well... evolved since then.Citing evolution of lactase persistence and increased amylase production--while very interesting and correct in their own right--as enough proof to categorically relegate the paleo diet to paleofantasy simply won't do. I would also like to have seen a nod to any research on gluten digestion--arguably the bigger concern with grains in the paleo diet.As for paleo exercise, Zuk's conclusion that we are born to run based on adaptations like shorter heel bones and taughter tendons than our evolutionary cousins is convincing. However, one is baffled by citing these adaptations, persistence hunting, and the Endurance Running hypothesis as evidence that rejection of "chronic cardio" is against the science.The average speed this book cites in a persistence hunt is 4 mph. Those are 15 minute miles, which is the speed of a brisk power walk at best. Allowing for tracking the more likely scenario is light jogs interspersed with walking and stops to examine clues to where the animal has gone. This bears no resemblance whatsoever to the modern activity of hours of continuous running at 2-3 times that speed--which is the type of "chronic cardio" activity that Mark Sisson and others are really speaking out against. Arguments against this type of chronic cardio include oxidative damage, increased cortisol (stress hormone), and drops in testosterone--not just that Grok didn't do it.As for what the science actually tells us about diet, the conclusion I would reach is that on average we are still "better" though not "perfectly" (since we never were to begin with) suited to pre-agricultural era foods than post-agricultural era foods, with some of us faring better or worse than others with the newer foods. For example, the figure from this book only puts lactase persistence at 35% worldwide, with 80% the highest figure quoted for a population. This means that even in populations extremely well adapted (comparatively) to milk, it will cause digestive issues in 1 in 5 people. Compare that to a food like beef or blueberries where digestive issues are extremely rare.I give this book 2 stars for its coverage of the paleo diet.THE BOTTOM LINE:Marlene Zuk takes us on a tour of recent findings in evolutionary science touching every corner of our lives from diet to exercise, love, and family life. Fans of evolutionary science will no doubt find Paleofantasy a page turner. For this reason alone the book is worth reading.However, members of the paleo community will likely be disappointed if not offended by Paleofantasy. Zuk seems to go out of her way to highlight fringe extremists of paleo, while missing the nuance of what is really happening in the community. Which is unfortunate, because this book positions itself as antagonistic to the very target market it should have been written for. Though if you have sufficiently thick skin, you should still read it anyway.Overall I give this book 5 stars for the science, 2 stars for coverage of the paleo diet, and an overall rating of 3.5 stars. Since Amazon doesn't allow half stars I've opted to round down to 3.[Full disclosure: I consider myself a member of the paleo community, though I have also publicly blogged about things paleos believe that aren't quite right (do a web search for "7 Paleo Fantasies" if you're so inclined).]

Writing a review of this book almost requires writing three separate reviews.The bulk of the book is a research wrap-up of various evolutionary biology and paleontology topics, such as the development of lactose tolerance. This is the part of book that shines and while there might not be that much new for the folks that read a half dozen paleontology journals a month, most laypeople interested in these topics should really enjoy this part of the book. Personally I found the author's writing style in these parts of the book to be similar to Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers (an excellent book by Richard Sapolsky, an author I highly recommend): a lot of research presented in a condensed but very readable format, enjoyable with a gentle sense of humor, and presenting a balanced view of the evidence. I'll leave it up to others to quibble with the specific science, but for this portion alone I would recommend the book.The author supplements the above discussion by giving her personal opinions on the above topics. Here I am somewhat less enthusiastic but I would still give the author the thumbs up in general. Her message here seems to be to "slow your roll" when it comes to interpreting paleontological evidence, and most of her takedowns of certain myths and poor reasoning are in my opinion appropriate (who actually holds these opinions is another matter). The paleo community at large is a pretty vast, heterogenous place so depending on where you look these fallacies will show up more or less often. The most common one I see is the notion that we have a solid understanding of how Paleolithic man lived; it would be nice if cavemen had left us their FitDay journals but we are more often stuck with a few piles of bones and rat middens. You also can find plenty of bad logic out there, such as the reasoning that because people got shorter and sicker after agriculture that grain consumption was necessarily the culprit (I would agree with that in part although I find the disease theory stronger, either way this is a classic correlation versus causation problem not really an issue with paleo reasoning per se). Some of her conclusions I did find to be a bit of a stretch, for example that lactose tolerance developed in a portion of humanity somehow makes concerns about milk consumption complete nonsense. While it weakens it a bit by showing that humans can and are evolving to adapt to a post-agricultural diet, the fact that most people do not demonstrate lactose persistence as well as concerns with proteins and hormones in milk make that argument sound rather overdone. And while I think I get her point, I don't really agree that the Paleolithic period is not a better reference than earlier eras.Then... there is the rest of the book. These are the portions of the book that are causing most of the paleo folks to lose their minds. For some reason, the author deemed it necessary to spend time selectively quoting online forums and then follows that up with an almost willful misinterpretation of a lot of writing by thought leaders in the paleo community (her comments on Mark Sisson and chronic cardio are probably the worst but there are plenty of stinkers here). I found it all very strange. It was like her editor thought her first draft wasn't controversial enough so they hired some intern to spend an afternoon trolling paleo websites to find ridiculous quotes for her book and then insert the word paleofantasy every couple of pages. Even that word sounds out of place when compared to the rest of the book, where you almost might mistake her for someone attending the Ancestral Health Symposium - heck at times she basically advocates a cautious paleo reasoning. She also gets her information about the paleo community from some pretty unorthodox sources: her first quotes are from Glamour magazine and the New York Times, apparently bastions of paleo thought I was not aware of. While if you look hard enough you are going to find some of the nonsense she is railing against, like a lot of people have said the more serious discussions going on are addressing the concerns she has and have been doing so for years. It's all very frustrating and doesn't even make sense as a marketing ploy. I don't know how many times I read "I was going to read this book but then I read the reviews..." in the last couple of days. I have to think that the I-hate-the-paleo-diet-so-much-I-am-going-to-read-a-300-plus-page-book-that-rips-on-it market is pretty niche, maybe I'm wrong.Anyway if you can hold your nose through the more noxious parts of the book (which are fortunately relatively brief) I would still recommend the book. No one is taking away your grass-fed beef jerky. You won't have to cancel your WOD or uninstall f.lux from your computer. If the unfortunate parts of the book piss you off enough that you don't want to give the author your money, that's fine too. Either way I wouldn't waste your time being mad about it, I don't think that's what Grok what do.

This book is full of information related to the current fashion for trying to bring our lives more into line with the perceived life style of the paleolithic hunter gatherers. There are numerous discussion points. It is pointed out that some evolutionary changes are not glacial in their pace, but may be accomplished in only a few generations. This means that we cannot assume that we have not to some extent adapted to changes in life style over the last few thousand years. Also it is argued that evolution does not achieve perfect adaptation but merely compromises, so even the hunter gatherers were not perfectly adapted to their environment. The author also cautions that there are wide variations between the life styles of the surviving modern hunter gatherers.The same variations may have been true of the paleolithic hunter gatherers. For instance, it is thought that the introduction of the bow and arrow radically changed the type of animals that could be hunted at some stage within the paleolithic period. The actual life styles of the ancient hunter gatheres are a matter for speculation, rather than something on which modern life can be based.Furthermore, it is difficult to accurately replicate the conditions of the hunter gatherers in the 21st century. The paleo diet tends to lay a great emphasis on meat. But modern farm animals have a much a higher fat content than the animals hunted in the paleolithic period, which would nowadays be classed as 'game' or wild meat. Similarly, vegetable and fruit that existed in the paleolithic held much less nutrition than modern cultivated produce. In the case of footwear that tries to replicate bare foot running, or even those moderns who have returned to running bare foot, the fact of having been brought up with shoes will have rendered their feet different from an ancient hunter gatherer's.The less satisfactory aspect of this book is a lack of balance as to what might be valid about the paleolithic fashion, and how we should actually try and live now. There is an annoying tendency to knock down straw man in ridiculing the more eccentric paleolithic exponents rather than attempting any helpful comment. It is acknowledged that a life spent in front of the television consuming junk food is not ideal, but there is little indication of what shape the alternative should take.

Ein gutes, unterhaltsam geschriebenes und wichtiges Buch. Eine renommierte Wissenschafterin nimmt sich die dank des Internets hoffähig gewordene Halbbildung vor und zerpflückt diese. Stichworte: Paleo-Diät und Crossfit. Wichtigster Gedanke ist, dass Evolution rascher und zufälliger stattfindet, als sich das der Laie vorstellt. Die Idee, dass wir physisch in Sachen Ernährung und Training die selben Bedürfnisse wie ein Jäger&Sammler vor zehntausenden Jahren haben, lässt sich nach Lektüre dieses Buchs nicht aufrechterhalten. Auch in Nebenaspekten wie z. B. Laktoseunverträglichkeit oder kulturell unterschiedlicher Umgang mit Kleinkindern bietet es viele Aha-Momente. Wissenschaftlich solide, aber populärwissenschaftlich und in gut verständlichem Englisch geschrieben.

Cet ouvrage est une critique des pseudo-scientifiques et autres écolos du dimanche qui tentent de nous faire croire que nous nous porterons bien mieux si nous adoptons les us de nos ancêtres des cavernes. Notamment en question de diète. Seulement nous n'avons pas changé depuis que nos comportements et nos régimes alimentaires, nos gènes ont évolué avec nous et ne s’accommodent pas d'un retour en arrière.

Well researched presentation of this topic with great insight into who we are and why.

Good and informative. As other reviewers have noted there is a certain amount of criticism of various paleo blog entries, but I didn't find this excessive. It is well argued, evidence based and well referenced.