I dont recall us covering this on paleohacks so i figured id see what we all think: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20860883
I got the link from reading Metzgar's site where he has two good posts about it. Specifically he has a nice little graphic showing the macronutrient breakdowns in Cordain's 2000 and 2010 papers:
Protein: 2000 paper 19 - 35%; 2010 paper 25 - 29%
Carbohydrate: 2000 paper 22 - 40%; 2010 paper 39 - 40%
Fat: 2000 paper 28 - 58%; 2010 paper 30 - 39%
Metzgar's covering is here: http://www.mattmetzgar.com/matt_metzgar/2010/10/10-years-later.html#comments
asked byben61820 (15976)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on October 24, 2010
at 01:57 AM
40% of diet as carbs if probably just fine as long as there is an active lifestyle, undamaged metabolism from an early age, and only healthier natural sources of carbs (and food in general). Few people living today can claim all three of those conditions. Also, for those populations that drifted away from Africa, the genetic drift would have probably been towards less carbs for most of them. The study is guessing at carb intake at the part of the world that probably had the highest plant and fruit availability and carb intake. Yes, we probably did evolve there originally, but evolution continued beyond that. Just look at the variation in appearance between the native peoples of different locals. We didn't all stay looking like and digesting just like our original African ancestors. A native Alaskan may not quite do so well on 40% carb as would a native African.
Paleo is not JUST about what we think our paleo ancestors ate (and that is guesswork to some extent and one study alone is not going to be the final word), but also about what ALL current science tells us (not just one study) and also what obviously works on the ground level for a large percentage of people. Plus macronutrient profiles of ancient paleo eaters were probably all over the board depending on the location.
You can't look at just one location and one situation of healthy active natives with all healthy food sources, and then make all decisions based on that. You have to consider all three influences and probably even more and also look at how all three interact with individual genetics. The paleo diet is not just one diet with one set of macronutrient intake parameters. It's also about individual needs and circumstances. And it's about what works. To complain that the paleo diet is drifting away from a particular set of macronutrient profiles that were created in one theoretical study, to me is rather silly.
I am not mentally closed to the idea that a bit less fat might be better for some or many paleo eaters, but first I'll need to see better evidence and a more balanced view than just that!