Also, I want to complain for a minute. My complaint does not invalidate the data that scientists such as Mat are sharing. However, I just wonder why so many scientists seem to have such enormous egos? When I see someone like Mat who is so intelligent, and has such a great potential to further good nutrition make his flippant, arrogant remarks, it does such a disservice to him. Lots of arrogant scientists regularly post comments with condescending flavor on Stephan Guyenet's blog, too. You didn't mention this in your piece about marketing, but it's true. It's very off-putting.

So would you rather be a scientific journal or a documentary, basically. I applaud anyone for promoting science. If you want to believe in something you should probably have evidence for it and not “well our ancestors…” or “well my cousin…”

Coming from a post-communist country, I agree. During the communists rule, there was no environmentalism to speak of, and after 20 years, we are still recovering from the industrialism.

In answer to your second question up there, it's clear the scientific minutiae is really exciting for a minority, which we can see unfolding in the Guyenet vs. Taubes debate. There are sites by folks such as Kurt Harris and Don Matesz that I just don't find myself checking in with very often. I'm a smart cookie, but I just can't wrangle with the particulars and the nitty-gritty of the science. I think it's great that the eggheads have a place to discuss these things, and I think it furthers the field.

But I'm far more interested in what this means in daily life. Because at the end of the day, you can debate macronutrients and anti-nutrients yadda yadda yadda, but what's on your plate? What are you sending to school with your kids? What makes you feel vital? I think it's important to have a foundation in the basics, but it's definitely not necessary to understand the larger message.

I worry that hardcore science can scare folks off. And my personal feeling is that this message is too important to let it go unheard. Yet Taubes takes flak for dumbing it down for the layperson.

As an example, I came across an interesting thread on Mark Sisson's forum asking whether anyone there was a race other than white. It was asked with sensitivity, but it highlighted the divide here. So if science wants to keep the Paleo party for themselves, there will be a tiny population of white scientists dorking out together. But we aren't going to be selling the real food message to the rest of the world that way.

Sure, some people come to this for the science, and that's great. Some people come for weight loss or performance or health issues or leaning out. Great. It's ALL valid.

I'd be curious about your take on how to market this successfully to a wider audience. I have several thoughts on the matter (I used to work in marketing myself) and am working myself up to a huge blog post about it. I realize I'm not on the larger Paleo radar, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. I also hope the issue is addressed at AHS next year.

If environmentalism has cost our economy trillions, unconstrained industrialism would have cost immeasurably more had the few constraints imposed by environmentalism been removed. The only difference would be who would pay–it would be our children, their grandchildren, and so on. If leaving them some pristine wilderness is costly, I'm willing to pay. If leaving them with fresh water and clean air is expensive, so be it.

In fact we MUST pay. I won't debate you on carbon emissions translating to warming, because I'm not sure I believe it myself. But there's no question carbon emissions, e.g. from coal, are harmful–we know coal emissions lead to acid rain, to increased mercury in watersheds, and there's no question that these pollutants are extremely harmful.

In response to your 4th point…When I tried to explain my new plan to my health care provider, she stated that this is not a healthy diet (although my bloodwork was fantastic). She sent me to a nutritionist who carefully outlined the things I need to reintroduce into my diet. Basically, it was an intervention.

Although I thought I understood why I changed to paleo before I walked into the doctor's office, I was unable to defend myself. I left with a list of items to buy at the grocery store and a food log to fill out and bring back in 6 weeks.

The people who need this diet the most are the ones who are seeing health care professionals who only follow published medical literature and best practices.

"bloggers without a strong science background do not understand the studies that use to support advice they give on their blogs. they can give incorrect advice which can be harmful."

Absolutely. The same can be said for some non-paleo bloggers with strong science backgrounds.

It happens all the time, everywhere in science. All. The. Time. Bias is everywhere. Misunderstandings abound. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be aware and try to avoid this because we should but realize that it is everywhere. It's the nature of science. The nature of cognitive function. The nature of being human.

I spend more time than I care to reading original journal articles. The number of abstracts alone that do not accurately represent the article is mindboggling. Then onto the study design, control v. treatment group, conclusions and it's nearly unbearable how much poorly done science is out there. As one friend says "it's hard not to loose what little faith in humanity (or in this case science) that I have left".

I agree that it can be dangerous, but so can the nutritional science (and dogma) of the last 50 years. The paleosphere, mistakes, warts and all, is doing better than most.