Kent Multer wrote:
> I have continued to think about other things we can do, and I have a few
> suggestions.  I suggest starting a web site -- or adding pages to a site
> that one of us may already have -- to include some of the following:
>
> 1.  A "top 10 list" of the objections that people love to throw at us, with
> quick answers.  This should be short, so that it's easy to email to people,
> or print out and hand to folks you meet, or just remember.  "I heard that
> meat causes colon cancer" ... "won't I get fat if I eat fat?" etc.  For
> each of these, I'd like to see a quick answer, and also some background
> info such as pointers to scientific studies that back up our point of view.

I think this is a great idea. Barry Sears (Zone guru) is a master at producing
lists like this. He makes bold claims that infuriate conventional low-fat
nutritionists and fascinate laypeople who are looking for a fresh approach. At
face value, many of his soundbites are highly dubious, even self-contradictory.
But he explains them in a quasi-scientific way that starts to make sense.

In fact, rather than reinventing the wheel, why not start the list by borrowing
from related diet books (Zone, Protein Power, Atkins). For example, in response
to questions about saturated fats, cholesterol, and CHD, Sears emphasizes that
these things are much less of a concern outside the context of a high-carb diet.
They are also less of a concern in a diet that is high in fibre, especially
soluble fibre. Paleo-eating kicks other diets down a flight of steps when it
comes to soluble fibre.

Of course, the very first place to start should probably be Neanderthin. The
Catechism section (p. 111) contains responses to some likely objections,
including:
1. red meat + animal fat = CHD?
2. need for vitamin/mineral supplements?
3. does it have to be so strict?
4. haven't we evolved to eat neolithic foods?
5. do I have to eat meat (moral/aesthetic objection)?
6. too weird?
7. too expensive?
8. environmentally destructive?

A number of these items, notably #1 and #4, have been debated so intensely
on the list that I think we can all agree that they are not cut and dried
issues. Nevertheless, it would be possible and highly instructive to
enumerate the best arguments on the pro-Neanderthin side.

Anyway, if anyone wants to contribute to this thread, maybe we can make the
list of objections longer, and pick the best 10.