>matesz:
>I mean foods is supposed to nourish us first....

Theoretically, yes. But when addictive, allergenizing foods like grains
and dairy get into the scene, eating these foods looks less like nourishment
and more like feeding the monkey on one's back.


>it can be and is a pleasure to eat
>but what makes bread, pasta, artificially colored crackers, cookies, or cold cereal more
>entertaining than a big juicy steak with a stir fried vegetable medley or a side of steak
>tartare or grilled chicken breasts with a crisp Caesar salad (sans croutons!) and some
>ripe, ruby red grapes for dessert?
>

Yum. But probably not sufficient for them who are accustomed to a post-carb
sugar rush, or feel cheated without having consumed the traditional half-loaf of
white bread (SAD).

As for breakfast-
The packaged puffed sawdust that most N. Americans eat for brekkie
is so easy to just toss in a bowl, splash calve's food over and scarf down.
I was there for decades, but today find it hard to imagine - yet the
brainwashing today is as strong as it was 35 years ago when I was watching
Cheerios commercials on the B&W telly.

Hormone-free meatballs with zucchini and carrots, crushed tomatoes with basil
(all vegs organic) for sauce, melon and fresh coconut, a cuppa green tea
- now *that's* a breakfast! Not exactly boring either.

But if one's pressed for time (above meal prep time including cleanup: 35 min),
are too poor to afford meat, or can't find a good foodsource, then I think that
Paleo might not be sustainable. IMO poverty is created in part by Neolithic
WOL/WOE, and poverty reinforces Neolithism in turn. But that's another topic.

Inherent lack of variety is certainly not a facet of Paleo.