I suppose it all depends on what your particular "palaeo" dietary orientation is. For example, raw, palaeolithic dieters are usually fond of lots of raw animal  fat but definitely not cooked fat like bacon. Then again, there are the "Instinctos", among rawpalaeodieters, who don't care either way about percentages of raw animal fat.

Loren Cordain makes a very good point in that wild game, the natural diet of palaeolithic humans,  is usually rather lean. This is because wild animals have to do a lot of daily exercise in order to escape predators etc., plus feeding on more natural diets like grass etc. means that animals take much longer to build up enough fat-layers compared to unhealthy animals raised on intensive-farming, grain-filled diets. I have had numerous discussions with grassfed meat farmers in the EU regarding the truly evil EU-inspired laws which force cattle to be slaughtered within 30 months. These twisted laws were  introduced in the wake of the BSE-related scandals, which were caused solely due to farmers raising their cattle on unhealthy grain-filled diets. But grassfed cattle, according to reports, require several years(2-3?) to build up enough layers of fat.

Pro-fat apologists like to claim that some raw organ-meats contain lots of fat, which is true. The trouble is that organ-meats consist of only 10% of the body's entire volume, so that, clearly, fat is not that important for one's diet. It was merely an occasional  luxury for hunter-gatherers, so they valued it more, that's all.

The other issue is that cooked animal fat produces the highest amount of heat-created toxins, such as advanced glycation end products and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons etc.,  so that frying in bacon fat is a really bad idea for one's health. I believe even the pro-cooked-animal-fat-advocates usually recommend coconut oil to be used instead, which is supposed to be "less worse" for frying etc. than other types of fat.


Geoff