The Paleolithic diet is one of the most rapidly growing diet trends of the past several years. Followers of the Paleo diet argue that humans have not evolved to eat agriculture-based foods and can only achieve optimal health by consuming a hunter-gatherer style diet. Thus the Paleo diet is completely devoid of grains and legumes, and also shuns dairy, salt, refined sugar and processed oils. The diet is composed primarily of meats, fish, vegetables, fruits, roots, nuts and seeds.
Like most diets the Paleo diet has a little bit of good science behind it, but also a lot of logical leaps and baseless assumptions. The evolutionary argument that humans are somehow maladapted to agriculture-based diets is particularly unconvincing (resting on many unproven assumptions), yet is the fundamental premise on which the Paleo diet bases its recommendations.
The reasoning behind the Paleo diet is less interesting to me, however, than the impact of the diet itself. Will "eating like a caveman" really help you be healthier?
Possibly, but not necessarily.
The most obvious advantage of the Paleo diet is the lack of processed foods. There is ample evidence that societies on traditional diets boast far better health than those on modern, Western diets-and the hallmark of modern diets is food processing. Paleo diets therefore are low in sugar, refined carbohydrates, trans fats, excess salt and pretty much everything else that leads to "diseases of civilization."
Paleo diets are also abundant in healthy, nutrient-rich foods such as vegetables, fruits, nuts, fish and meats. I have no doubt that anyone willing to stick to a Paleo eating plan will have a healthy weight and remain virtually free of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and may even have lower rates of cancer.
But the question still remains, is it necessary to eat Paleo to be healthy?
This is where I take issue with the Paleo philosophy. While the promise of a diet free of processed foods is substantial, the Paleo diet goes beyond this and demands considerable sacrifice.
Paleo diets do not allow for any grains or legumes. This pretty much eliminates every traditional cuisine on earth including Japanese, Italian, Indian and Greek. Not only is this a culinary tragedy, it ignores the fact that these cuisines feed some of the world's healthiest and longest-lived individuals.
Traditional, global diets that include grains and legumes but exclude highly processed foods have been some of the most successful for health. Diseases of civilization are only problematic in Western cultures where highly processed foods make up a large proportion of the calories consumed.
Proponents of the Paleo diet argue that it is necessary to eliminate grains and legumes because they contain "antinutrients," substances that can interfere with the body's absorption of other important vitamins, minerals and proteins. However, well-nourished individuals who eat a varied diet of unprocessed foods (including grains and legumes) are not nutrient deficient and are generally healthy.
Given that it is possible to thrive on a diet that includes some grains, legumes and even small amounts of processed foods, one must question if giving up the culinary joys of travel and global cuisine are really worth the sacrifice. In my experience, food substitutions and modified recipes designed to mimic traditional meals can sometimes be tasty but can never replace true authenticity.
Another contention I have with the Paleo diet is the assumption that the same eating patterns will work for everyone. People's lives differ in countless ways. We each have different levels of daily activity, demands on our time and food preferences. We also have slightly different genetic backgrounds, which can result in significant differences in metabolism and hormone levels. These individual variations can make dietary needs different for each of us.
Scientific reports on health and diet almost always rely on data pooled over many people (sometimes hundreds of thousands), since this is the only way to measure statistical significance. As a result these studies only inform us about dietary health trends on a population level and tell us little about what will work for us individually. Differences among people may be part of the reason large nutrition studies so often fail to show meaningful results.
Thus, there may be a percentage of the population that has great success on the Paleo diet and finds it easy to stick to and achieve results. This is wonderful. However there may also be a segment of the population (myself included) that finds living without grains and legumes to be chronically unsatisfying and unsustainable.
Try telling a foodie they can never use salt, eat cheese, or drink wine again and see how far you get pitching a Paleo diet.
If you currently eat a typical Western diet with little variety and many processed foods, tend to have better success following rigid diet plans, and have no qualms about giving up or modifying traditional meals to meet your dietary demands, then you might have luck following the Paleo diet. However there is no reason to believe it is the only path to good health.
The best diet is the one that works for you. Finding a healthstyle you can embrace and enjoy is essential if you want to build a lifetime of healthy habits.
Do you follow a Paleo diet? What do you think?
Darya is a scientist, foodie and advocate of local, seasonal foods. For more healthy eating tips visit her blog Summer Tomato. You can also connect with Darya on Twitter @summertomato and Facebook.
HuffPost Lifestyle is a daily newsletter that will make you happier and healthier — one email at a time. Learn more