Confusion in the Paleo Community

Since there seems to be confusion in the Paleo community about what constitutes a "Paleo" diet, and whether the term Paleo refers to the Paleolithic Era or Paleo-Indians (which were much later), I'm going to try to refrain from labeling anything as Paleo unless a "Paleo-type" source is the reference.

A very kind doctor tried to point out the difference, and in doing so, pointed out that what the web is calling a "Paleo diet" doesn't actually exist. What is being practiced is actually a NEOlithic Diet, and even that is subject to where a person was at the time of the Neolithic Era.

People ate what was available to them in their locales--if there wasn't enough food, they moved on, making the diet ever-changing. Archaeological evidence now points to more than one migration path, so food could've been brought in from elsewhere, and eaten until the supply ran out. Some of this food may have also been planted in the new locale, furthering the supply of seemingly foreign foods to the new lands.

Also, taking cues from nature when food supplies ran low, people could very well have watched the birds, squirrels, or whatever animals existing at that time, and observed what they were eating, and tried it for themselves--this is probably how we ended up with grains, beans/legumes, and dairy in our diet, and how so-called Paleo eaters of today include things like Parmesan cheese, butter, ghee, bananas, and pineapple in their diets.

Also, if man left Africa before the Neolithic Era, how did native desert foods come to exist here, like figs and dates? Any supplies they may have carried with them surely would've been eaten up by the time anybody arrived on this continent!

To top it off, what is covered in ice and snow TODAY may not have been back then, and vice-versa: what may be temperate today may have been covered with ice and snow back then, complicating travels and food supply.

Fast-forward to today: Since there is such confusion about the term "Paleo", which era it references for the diet, and that the "diet" was situational based on availability, I'm going to focus on overall longevity and disease prevention, rather than continue to cheer-lead for something that could very well turn out to be a marketing-led myth.

Yes, a meat and fresh produce diet are good for you in general, and so is exercise, but the rest is marketing. Unfortunately, this lifestyle may have been sold to some as "green", and that's beside the point: ancient peoples had no choice, but also had no concept of carbon neutrality and greenhouse gases.

From a marketing analysis standpoint, what's being called the Paleo lifestyle/diet is nothing more than a cheap and ultra-simple way of living--meat, fresh produce, basic ingredients, nothing added when avoidable. Take away the references to ancient peoples, and the lifestyle/diet could just as well be named "frugal" or "simplistic"...or even "green" or "eco."

In dollar terms, this way of eating gets the most nutrition and disease prevention with the least amount of money spent. Considering the fact that prices for grains and certain beans/legumes are skyrocketing, it makes economic sense to avoid them completely at this point. Considering what they do to our health in the long run, it's best to avoid them from a sugar, cancer, and Alzheimer's standpoint.

It's subsistence living, no matter who or when it's modeled after. It just so happens to be extremely healthy for us, and lengthens life, so we'll use the terms LONGEVITY and DISEASE PREVENTION from now on, and avoid the marketing--at least these have scientific fact to back them up. Because there is little marketing thrown into it, many of us are unaware of the power of simplicity--there's no money in it. No money, no marketing to get our undivided attention.