Uggh...I just typed a long, detailed reply that is lost in the chasms of teh interwebz due to my lousy connection here. I'll try do a quick do-over:
This is false. There is greater burden of proof is required for someone making a truth claim.
Read this:
Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If paleo people are making a truth claim, they have the burden of proof to prove their theory. Think of what you are saying but substitute "paleo" for "believers in the Secret" or "Ghosts." According to what you are saying, as long as a flat earther, paranormal lovers or Secret believers can explain their theory then it is the sole responsibility of the skeptic to prove them wrong. With scientific hypothesis, the burden will always be greater for person trying to prove their claim.
Now, maybe paleo people are not making a truth claim. They may just be making a pragmatic claim. They could be saying that "we don't know whether this is true as a matter of biology or evolutionary theory, but it helps you drop pounds!" Ok, then they have meet the burden of proof to show that it helps you drop weight. But, I don't think that this is what people like Rob Wolf are only doing. When he is pushed on the science, he usually then makes a second claim about how paleo works. But, he does not want the Paleo diet to just be about whether it will help you drop pounds. He wants it to be a diet backed by truth claims.
First of all, good to see you again, and where have you been??? Anyway, all I meant was that I see discussions going like this:
Paleo Skeptic: "Why don't you eat grains?"
Paleo Dude: "Because of X and Y." (Where "X" and "Y" are health claims).
Paleo Skeptic: "Yeah, but your approach seems really difficult/unpleasant/impractical/etc..."
In short, the health claims are not challenged. Paleo attempts to justify itself on health grounds, but it is challenged on other-than-health grounds--and Paleo certainly never claims to be the cheapest or easiest diet to follow. It was this asymmetry that I was trying to point out.
So your argument is that you can be healthier without grains and you don't need grains. So with that logic, one would assume that someone eating grains can't be healthy as possible, correct? In a nutshell, yes. But by some standards of measure, the difference between "some grains" and "no grains" might be immeasurably small. What would be your standards of measure for health? Too many to list. How do you explain the hundreds of athletes that would likely get a perfect health screening even though they have ate grains for years? Like I said, you can be "healthy" and still eat grains...not sure what you mean by "perfect health screening," though. To what extent each serving of grains damaging your health? It depends. Is the consumer insulin resistant? Insulin sensitive? Diabetic? Underfed? Intolerant of carbs in general? Gluten intolerant? Lots of factors.
In red.
As for your argument that we need to keep this health related, can you explain why? Since when is that what paleo enthusiasts do? When you tell someone to completely avoid grains or advocate a complete lifestyle change, there are many more factors to consider than health.
In seeking knowledge about nutrition, I
do not want my educators to give me advice colored by my own feelings, willpower, commitment, etc. I want the raw truth, however harsh it may be. From there, I will proceed with applying that knowledge to my own situation, such as I can and am willing to do.
What that means is that I need to have the honesty and maturity to admit that I will make some decisions that are less-than-ideal for my health, but nonetheless fit my lifestyle best for other reasons (convenience, practicality, money, enjoyment, etc.).
So, yes, there are definitely considerations other than health that go into determining dietary choices. My point is, we should not pretend that we are basing our decisions entirely on health when we are in fact compromising health, even in small ways, for other things (see parentheses above).
In order for me to be convinced that paleo would be the way to go, I would need the following satisfied:
1. Prove to me the negative effects of grains.
2. Prove to me the extent of the negative effects of grains. (quantify it)
3. Prove to me that I can't have a healthy diet while eating grains.
4. Prove to me that it will help my performance.
5. If you can prove all 4 of the above, I would need to evaluate that it is worth it.
So far from what I've read, paleo arguments have not even come close to doing this. So far most of the articles I have seen are hard to get through the initial 3 paragraphs full of hyperbole and irrational thinking.
I agree with everything there, except for two points. One, I believe points 1 and 2 have been adequately addressed. Two, point 3 is unecessary. It's not a question of "you can't be healthy with grains"--I've said repeatedly that you can. It's a question of,
can you do better?
Edit: One last thing I have to add is that it's hard to put a lot of stock into paleo when they have to stray from it for a particular goal. How many diehard paleo enthusiasts have made the exception for milk? I have no doubt that "paleo + milk + some grains" will fall in there at some point when it relates to athletes training a lot.
In some ways, it already has. Dr. Guyenet has written about "paleo preparations," if you will, of grains in primitive cultures...so you end up with a product that is, in terms of micronutrients anyway, inferior to to fruit, veggies, etc., but without the downsides of grains.
And I believe Robb Wolf is a fan of Paleo+milk for weight gain.
Still, however, I believe these would still be considered health compromises, not so different from those we discussed before, even though they relate to specific goals.
That's a very valid point. The belief that paleo is the only way to go is just silly. Especially when it comes to athletic performance.
No one says "its the only way." No one is really blind enough to believe you can't be an athlete unless you eat Paleo.
The relevant question is, "is it better than what you're doing now?"
). 
