At the point when you don't really feel good anymore, you need to individually adapt it to yourself. This diet is not about some precise numbers but about learning to properly listen you body, give it the nutrients it needs when it needs. Most important point for succeeding is doing proper energy management, i.e. minimizing insulin/glucagon usage in the body. Sure, eating large amounts of protein + fat and neglecting carbs (as it seems to be the case with the paleo diet if I understood correctly) might be easier, but is this really optimal and healthier? Pushing certain nutrients when the body actually prefers different nutrients for certain processes.

Crucial to being paleo maybe, but crucial to health? Can you point out these certain things that it lacks?

ok its clear that you are an intelligent and open minded person and I really don't have an interest in carrying this on back and forth to convince you of anything. I can totally see how it can seem superficial but really the issue at hand is this diet not being a paleo diet and how there is constant mixed message/biases regarding which things are bad and which things are good and now which things are 'paleo' on this forum to leverage over other things. The fact that there are admitted hierarchies as to which diets are 'more paleo' independent of how healthy they are is a problem and that is what I said. This technically doesn't say that wai is unhealthy, only its healthfulness as along term diet is not being considered and merely its lack of dairy foods and not being vegan.

Paleo diets as described here are not by default low carb -at all. Don't know what you mean by easier.

The more I get sucked into what I truly believe the messier this discussion is going to get, so it sounds like you at least have your head in the right place as what 'ideologies' ultimately are important or not and I would say just explore the other ideas here.

the only other thing I can say to this and regarding your intial points which does tie into what makes it "not paleo" is that there is protein and some fat in seafood and egg yolks and these are not-"NOT" suitable, but they arn't really a representation of what we are adapted to eat and do not represent the full range of what we need. There is plenty of information on the internet about this as well as anecdotal info from raw foodists. On top of that it would appear as I said that adding fish and egg yolk would correct the problems of vegetarianism but its the other aspects of the diet which I believe (and you can disagree) would make it more precarious then tradtional veg diets or diets containing lots of seafoods.

The strongest point of the diet in my opinion is the very scientifically supported theory behind it.

Thanks for the input. What is your understanding of the scientific theory behind it and why do you feel it's the strongest point?

So today we're not biologically suitable to eat fruits, egg yolks and fish (the staple foods of the wai diet)?

Where did he write that? I didn't get that impression from what he wrote.

Try looking at the big picture of the whole diet rather than focusing on the details of one or two foods. If you look at the big picture of the whole diet, then if it relies solely on egg yolks and fish, some questions to ask are, are there any potential imbalances that could come from excluding all other foods and why are you excluding all other foods? Are you claiming that the other foods (raw fruits, roots, meats, organs, animal fats, etc.) are not acceptable on Wai or that you are not biologically adapted to them or that they are not healthy or not consumed by your Stone Age ancestors or shown to be dangerous by scientific research or what? Do you consider a diet that is restricted to just egg yolks and fish for all to be a truly raw Paleo diet in the full, holistic, biological and health sense of the term that I and KD described above or do you see it as a further restriction, beyond what is normally recommended by Paleo proponents, for therapeutic purposes? Do you feel that other people should avoid all foods other than egg yolks and fish for their health?

From the diets listed in the raw paleo diet forum, the first two seem to be pretty low carb, then there's the wai diet (for which we figured is not paleo?), so there's only the instincto that seem to allow for more carbs.

I don't consider omnivorous raw Paleo diet as necessarily low carb, but I can understand why you would think so from the description: "Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet Animal products with some veggies, berries, and non-domesticated, wild fruits added to the mix."

Now that you mention it, that does seem somewhat LC and a rather overly strict definition that apparently doesn't even allow domesticated fruits and only "some veggies, berries, and non-domesticated, wild fruits added to the mix," which is rather ironic if the definition of raw Paleo is being stretched to include the Wai diet.

On a more fruit-based diet you need to be a bit more disciplined, you can't just eat 1000 calories of fruits [+fat] in one sitting. It's harder because we usually tend to like over-eating, but it's very rewarding -- steady energy levels, smooth digestion, etc.

That's sounds like part of what KD and I have been trying to explain--that it's possible for there to be imbalances and pitfalls even if one is eating only Paleo foods like raw fruits (or even raw "non-domesticated, wild fruits" as mentioned above). 

I'm surprised that the section description only says that raw omnivore includes "berries, and non-domesticated, wild fruits added" and doesn't even mention organic domesticated fruits. It's stricter than I realized. Does this mean that the organic and conventional domesticated fruits I sometimes eat are not regarded as sufficiently "Paleo" here?

Thanks for the input. What is your understanding of the scientific theory behind it and why do you feel it's the strongest point?

Well none of the raw diets have been around for long enough to know how it works in the long term; at least the theory behind the wai diet is extensively backed up by scientifically proven and logically sound facts and claims. I don't have that much time to write about my understanding, all information is published on the website so you could simply have a look there.

Try looking at the big picture of the whole diet rather than focusing on the details of one or two foods. If you look at the big picture of the whole diet, then if it relies solely on egg yolks and fish...

It doesn't rely solely on egg yolks and fish.

I don't consider omnivorous raw Paleo diet as necessarily low carb, but I can understand why you would think so from the description: "Omnivorous Raw Paleo Diet Animal products with some veggies, berries, and non-domesticated, wild fruits added to the mix."

Yes that's exactly what I thought from the forum description, it seems like it makes it really hard to get some carbs with those restrictions.

Is there some freely available, nice description of the raw paleo diet (with something more than a short description of a subforum)? Preferably not some huge book, but rather an article or something similar. What is THE reference for the raw paleo diet?

Well none of the raw diets have been around for long enough to know how it works in the long term;

Raw Paleo diets were the sole dietary style of all primates up to at least 1.9 mya if not more recently (and Tyler has argued strenuously that it continued on raw for more than a million more years) and going back millions of years to the very dawn of life on this planet. Paleo diets that included cooked foods continued for most humans right up until around 10 thousand years ago and continued further for some.

at least the theory behind the wai diet is extensively backed up by scientifically proven and logically sound facts and claims.

So you claim. I have seen plenty of science backing Paleo and raw. I haven't come across any yet supporting a Wai diet specifically.

It doesn't rely solely on egg yolks and fish.

I meant to include fruits--sorry about that--and you also mentioned nuts, but you're ducking some of the questions. I'll take your lack of answer re: KD to mean that you acknowledge that he didn't write that "we're not biologically suitable to eat fruits, egg yolks and fish."

Again, why are you excluding all other foods beyond fruits, egg yolks, fish and some nuts? Is there something wrong with nonfish-meats, organs, animal fats and veggies?

Is there some freely available, nice description of the raw paleo diet (with something more than a short description of a subforum)?

There is http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/, though I don't agree 100% with all of it and there is a variety of views within the broader Paleo dieting community.

What is THE reference for the raw paleo diet?

Tyler seems to be the self-appointed Minister of Truth when it comes to what is raw Paleo. To me, the specific foods are less important than the fundamental scientific model, avoiding the worst of the Neolithic agents (within which I would include refined and heated sweeteners like processed sucrose), and overall balance in the diet. Biological adaptation (or design if you're a creationist) vs. discordance seems to be key, much of the rest is details and people will argue forever over the details.

Do you or Wai claim that his diet is a raw Paleo diet? If so, feel free to make the case--such as, what is the fundamental scientific hypothesis that underlies it all?

...I'd say you're making some compromises here just as it's done in the wai diet.

I don't claim to eat 100% raw Paleo and if I were eating Wai I wouldn't either.

I don't think people in paleo times were growing [organic] domesticated fruits. We are not living in the paleo era....

Straw man. I haven't seen any of the leading proponents of raw or cooked Paleo claim that we are living in the Paleo era. They only talk about approximating the diet we're adapted to, not precisely duplicating it, which it doesn't take a genius to figure would be impossible.

a diet besides being healthy should be also as convenient as possible.

Now I'm pretty sure domesticated fruits don't fit into the paleo definition, but I don't think having those makes a diet less paleo.

How can both of those statements be true? Clearly domesticated fruits are less Paleo in the sense of less like the wild African and Eurasian fruits of the Paleolithic era. That doesn't necessarily mean that no one can get away with including domesticated fruits in their diet without spoiling their health.

Domesticated fruits are still the same stuff as wild fruits, just a bit more convenient for us.

What is your evidence that the only difference between wild and domesticated fruits is convenience and what do you mean by it exactly?