The Paleo Phenomenon

It seems like every other day, a friend of mine declares a newfound dedication to the Paleo Diet.  Nicknamed the “Caveman Diet,” Paleo is this season’s slimmer, fitter (but just as raw) Atkins diet.  I first learned about the elusive Paleo from my dedicated Cross-Fitter friend after asking her for an afternoon snack.  I fully expected some Goldfish or hummus-like options but my friend looked carefully in her fridge and gave me a choice between freshly-watered lettuce or coconut flakes.  Apparently my disturbed look alluded to what I was thinking (when did you start hating your taste buds?) because she then confessed to me that she started this Paleo Diet.  She explained how she stopped eating bread, to which I replied “Dear God,” and went on to describe her new enlightened Paleo lifestyle.

The Paleo diet theoretically takes us back to our ‘caveman’ days when we hunted rodents with rocks and scurried for nuts and berries.  Protein heavy; processed foods are out of the question; dairy is for infants; and sugar is the devil.  I’m not sure how the Paleo people know this, but apparently cavemen never ate any grains whatsoever, so neither can my friend now.  She carries wild canned tuna in her purse, munches on dried jerky meat from a bag fit for an astronaut (right picture), and mumbles about bacon all the time.

Shocked at the idea that someone couldn’t indulge in croissants, muffins, or baguettes with chunks of melted brie, I left my friend’s place horrified.  I thought of the possibility that lobbyists for the meat industry were behind the whole conspiracy and hated wheat with a passion.  I needed to find out for myself.  What’s the health benefit behind this fad? Is there any?  How has this pandemic spread to several of my friends already?  Will my love of carbs be strong enough to fight the Paleo takeover?

The premise behind the ‘Paleolithic’ eating is that humans should only eat what we’ve been genetically adapted for.  For 2.5 million years, the length of the Paleolithic Era, our human ancestors were just a bunch of fit muscular naked hunters-and-gatherers.  Human diets changed 10,000 years ago when agriculture was developed, but our 2.5-million-year-old genetics did not change the way we digested food.  Proponents of Paleo blame ‘Industrial Era’ food such as beans, dairy, alcohol and salt for obesity, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and high blood pressure.  However, I could not find any known cardiovascular benefits to becoming caveman again.  There IS an increased risk of higher cholesterol because of the increased meat intake, so Paleo might not be a good idea if you have high cholesterol already.

Paleo basically hates carbohydrates.  They attribute carbohydrates to high blood sugar, insulin resistance and eventual morbid obesity.  Doug McGuff, MD and proponent of the Paleo diet, broke it down like this (with perhaps a few more sophisticated explanations):

Paleo says that in this metabolic state, consuming high fructose corn syrup, sugar, or fructose of any kind will amplify these effects.  The only way to reverse this is with high intensity exercise.

In theory, I’d say this Paleo diet sounds good.  But all diets sound good in theory until you’re hungry.  Examples- a few of my Paleo zombie comrades have cheated on a few occasions which they don’t want to admit.  They’ll crave a banana nut muffin all week and allow a bite on an upcoming weekend.  The pizza or cookie monster inside of them might emerge at 3 AM on a Saturday night.  They’ve also ordered light spring salads at dinner only to reach for my deep-fried chicken finger basket after they’ve digested their lettuce in 4 minutes flat.  This worries me.  I do have to say, my friends look extremely fit and healthy, and probably the best looking I’ve seen them in the last 6 years I’ve known them.  So something is working.  It could be the strenuous Cross-Fit workouts though.

I’m very cautious about new hip diets so even after my research I was still not convinced I could get on board with the I-HATE CARBS Movement Paleo diet.  I needed to do some field research.  Meandering through the bookstore, I came across a Paleo Recipe Book and immediately started perusing through the pages.  The recipes looked pretty delicious so I snapped 18 pictures from my iPhone when no one was looking (don’t judge, I’m on school loans) and dashed from the aisle like a bandit.  I thought cooking one of the recipes would really make up my mind.

I decided to conjure up some balsamic braised short ribs with a carrot puree and frisee parsley salad.  I wasn’t sure what to expect but, I have to say, it was damn good (pictured right).  I started to think maybe I could ‘have Paleo and eat it too’….but only on Sundays, and with friends who could split the grocery cost with me.

All in all, I might consider going temporarily Paleo if I want to shed a few pounds but I’m gonna stick to my own health theory which is ‘everything in moderation.’  I don’t know about you, but I can’t get used to having my milk and cookies without either milk or cookies.  Plus diets that completely eliminate certain food groups are difficult to follow and can get very pricey.  If anything, I believe cutting red meats or the Weight Watchers diet are the best ways to go.  What diet could you get on board with?

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.