Dr. Zuk sets out to explore all of the ways that our preconceptions of the Paleo era may differ from how people really lived. I found the book as a whole pretty shallow -- some theories of paleolithic parenting, diet, etc. were introduced, but mostly it wasn't a very scholarly approach. Yes, it's a pop!sci book, but Dr. Zuk's popular works on entomology were much better. ( )

Interesting and accessibly written; a generally good resource for understanding the weaknesses of fads like the 'paleo' diet. But I'm not sure I was really the target audience for this book; I would have liked things somewhat less dumbed-down.

I was also frustrated by the tendency towards incomplete or underdeveloped explanations, carelessness in chains of reasoning, and analogies that didn't work. For example, in chapter 7, Zuk focuses on the hypothesis that it would be more evolutionarily advantageous for males to try to mate with many females; but the paragraph advancing this hypothesis ends by saying "Indeed, in many species the males perform a variety of activities that seem to have evolved to increase the likelihood that thye are indeed the only one to have mated with a female; in bluebirds, for example, males stick close to the female during the critical few days surrounding ovulation." This is not only not evidence that males have evolved to 'play the field', it seems to directly contradict the idea that 'playing the field' would be advantageous (because it would be incompatible with staying close to the female you've already mated with, to deter other males). But this hypothesis isn't developed in the book.

In other cases it's very difficult to understand what is being explained. In Chapter 5 Zuk claims that a gene, NAT2, which breaks down folate, would be advantageous when sources of folate are plentiful (because of ability to efficiently metabolise it), but disadvantageous when they are scarce. She tries to illustrate this latter with an anaology of "enlarging the holes of a sieve when the flow of water is decreasing." This suggests that NAT2 actually wastes some of the folate being ingested. But then why is it advantageous (rather than just not disadvantageous) when supplies are plentiful? And equally, if it just makes metabolism of folate more efficient, why is it disadvantageous (rather than just not advantageous) when supplies are scarce?

Issues like these occur frequently throughout the book, marring what is otherwise an interesting and very useful discussion. ( )

This is a confused book, the author would rather talk about human evolution but the hook is the caveman versus farmer argument. The author assembles a multitude of facts to bolster her case that we have continued to evolve since the conversion from hunter-gatherer to farmers and city life. Still interesting and full of valuable information. ( )

With a catchy title and a generous helping of strawman arguments, the author presents the case against the Paleo lifestyle with two main points: genetic changes can happen quickly, and there has always been great variation among humans.

But ultimately the book disappoints because it attacks a caricature "Paleo", the one you see in the comments section on various obscure fan blogs out there. This is one of the only books I've read that quotes extensively, not from respectable sources but from the anonymous commenters on blogs -- as though "Paleo Dude" represents the entire genre of those who think human evolution should inform the best ways to diet or exercise.

Lots of interesting new facts about ancient humans from an author who knows the subject well, but definitely not a good case against the ancestral lifestyle.
( )

(This review is of the audiobook version.)

Overall I was hoping for more, but it's all right as far as it goes.

On the good side, Zuk's writing is clever, wry, and often punny, which is a nice change from often-times very serious science writing. She's an accomplished scientist and clearly knows the subject very well. And it's about time someone took aim at all of those ridiculous paleo books, too. (Have you ever noticed how contradictory they are? We shouldn't eat cooked food, Because We Didn't Evolve Eating Cooked Food (though we did, and we have plenty of biological adaptations that only make sense with a cooked diet--but Zuk doesn't describe this). We shouldn't eat dairy products, Because We Didn't Evolve Eating Dairy Products. We shouldn't eat meat, Because We Didn't Evolve Eating Meat (according to one vegan I know, because we don't have claws or long canine teeth--seriously). We should ONLY eat meat, Because We Evolved To Only Eat Meat. And this is just diet. Basically, you can find any quack on the planet espousing a diet plan, and bet a million dollars that they'll be justifying it on a very flawed evolutionary basis. Drives me bonkers.)

On the less good side, Zuk does spend a truly bizarre amount of time deconstructing the arguments of anonymous paleo bloggers and commenters, as others have pointed out. The number of topics she covers means that the depth covered on each topic is fairly shallow. And she mischaracterizes [a:Sarah Blaffer Hrdy|157568|Sarah Blaffer Hrdy|https://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/user/f_50x66-e0ba3b90c110cd67123d6a850d85373e.png]'s work, which is criminal to me. Hrdy's [b:Mother Nature|788805|Mother Nature|Sarah Blaffer Hrdy|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1178365318s/788805.jpg|774794] and [b:Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding|6251387|Mothers and Others The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding |Sarah Blaffer Hrdy|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1347821755s/6251387.jpg|6434265] were my first introduction to the work of intelligent evolutionary biologists, and she deserves not to have her work misrepresented. (eg. Zuk claims Hrdy defends the "sex contract" of "women stay faithful and raise children to guarantee men paternity, so they will provision the family with meat," whereas Hrdy basically demolishes it by demonstrating that in existing hunter-gatherer societies, only about 7% of a man's kill from a hunt will go to his own wife/mate and offspring--not enough to survive on.)

I can be more forgiving of the targeting of newspaper articles and blog comments, because her target audience is clearly not those who are already fairly familiar with evolutionary biology; she is aiming at those who receive their paleo-lifestyle data from newspapers and online sources. While she may indeed be constructing straw men to demolish, those straw men are, to my mind, a fair representation of the Paleo lifestyle as it exists in the popular imagination. So I expect it would be informative if you've got absolutely no idea who Sarah Blaffer Hrdy is, for example, but have a niggling suspicion that it's not healthy for human beings to eat foods made with flour.

As an added bonus, the narrator on the audiobook is great. She clearly had a lot of fun with the writing, and reads the book expressively and well.

If you're already fairly informed on the subject(s), I'd skip this one. If you're not, it's a good intro, but don't take what she says as gospel. ( )