Phil:
> > As Todd mentioned, the sharp stick test doesn't apply to everything
> > (peanuts
> > can be eaten raw, for example).
Ashley:
> Great, I ask one litle thing about tomatoes and end up losing the
> only practical benchmark for deciding if I should eat a food! In
> future I will keep my mouth shut :)
:) I think the best benchmark overall for a Paleo diet is the TYPES of foods
people actually ate during the Paleolithic era. That is best determined by a
combination of methods:
- archaeological evidence of human teeth, bones, and coprolites
- teeth, bones, coprolites, fossils and remnants of food remains
- current studies and observations of living hunter gatherers
- past studies, observations, records and histories (written and oral) of
and by hunter gatherers
By types of foods, I mean that some foods, such as New World foods, that
Stone Agers didn't eat are considered Paleo because they are the descendants
of Old World foods or are very similar.
Of course, even this benchmark is subject to interpretation. For example,
Stone Agers ate flaxseeds, nuts and olives but they didn't eat flaxseed or
nut meal pancakes or olive oil. I still consider a nut meal pancake cooked
in olive oil to be sufficiently paleo, but others may not.
Ray's "naked with a sharp stick" was a sort of shortcut that I don't think
even he believes applies in every case. It's easier to grasp and communicate
than the actual science.
Ashley:
> he'd come back and said it's easy enough to list the things you can
> eat - meat, veg, fruit, nuts (did he miss anything? - I'm counting
> eggs as meat)
I think your friend may be right. It's probably better to focus on what you
CAN eat, because that's less negative and doesn't come across as some
strange eating disorder. Skeptical people often say, "How can you deprive
yourself of grains, dairy, potatoes, and candy?" (not many seem too
concerned about legumes, except perhaps green beans and soy milk). I say in
return, "I don't focus on what I CAN'T eat, I focus on what I CAN eat."
> The problem is I now have no idea how to define vegetable,
I tend to think of it as legumes and tubers being separate categories from
"vegetables" (which is a vague, arbitrary term anyway). There are still a
few questionable vegetables if you do that (for example, Audette added a
prohibition against beets and turnips in the 2nd edition of NeanderThin, but
I'm not so sure about that myself), but not many.
> It's a fairly serious problem from the point of view of promoting
> paleo. Another guy I work with once said "it all sounds a bit like
> the Bible, you can interpret it any way you like".
Sort of, but it's more like science. There are no absolutes in science or
Paleo diets. No final answer. What we have to go on is the available
evidence, and scientific evidence is rarely complete, clear-cut or
uncontroversial. New evidence sometimes provides new direction and cause for
reassessment. The problem is, human beings don't like imperfection,
uncertainty or complexity. We want the perfect, absolute truth and we want
it communicated simply. Science has never claimed to provide this. Some
claim that the Bible provides this, but not everyone agrees on that. We want
one magic food or one magic pill to take to cure everything and not have to
think any more about health and the fact is such a thing doesn't exist and
never will.
The principles behind the Paleo diet can be put in fairly simple terms (eat
like your ANCIENT ancestors--look back BEFORE industry and even farther back
BEFORE agriculture for the best clues on who we are and how we should live),
but the execution of those principles can get complicated.
> I can't think of any way you can get someone to eat paleo without
> them having to start thinking about what they eat. Now this would be
> a Good Thing, if it was even remotely possible. But most people are
> lazy, and expect every diet to give them a new number (or a few
> numbers) to keep in a certain range. Grams of fat/carbs/cabbage,
> hours between meals, number of meals, number of varieties of cabbage
> in each meal, all of these are carefully prescribed by at least one
> diet book.
I actually think counting grams, numbers of meals, etc. is more complicated
than remembering which foods to eat. I don't know how people do that.
> I like to think that after 3 years eating paleo, and a lot of time
> spent on this list and my own group, I know enough to show someone
> how to eat paleo. I don't *really* of course - because I wouldn't
> last a week if I was stranded somewhere with a (now retired from food
> testing duties) sharp stick.
Don't worry, Ray Audette doesn't restrict himself to a sharp stick and
neither did Stone Agers. They had fire, tools made of stone, bone and ivory,
the sun (and ice in some areas), bows and arrows, rope and nets made of hemp
and other plants, fishing line and hooks, digging sticks, etc. The "sharp
stick" criterion is a simplification. It shouldn't be taken too literally.
Ray Audette uses an oven, a food dehydrator, probably a barbecue grill, a
refrigerator/freezer, metal knives, etc.
> Anyone got any ideas on how to sort out this mess? Should we try to
> make paleo seem really simple in order to make it more accessible,
> and risk it being reduced to Atkins?
Atkins is more complicated then the mass media portrays it as. The media
tends to focus on the most restrictive first 2 weeks or so of the diet and
portray that as the whole diet, when in reality there are multiple phases
with differing types of foods and quantities. I was surprised to learn this
myself when I first picked up one of Atkins' books. They have applied the
same sort of oversimplification and stereotyping to the Paleo dietS and will
continue to do so.
I give people the basic concepts, tell them not to worry so much about the
details, and encourage them to seek and learn for themselves because people
generally are less likely to believe something if I explain every detail to
them than if they look it up themselves and use their own judgment. I tell
people not to put all their trust in any single expert/guru. Instead, weigh
ALL the evidence.
Sometimes people already understand some of the basic concepts, and I can
find that out by asking them questions. For example, I can ask "Which foods
do you think are healthier, those natural foods that are available in the
wild or those that are man-made?"
Unfortunately, people tend to prefer to have one guru to follow worshipfully
(such as an Atkins or an Ornish). I prefer experts who admit error and
change a view when the evidence accumulates substantially against it over
those who seem to think they have found the final, perfect diet for all
time. I also prefer experts who cite scientific evidence (such as Cordain,
Eaton and the Eades) rather than spout off pronouncements without backing
them up with evidence, as though their reputation or credentials alone were
sufficient (such as T. Colin Campbell).
|
