You conveniently forget that neither of Linus Pauling's Nobel prizes had anything to do with nutrition. He is simply in a long line of scientists who were very  eminent within their own field of expertise, but who were hopelessly inadequate when analyzing scientific issues outside their fields. And processed supplements are viewed as non-palaeo according to palaeo rules, it's not a minority belief at all.

 

http://dietchoices.com/diet-plans/caveman-diet/

 

Geiff



 
> Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:50:55 -0600
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: glycation
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> What may or may not rightly constitute Paleo seems to be more of a matter of
> opinion, akin to a Papal mandate for some. 
> 
> As I understand it, our constructs (convenient fictions?) of Paleo are an
> artifact of emerging sciences; in the same manner, Pauling (noteworthy for
> being awarded two Nobel prizes among other exceptional contributions to mid
> 20th century science), and many others delving into the roots of human
> physiology are advancing understanding of what makes us tick. His
> orthomolecular therapies, while subject to misinformation campaigns by Big
> Pharma, do in point of fact bear results. 
> 
> As far as New-Age is concerned, Paleo luddites constitute a group as rigid
> and unthinking as the Shirley MacLaine crowd! My interests remain with
> science, its underlying context expressed in paradigms subject to analysis,
> not in conversion to rigidly uberglauben (over-belief) ideologies and
> quasi-religious fundamentalism.
> 
> Caveat lector!
> 

 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/