Ken, I disagree.  One of the strengths of the paleo perspective is this
argument:  We have very good reason to think that eating certain foods and
in certain ways because in the course of our evolution humans ate that way
for a couple of million years.  Anybody not well adapted to those foods
would have had an evolutionary disadvantage and not passed on their genes.
Meat, some nuts, some eggs, some veggies, a little fruit - that can't be
unhealthy because we evolved to eat this way and our genetic makeup has had
little chance to deviate from that pattern (10,000 years or less).  We have
no such evidence to support the contention that dairy in any form, including
whey, is safe.

The burden of proof should be on anybody who claims that any neolithic food
is safe to eat in any quantity.  I don't need to prove that meat and veggies
are healthy - they have to be, that's what we evolved eating.  You do have
to offer significant evidence (proof isn't the right word here, the burden
is too high) that whey is safe.  Given the significant problems many have
with dairy (leaky gut syndrome, allergies, etc., and I'm not including
lactose intolerance) the answer is less than obvious.  I don't particularly
care whether one particular researcher, even if it is Cordain, thinks whey
proteins are okay.

I'm not denying that we have blenders or that we don't have to eat garbage
anymore.  I'm not sure what French deconstructionists (who, as far as I
remember from college, were primarily interested in the meaning or lack of
it in texts) have to do with this argument.  I do see that you've bought
into the modern bodybuilding theories of nutrition (more protein is good,
etc.) and you have some videos (and possibly more products to come?) to
peddle using this list.  You're making straw men out of those who disagree
with you and its, quite frankly, annoying.

I don't understand the last sentence in your post, either.  What are
epigenetic options?  Are you saying the genetic record is somehow opposed to
epigenesis (the process by which genetic information is translated into the
substance of an organism)?  What does that even mean?  What would an
evolutionary transformationalist be?   I get the point - you've used a
thesaurus (poorly) to try to bully anybody who disagrees with you into
keeping quiet.  Maybe that works in your gym, where your "51 years" or
whatever of training makes people take you seriously, but keep it to the
fitness forums where the teenagers and internet gurus can argue about rest
pause techniques and unlocking their genetic potential.  This list is
populated mostly by serious people who care about health, not hyperbole.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Ken O'Neill <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> There's a sense of 'being Paleo' that boils down to something akin to
> luddite religious fundamentalism. Our sense of Paleo rests on contemporary
> physiology, not on revealed books given to Paleo ancestors. As such, best
> case Paleo is a contructionalist genre, one well advised to learn from
> decades of French post-modern decontructionalist epistemological method.
> Paleos didn't have blender, protein powders, much less the intellectual
> frameworks inherent in the work of Cordain and others. Much less did they
> have a basis for evolving forward from eating game and garbage (gatherer =
> scavenger). We do. To argue otherwise strkes me as imbecilic. We're
> contructing a notion of paleo in evolutionary context and should be asking,
> after Jonas Salk, what does survival of the wisest mean. Paleos didn't have
> Salks' polio vaccination - as did many of us. Wanna idiotically discount
> Salk's vaccine? Or do we move forward as evolutionary transformationalists,
> syncretically merging the genetic record with epigenetic options?
>
> >
>
>
>
>


-- 
Visit my Training blog:
http://karateconditioning.supersized.org