>> problem with much case-by-case research that is still in a state of flux:
>> You never know whether to really rely on it or not because of all the
>> about-faces and reversals, so what good does it do and what certainty does
>> it really give us until long after we have a need to act?
>
>But we face much the same problem with respect to evolutionary
>research. Science is tentative, fallible, and subject to
>reversals.
Point taken, Todd. All science is subject to change and uncertainty.
However, It does seem to me nevertheless that some fields of science are
relatively more certain than others, at least as regards basics. There is
far less contention in evolution, for example, about certain basic
"accepted" facts regarding the timeframe for introduction of certain foods
in the diet than there is in modern dietary research into biological
pathways regarding the effects of food. This state of affairs is why it
seems a lot more reliable to me. Also the fact that Paleodiet is based on
more overarching, generic evolutionary assumptions which have been hammered
out and refined over many years since Darwin.
>I agree completely. The same caveat applies to evolutionary
>reasoning, since we cannot assume that all populations are
>equally adapted, or maladapted, to the same foods.
I agree also. However, the differences we are talking about may have to do
more with the "resolution" of the data so to speak. At "coarse" resolutions
(which *general* classes of foods were available) the known data with
respect to general types of foods available 40000 years ago and before
(which would have not been too terribly different as to general type for
most human populations) is just not much in dispute, like you see with
respect to the biological effects of foods studied modern nutritional
studies. It is when you start getting into more and more specifics (which
specific *species* of plants were available within those general types of
foods of the past) that the questions of biological effect start to arise.
Examples. It is pretty well accepted by most researchers in the field that:
- Flesh up to 35% of the diet by late Paleolithic times (20-40,000 years
ago) was a normal/necessary part of the human diet. (Recent research may
put the figure closer to 50% or slightly above going back to homo erectus
1.7 mya), but everyone with credentials in the field seems to accept the
35% as at least a baseline.)
- Cooking would not have been a part of the diet in any magnitude up till
at least 60000 to 125000 years ago or so. What cooking there was up till
very recent times would have been simple roasting/baking over coals or
fire, etc.
- Legumes (peanuts)/grains would not have been part of the diet, grains in
particular not until Neolithic times 10,000 years ago.
- Alcohol not till 4,500 years ago.
- Fruits and veggies edible raw would have been part of the diet since the
beginning of the species.
- Obviously anything requiring much plant breeding would not have been part
of the diet till at least the 40,000-year-ago mark, and probably a lot
later than that.
Now this is admittedly fairly rough data, but it already tells us quite a
lot--especially about what foods would *not* have been available (all
modern processed or prepared foods, oils, Cheese Whiz, Twinkies, coca-cola,
wine, etc.), and I seriously doubt any of that is going to change
materially, though it will obviously be considerably refined over the years.
Whereas when you get into modern nutritional research, about the only thing
anyone can agree on is fruits and veggies are good. Everything else seems
to be in dispute.
>> To me, the most interesting question about wine and alcohol is, why would
>> we want to drink it in the first place--aside from what I guess we could
>> call a cultural/social pleasure principle--if it obviously was never a part
>> of the human diet until just yesterday in evolutionary time (2,500 years
>> ago.)?
>
>That's easy. It's a quality of life issue. For many people, it
>is enjoyable to drink wine, and that fact alone creates a
>presumption in favor of doing so, unless there is good reason to
>believe that it is harmful. The fact that paleolithic people
>almost certainly did not use wine creates a presumption *against*
>drinking it. The case is similar with respect to many other
>foods, of course. With these conflicting presummptions in place, we
>are required to make a judgment.
So I take it that health by itself is not necessarily the operative
criterion here? (I guess I had thought it was.) If not, then that obviously
changes the consideration entirely. Which I can certainly accept if we want
to bring taking calculated risks into the picture for the sake of enjoyment
or convenience; I was just not clear on this before. But I had thought we
were talking purely health issues here.
Actually, though, I suppose this brings up a concern I have had about
Paleodiet: Theoretically we would try to approximate the Paleolithic diet
as closely as possible if health were the sole consideration. But we are
talking practicalities here. So even apart from the perspective of
partaking in enjoyable pleasures like wine-drinking, to me there is a
question of the practicality of a Paleolithic diet given modern culture.
It's obviously almost impossible for the average person to gain access to
wild-game-type meats for example, or to find organ meats, which our
ancestors preferred to muscle meats. Frankly I myself have given up on
Paleodiet perfection because it is simply too disruptive to my life.
What I would like to hear (and I have asked this question on the Paleodiet
list and gotten zilch for an answer) is what kind of compromises might be
intelligently made given the great difficulty in easily approximating a
Paleolithic diet today without taking herculean pains as to purity,
availability, etc.). Example: Unless we are hunters like Ray Audette living
in the right circumstances, we simply can't get organ meats today in any
appreciable quantities. So right from the start we have a problem. How are
we going to compensate for this lack? That's question number one in my book.
Another question is eggs. Eggs in small quantities were a part of the
Paleolithic diet. But not in the regular quantities most people eat them
today. But given the lack of available organ meats, could there be
something to be said for eating more eggs--within limits--(as a rich,
so-called "perfect" protein) as a possible compensatory source of rich
proteins? Is it possible that the fact people eat more of certain things
these days (perhaps without thinking about it, like eggs) may be some sort
of attempt on the body's part to bring a balance given the lack of the
foods we *did* eat during evolution? These are the sorts of questions that
interest me, and the risks involved.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I have had real trouble, even when
buying top-grade meats from local butchers, with having to spit out
mouthfuls which just aren't always masticatable down to a swallowable
bolus. Sometimes up to half of the cut of meat. This has made me appreciate
up-close-and-personal why the softer organ meats would have been eaten in
preference by our ancestors. But since those aren't available, it makes me
wonder if turning to eggs in response like I often seem to do is not such a
bad thing if kept within limits. There is also the question of cost. I just
can't afford to eat 35%50% of my diet as meat to approximate the Paleodiet
picutre. So by economics and circumstance, I am willing to take risks too,
I guess.
>I think I am prepared to adopt the guilty-until-proven-innocent
>principle, provided that I have some idea of what would count as
>"proven innocent." Is there any example of a food that, although
>not available to paleolithic people, has been demonstrated to be
>safe for us?
Not that I know of personally. Every time I have attempted bring one up
(like the case for limited amounts of grains as a supplement to the diet),
I have had it shot down by researcher Loren Cordain with reams of
Paleolithic data and research cites. Legumes, grains, tomatoes, almost
anything you want to name that wasn't a part of the Paleolithic diet--put
the question to Loren Cordain about it and he'll probably be able to dig up
a research cite about it. After awhile, you begin to see there already is
getting to be plenty of the kind of evidence you are after if you know who
to ask.
>Do we have a sense of what would count as
>sufficient evidence for such a conclusion? If not, then the
>principle is really "guilty-no-matter-what."
Hmmm. You know, it seems to me it is more a question of inductive reasoning
(proposing a general rule from observing particulars) vs. deductive.
Paleolithic reasoning is more deducive (you start from the general
evolutionary premise and reason as to specific foods). Modern nutritional
reasoning is more inductive or bottom-up. With inductive reasoning, all you
have to show is one instance that doesn't fit the hypothesis, and you have
disproved it, so it is difficult to ever come by definitive proof, because
someone can always object, "Well, you haven't tested *everything* yet, and
if you did it might show the food *is* (or *is not*) beneficial (as the
case may be). But it's almost impossible to test all the possible
extenuating circumstances, which is why modern nutritional research can be
so maddening and exasperating with the about-faces and reversals, and why
Paleolithic reasoning can often be so valuable and cut through it all.
>According to this
>argument, even relatively minor deviations from the
>evolutionarily safe diet could cause large and unpredictable
>derangements of metabolism and health, which would be exceedingly
>difficult to trace to their causes. I would gladly learn more
>about this.
Me too because it also bears on my own question of how much Paleolithic
"compromise" (like I feel is necessary in modern times) is tolerable (even
unavoidable given in today's world) by the organism without significant
consequences. On the other hand, just what constitues a "deviation" from
the Paleolithic norm is itself an interesting question since the
Paleolithic "norm" was such a varied omnivorous diet to begin with. Since
the human species has always been quite "opportunist," I have always gone
under the assumption that in the main, it is can be helpful not to look so
much at certain specific foods that might (or might not) be problematic,
but more looking at the overall classes of foods that would have been
available given the technology of the past to an opportunitistic species.
--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>
|
