"Jim Swayze [log in to unmask] XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" wrote:
>
> Jim Walsh> Some of us are gambling our (short term) lives on the
> answer to such questions. I think that's a pretty good reason to
> waste time worrying about it. :)
>
> I hear you. And if you enjoy worrying, then I guess so.
Not worrying per se, but putting in some effort trying to find some
answers to questions that may be vital to my long term survival.
> Personally, I don't enjoy fretting over the piles of conflicting and nonsensical
> nutritional advice out there.
You have the luxury of not being 90% of the way dead! :)
> Two more points on this. First, I do not understand the seeming
> religious faith put in each opinion that issues from the medical
> establishment.
Simple, people presume that the medical establishment has opinions based
on hard science. Most educated people understand that hard science can
*usually* be pretty trustworthy. The problem is, a lot of opinions held
by the medical establishment are the result of something *other* than
hard science. Exactly which opinions I am unable to determine...
> If you accept the paleo theory at all, then it
> follows that the *overwhelming* majority of doctors and nutritionists are
> operating with faulty assumptions about the cause and maintenance of human
> health.
Agreed.
> Heck, in my opinion, even leading a pro-paleo expert such as Dr.
> Cordain is unable to divorce himself from the mostly well meaning but
> overwhelmingly misguided assumptions of the medical majority. Thus his
> overemphasis on low fat, vis a vis Ray Audette. But even assuming that
> Loren's dead on right, which he might be, we've got to ignore a lot of info
> that's being shoved in our faces constantly. Second, I believe that once
> you adopt the paleo way of eating (Ray's way or Cordain's strict way),
> you're 90% of the way there. The other 10% deals with issues like
> saturated fat and the like. You want to worry about the 10%, fine.
Specifically, that particular 10% probably holds 95% of the key to my
long/medium term survival. This may not be the case for you, but it is
for me - hence the perhaps apparent fixation with some of the "details".
I don't have much wiggle-room to make mistakes with.
> Let's talk. But have faith in God and the goodness of nature, not some confused
> guy in a lab coat.
Most guys with lab coats are, I think, pretty cluey and good sources of
information. I don't think all the misconceptions come from lab guys. I
strongly suspect the more political members of society.
> Jim Walsh > And there's the crunch. I can't help wondering if *any* of what
> is available to me today was available to man say, 50,000 years ago. More
> to the point, is *any* of what was available to him, available to me?
>
> I don't think we have to mimic exactly what he was eating. Avoid obvious
> stuff that he wouldn't have eaten: grains, dairy, etc. You could live a
> very healthy life -- you'd be 90% of the way there -- on food you can get
> at any supermarket.
However, my situation (being notably different from most) is that I am
also 90% of the way to killing myself. I have to tread very carefully so
as not to finish my self off! :)
To me (and perhaps others with chronic disease) that 10% may be
disproportionately important.
> Grainfed beef, frozen chicken, almonds, pecans, olive
> oil, onions, fruit, spinach, etc. Want to worry about the other 10%? Good
> for you, that's admirable. Then look for grassfed beef, free range
> chickens, native fruits and vegetables, wild game and fret more about the
> minutiae then.
The "minutiae" may well be the difference between progression, and
regression of my disease. Unfortunately, the freedom to choose some of
those details is directly proportional to income.
But... having said all that, I completely agree with your stance for a
person in reasonable health. I think the human body is very adaptable
and tolerates abuse (toxins etc.) very well. Going 90% would probably be
more than enough for the average person with the remaining 10% offering
little perceptible benefit.
Jim Walsh
|
