Ken Engelhart wrote:

>I think that it does make sense to apply a non-uniform standard of evidence.
>An short article last year in Skeptic magazine commented on the difficulty
>in doing studies to determine what is good to eat.  The author suggested
>that it may be several generations before we have all the answers.  My
>reaction to the article was: "Well what are we supposed to eat in the
>meantime?"  I think the Paleo diet gives us a "null hypothesis" that we can
>start with.  Studies that encourage us to eat non-Paleo foods should be met
>with extreme skepticism.  As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require
>extraordinary proof.  If that is proof is forthcoming, start eating.  ( I
>for example have convinced myself that red wine has passed the test.   But
>maybe I lowered the standard.)  Similarly, studies that show that paleo
>foods are bad to eat should be met with skepticism.  But again, given
>sufficient proof we should not eat those foods. Ken
>
>

I have no problem using some paleo "rule" as a guiding principle, which
is what paleodiet is all about after all.  As you say, we have to make
dietary choices somehow. But which rule?  The problems begin when we try
to *justify* one rule rather than another.  The paleo diet doesn't give
us just one null hypothesis; it gives us several..

You say that studies that encourage us to eat non-Paleo foods should be
met with "extreme skepticism," and that we shouldn't eat them until the
proof is there.  What makes the claim that a non-paleo foods is healthy
extraordinary?  And what counts as proof that a food is healthy?
 Without clear answers to these questions, Sagan's dictum does no work.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]