Jim Swayze wrote:

>There were many arguments for and against God's existence.
>
Hey, I wrote a book on that subject!

>Many find that maddening, they just HAVE to have proof before believing.  Those types generally discredit the power of intuition as a means of knowledge.  But again,
> it is the nature of this world that you just have to make a priori assumptions.
>
>

I'm not one of those.  I recognize that outside of mathematics, proof
isn't available for many things.  But when it comes to nutrition, my
*intuition* is that the reality is very complicated, and the various
"rules" fail to capture it, and that's why they are inconsistent.

>My way of looking at this is to start with a minimum and expand from there if necessary.  Something tells me that one could stick with Ray's vision of this thing -- follow his guidelines exactly -- and have a very, very healthy life.
>
I don't disagree.  But my intuition is that one could depart from his
guidelines in a number of ways and be just as healthy.  Listen, I'm not
trying to dissuade anyone from anything here.  This is, indeed, a paleo
support forum, and I think we all agree on *something* that could be
called "paleo," but of course as the discussions move forward we descend
from generalities to details, and it's at the level of details that the
inconsistencies become apparent, and hard to ignore.  That's why we'll
always have people saying "Tubers aren't paleo" and others saying "But
some tubers are edible raw" and others saying "Well don't eat them
anyway, because they push your insulin up," and so on.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]