On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 18:05:01 -0500, Keith Thomas <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>... in the more affluent countries at the present time the main
>quantitative deviation from the natural diet is over-consumption of food.

This is actually not a difference between hunter-gatherer societies
and agricultural societies.    Obesity is a recent phenomenon.   As
mentioned in the other current thread, agricultural societies have
often had millions of members with relatively little to eat.

>This is the outcome of two main sets of influences.
>
>• First, ... humans perform much less physical work than was usual
>in the natural habitat

This is a very recent trend, and seems to be a feature of
technological civilization, rather than agricultural civilization.
Even today,  there is a significant difference between Europe and
America, both in quantity of activity and quantity of food eaten - and
some think that is responsible for the greater prevalence of obesity
in America.

>• Second, a number of cultural factors have come into play that tend
>to increase the amount of food eaten by various sectors of the
>population.  These include:
>
>- efforts, through the culinary art and the food processing
>industry, to increase the palatability and general attractiveness of
>foodstuffs

This claim is countered by the fact that the blue-collar people who
know zero about cuisine and eat the junkiest and least palatable of
food, are more obese than upper-middle-class white-collar people who
watch cooking shows and go to expensive restaurants.

>- the cultural notion of three meals a day

There is no connection between number of meals and quantity of food
eaten and/or obesity.   High performance athletes and fitness fanatics
often eat six meals a day.

>- certain rituals like business lunches and social dinner parties
>[and book launches]

These activities don't happen often enough to contribute to anyone's
overall health or eating patterns.

>- sheer boredom. (Page 51)

If the author of the book had thought about this sentence for ten
seconds, he would have realized that there is certainly no greater
boredom in modern obese societies than there was in 100,000 BC.

In my experience, it's been a long time since anyone wrote a book
where they did not write the conclusions first, and then base their
premises and "evidence" to fit the conclusions.

No one these days seems to understand that it is far better for us in
the long run to know how things really are, and then base our world
view on that.   Instead, everyone seems to (arbitrarily) choose a
world view, and then cheer for it as if it were a football team.

Wishful thinking is not going to make people more healthy.
Vegetarians are a perfect example of this - the desire to never harm
other animals is admirable, but is not actually practical in the real
world.   Similarly, the philosophical ideas underlying the "greens"
are beautiful, but also don't correspond to the real natural world.

In the same way, the Paleo viewpoint will not produce beneficial
results unless it is coupled with a desire to investigate first and
draw conclusions afterwards.


--
Cheers,

Ken