On Mon, 08 May 2006 20:02:22 -0400, Adam Sroka <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Regret that I can't answer that question - I use the experience of
>> millions of years of life to support the paleo priciple. Compared to
>> that, the flawed reports of scientists are insignificant. IMHO.
> I'm going to go ahead and assume that your *actual* experience and that
> of the last several dozen generations of your ancestors is restricted to
> modern times and all that goes along with them. Therefore, what you
> *think* you know about "millions of years of life" had to come from
> somewhere. After all neither you nor anyone you know was there. Or maybe
> you are just guessing? There seems to be a lot of that going on around
> here.
The record of millions of years is written in our bodies. It is called the
immune system, also instinct. I'm not guessing.
>
> What we, as a community, believe about the lifestyle and dietary habits
> of the original humans is based on decades of research by
> archaeologists, primatologists, paleoanthropologists, etc.
Wrong. I was eating paleo before learning that there was a community.
I am NOT a BELIEVER.
all of whom
> relied heavily on the empirical scientific method to arrive at their
> understanding based on the evidence available to them. This picture is
> evolving all the time.
Yes, this is what I meant by flawed. It is a result of believing what they
are told, and acting on those beliefs. Essential Neolithic behaviour.
>
> What you, and a few others on this list, seem to be doing is advocating
> for a particular set of beliefs by
Again, NOT a believer.
attacking the very principles on
> which those beliefs are founded.
My God wiser than your God. I assume this proposition prompted your post.
Is it true that scientists sometimes
> ignore the evidence in favor of what they believe? Sure. Are dietary
> studies often fundamentally flawed in that they assume too much and fail
> to control for an immense number of variables? Absolutely. Does this
> mean that the principles of science are themselves flawed? I sincerely
> doubt it. If this were true then the paleo diet would be equally flawed,
> because it too is founded on scientific principles.
If sci=psi and refer to the mental function we call intelligence, and is
used for what in plain English is called learning, then too many so-called
scientists are actually preachers.
The paleo diet was not flawed in paleolithic times, we have the evidence.
For us it is a model which we cannot perfectly achieve because it requires
environmental support which is one with the snows of yesteryear.
>
> As to the original question: there are many studies which support the
> individual assertions that taken together form the "paleo principles."
> Which ones of these are most important depends on who you ask.
> Individual assertions that can be supported by scientific research
> include:
>
> 1) Early humans and some other hominids were big game hunters who relied
> heavily on animal flesh for their diet.
What about those who lived on mice and shellfish? Or anything small that
moved under it's own power.
> 2) Eating animal fat is not bad for you.
> 3) Eating large quantities of protein (Provided that *some* calories
> come from fat and or carbs as well) is not bad for you (And it will
> certainly not make you fat, as some "scientists" have claimed. A calorie
> *is not* a calorie.)
Is this proven?
> 4) Ketosis is not bad for you (Provided that your intake of fat is
> adequate)
Duh. I don't use the idea of ketosis. What are the symptoms?
> 5) Gluconeogenesis is not bad for you (Provided that your intake of
> protein is adequate)
> 6) Refined carbohydrates are a) not necessary to the diet. b) harmful in
> large quantities. c) potentially harmful in moderate quantities.
Add d) drugs useful in creating the neolithic reality including modern
science.
> 7) Vegetable oil is a) unnecessary to the diet. b) harmful in large
> quantities. c) potentially harmful in moderate quantities.
If it is true that the study that showed low fat is good actually studied
the evils of vegetable fat, then I would suggest: c) harmful in any
quantity.
> 8) Neither saturated fat nor cholesterol in the diet cause heart disease.
See my remark under > 7).
There would have been no point in studying the effect of sat fat or
cholesterol on heart disease, as there had been little incidence of heart
disease until after ~1940. I'm referring to the study that showed fat is
bad. True of veggy fat.
> 9) Sodium does not cause high blood pressure.
>
> I'm sure that others will fill in what I am leaving out. And, there are
> citations to be had somewhere...
>
Yes, and while citations are valuable, they can lead to error.
Eschew belief.
William
|