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