PALEOFOOD Archives

Paleolithic Eating Support List

PALEOFOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Dean Esmay <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Paleolithic Eating Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 3 Jun 1997 13:54:43 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (88 lines)
>Some of us are speculating on the tremendous database available in this
>area.  We've identified the contradictions in both the data and the
>conventional wisdom ... and we'd like an answer.  Now as frustrating as
>it might be there may not be a readily available *answer* however, but
>the exercise is worth its weight in proverbial gold.  This is because we
>expand the boundaries of what is known in the community of scientists
>while at the same time we are testing the boundaries of what we as
>individuals know and presume to be true.


Granted, however, keep in mind that this is a list to support everyday
dieters trying to incorporate paleolithic nutrition concepts into their
daily lives.  Speculation of this nature should be identified as
speculation and phrased carefully, because you may be frightening people
for no good reason.  I don't object to the discussion but at the same time
I would like to suggest that it's important to point out that this -is-
speculation and it may not be true.

I have yet to see convincing evidence that AA is a potent health hazard,
either in the scientific literature or in my personal experience, nor have
I seen even one individual who has successfully correlated health problems
with AA in their empirical experience.  Given this it seems important to me
to tell people that they may be worried over nothing.

>How can you be sure that the cause and effects you are witnessing in
>your personal experiences are due to AA?

I never claimed that they are, actually.  ;-)

What I can tell you is that when I changed my diet radically, said change
including an ENORMOUS increase in intake of AA, my health improved in every
measurable way.  I don't credit this to the AA; perhaps I would be
healthier still without the AA, perhaps the AA made no difference at all,
perhaps the AA helped.  My =guess= would be the second of the three
possibilities: that it made no difference at all.

There's also the interesting fact that a -large- number of individuals use
a few tablespoons of flax seed oil to improve their blood lipids.  It works
remarkably well for a lot of people, even though it's loaded with AA.  This
is another reason I am suspicious that the "controversy" over AA is
pointless without further study.

Note that in all of this I am not suggesting that there is no possibility
that AA is harmful to anyone.  I am simply skeptical and I feel that it's
important not to warn people off of a food that may be completely harmless,
especially on a diet where avoiding that food is very difficult.

>There are many many strong facts. [about AA as a health hazard]

Please share them.

>My question I
>ask when confronted with any argument is, "Why this perspective?"  I
>want to know why has this perspective been chosen to advance these
>facts.  What is the agenda of the author?


Unfortunate.  A question doesn't need too have an agenda.  An argument
against a position need not have an agenda either.  Assuming an agenda, in
my experience, is a good way to avoid having to think too hard about what
we believe or our own arguments.  Unless the question is outrageously
slanted, it's important to simply answer it in all honesty.

I continue to see no evidence that AA is a threat to my health, or the
health of anyone else, and some data which suggests it isn't.  So what
specifically is it that makes you think it's a danger?


>Ever wonder whay the highest academic award is the Doctor of
>Philosophy?  The PhD is awarded to scientists for their ability ask
>questions and frame answers (pardon the over simplification).  They are
>truly philosophers.

There are different definitions of "Philosopher" and it has different
shades of meaning depending on context.  I am as much of a philosopher as
you inasmuch as my philosophy is one which demands empirical evidence or
something beyond idle speculation.  This is as much a philosophy as
anything else.  The truth is that idle speculation is the easiest part of
research on any subject; the real work comes in when you try to demonstrate
that your speculation is grounded in reality.

 -=-=-

Once in a while you get shown the light/
 In the strangest of places if you look at it right   ---Robert Hunter

http://www.syndicomm.com/esmay

ATOM RSS1 RSS2