Ron:
Wonderfully put.
You mention your papers - please let us know where we might find them for
our benefit.
the following remark seems to be missing an important element: "Similarly,
when we look at populations that consumed 80% fat and 20% throughout most of
the year, over thousands of years..." 20% what?
thanks and best regards, amigo
stay strong,
Ken

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Ron Hoggan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Neil, Robert, Ken O, and  Ken A,
> Thanks for your thoughtful comments. While I agree that Cordain's position
> on ph  does not square with observations of the real world, it is only
> through careful and detailed observation, sometimes using a microscope, that
> we now have insight into the autoimmune stimulating dynamics associated with
> consumption of many neolithic foods, especially gluten grains and legumes.
> So, looking through a microscope does, I think, help us understand some
> features of a healthy diet.
>
> I view our own bodies as our best guide to our collective evolutionary
> past. Our proportionately short intestines, reduction of the appendix to a
> vestigial echo of cellulose fiber digestion, and our enormous and positive
> changes in body conformation, improved cardio and vascular health, increased
> cancer resistance, improved energy, etc. etc. all point to our having
> evolved eating a high fat, meat dominated diet. Many of us experience
> dramatically better function in ketosis. That, too, is a message from our
> evolutionary past. These messages are telling us that the 'science' of
>  Nutrition at its current stage is quite retarded. In 2009 we are at about
> the same level as Medicine was when they were leaching sick people and
> recommending against bathing more often than once a month.
>
> Similarly, when we look at populations that consumed 80% fat and 20%
> throughout most of the year, over thousands of years, it becomes clear that
> Cordain's conclusions about ph and fat consumption just don't stand up to
> scrutiny. Every nutrition guru has her/his Achiles Heel...... usually
> several of them. Cordain, although a major force behind the paleodiet
> movement, is mired in many of the superstitions of current nutritional
> wisdom. His work has helped expand the boundaries of human knowledge and is
> therefore venerable. But his ideas are not above question. Anointing
> prophets should be eschewed in favor of rigorous challenges that may render
> his ideas down to a core of one or two significant contributions to the
> field. If he is responsible for just one one or two significant insights
> into human nutrition that stand the test of time, he will be most fortunate.
> Most scientists labor their entire lives working toward a single discovery
> that they never reach. Giving Cordain the status of a prophet diminishes him
> as a scientist. Assuming he has mastery of his entire field is just silly.
>
> I am grateful for Cordain's pathbreaking work in the field of gluten grains
> (see: Cereral Grains: Humanity's Double-Edged Sword). I am grateful for his
> work fostering a paleo perspective in nutrition. These are both, in my
> opinion, major contributions to the field of human nutrition.  However, I
> will keep on challenging his ideas any and every time I see  something that
> I consider to be faulty. That, I believe, is the fairest and most scientific
> approach I can take to his work. I used to cc him with emails when I was
> critical of something he had published. His responses were cranky and
> hostile so I have stopped cc'ing. That doesn't mean that I will stop
> challenging his ideas.
>
> The readers of Dangerous Grains or one of my papers, that I value most, are
> the  ones who challenge me on one point or another. They make me think. They
> get me to reconsider the information I've offered, but in a different light
> than when I wrote it. They open pathways to new insights for me. Sure, I
> like to read comments like "great book," etc., but those who give me the
> greatest gifts are those who speak up and say 'what about this or that? - I
> think you're wrong!'
>
> I'll borrow Neil's line and say that "I could go on and frequently do....."
> and I'll end here.
> Best Wishes,
> Ron
>
> Sorry
>