I am glad to see this list where we can talk in less abstruse terms and
communicate in more common language about more practical dietary concerns
than the more formal, moderated, research-oriented Paleodiet list. Frankly,
while I have done a lot of research myself into Paleodiet as a layperson,
and enjoy sampling the knowledge of those with research credentials posting
on the Paleodiet list, after awhile one wants to talk practicalities. So
bravo and kudos to whoever started and is maintaining this list. (I don't
believe the post on Paleodiet about this new Paleofood list mentioned
specific individuals, but whoever you are, THANK YOU.)

Todd Moody writes:

>Addendum:  The "is/ought" premise of the paleodiet:  If
>hunter/gatherers don't (or didn't) eat it, then we shouldn't eat
>it.
>
>This strikes me as a reasonable *hypothesis*, but perhaps it
>needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis.  That is, before
>"fruits" are classified "forbidden" we should have relatively
>specific reasons for the classification, in addition to the
>generic is/ought premise.  Does this make sense?

Well, the question certainly makes perfect sense to me. It seems like THE
classic question, in fact, to me about what to do with incomplete
information, or unproven information, and even so-called "conventional
(scientific) wisdom"--which itself often can turn out to be wrong.

I guess my own viewpoint on this is that there are two basic paths one can
choose from in the attempt to decide what to do with the (usually
incomplete) information one has available to them at any given time. One
way--the way of the cautious, anal-retentive, overly reductionist scientist
often living in an ivory tower--is to (hopefully) never have to act until
all the data is in, and one can be absolutely sure of themselves. (I'm kind
of drawing a line in the sand with that comment, so have at me, fellow
posters. :-) )

Of course, in the real world, conditions are rarely ever so neat and clean,
and to insist on this can seriously hamstring action. By the time one
decides to act, the "window of opportunity" for possible success if one is
going to act at all could have passed. (And I frankly doubt there are ever
going to be any double-blind, hermetically sealed, perfectly controlled
studies on Paleodiet or other natural foods, since you can't put foods like
that into a swallowable pill to fool people with placebos. :-) )

The other way, of course, is the way that Paleodiet diet takes: Start from
a working premise (the "is/ought" premise mentioned above) which is at
least generally on-target, though it may be lacking in details or
peer-reviewed research (so far, anyway). You reason from one of the "given
principles" or root assumptions of evolution; that we as homo sapiens (like
any other species) are adapted to what we did over a long enough period of
genetic time to become adapted to. And an important corollary of that
reasoning is that anything that strays from that evolutionary adaptation
is--by the principles of evolution itself, if not guaranteed--at least
highly likely to be inimical to health and survival. Unless of course, it
happens to be one of those rare deviations governed by a genetic mutation
that just happens to be beneficial.

So from this viewpoint, insisting on a case-by-case analysis that may not
be available before deciding what to do is tantamount to saying one is in
doubt about the premises underlying all Of evolutionary reasoning, and
perhaps does not take them seriously. (Of course, if one also knows
case-by-case details and scientific studies to support them, I certainly
welcome that--all the better, it's gravy, so to speak, and we definitely
ought to be working toward that eventuality wherever possible.)

At least this way one has a general vision of the direction to proceed and
you can have a chance act before it may be too late to prove of much
benefit. You might not be as sure of all the details as the scientist who
waits until all the data is in, but then that scientist might have
effectively opted out of great benefit by waiting too long. And when one
has little or nothing to lose by being wrong, and much to possibly gain,
why not go ahead and try?

This seems to me a more rational approach based on a simple understanding
of the probabilities and the odds where evolutionary mechanisms are
involved. Whereas the overly cautious approach is to me the less rational
if it is based on psychological fear of being intellectually wrong (and a
stain on one's scientific self-image), rather than focusing more on the
potential real-world cost/benefits of going ahead and trying something that
might be unknown but that has some sound evolutionary reasoning going for
it.

A side issue here: From what I can tell, the overly cautious, case-by-case
approach also often seems to have the side effect of blinding researchers'
long-term scientific vision about what meaningful subjects (of benefit to
the common person rather than narrow scientific interests) are worthy of
researching. Much of dietary research to me today looks like researchers
blindly groping around in the dark with little to guide their research
program other than what other scientists they compete with are publishing
and getting famous for.

Paleodiet principles from evolutionary reasoning could give them that
vision, because it is based on broader, more overarching principles--rather
than on the thicket of bottom-up epidemiological data as one's guide to
further research, which often turns out to be subject to a welter of
conflicting reinterpretations, questions, challenges, and then ultimately
perhaps found wrong after everyone believed it be right. (As is now
potentially seeming to be the case with the "animal fat is bad" line of
reasoning that has held sway for a couple of decades now.)

I personally believe much of the best scientific research in fields like
diet (subjects, in other words, that have great relevance for the behavior
of the average person) gets its initial impetus from (often derisively
labeled) "anecdotal reports" from people (like many of us, perhaps) who
have gone ahead and tried things in spite of lack of specific scientific
citations (but which may have much in the way of broader evolutionary
reasoning to support them), which then--in time, with increasing
familiarity and less strangeness--start looking worthy of more serious
investigation to mainstream science.

Where do scientists get their ideas for research, anyway? I don't think
they  dream all of them up in the lab. I think like any of us, they often
they start hearing things and finally are prodded into researching
something because of publicity, high-profile examples, etc., that garner
enough attention to motivate them in spite of possible prejudices they may
have.

I certainly don't mean to recommend reckless behavior or experimentation
here. But if one has *general* scientific principles which have had a long
track record of success (such as evolution) in explaining things, I say go
ahead and try things if they can't harm and could possibly help. There are
always going to be unknowns regarding specific details. In fact, it seems
to me it is the unknowns themselves that are the fuel driving scientific
activity in the first place. I mean, information is almost always
incomplete, no? Even so, we still have to act. Seems to me we don't have
much choice. We act on what we know, but also on our assessment of the
probabilities of what is still unknown. We can either take the unknown as a
barrier to further action--or assess its probabilities and forge ahead
further than we otherwise could, always knowing that we could be wrong (or
right) in any particular instance. But hopefully the probabilities will
give us a winning score in the long run.

--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>