On Jul 2, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Diane Heath wrote:
> ...
>      I think there are still problems basing predictions on blood work alone, or from anecdotal results, or very small N's, as I try to make my decisions. …

Ultimately, the only "N" that matters is 1 -- you.  A diet that works great for 90% of the population can be deadly to you if you're allergic to something that the other 90% consume without problems.   

>     There is no doubt that the current Western diet is devastating to health for many reasons.  I want to listen carefully and respect and weigh any evidence that comes up on dietary recommendations and I tend to shy away from emotional commitments without sufficient body of evidence to back them up."

I suppose it all boils down to what is a sufficient body of evidence.  For me personally, when I move from standard dietary fare to paleo, I see an almost immediate drop in blood pressure and blood sugar, improved blood work (cholesterol, triglycerides),  and a corresponding improvement in energy level and general well being.  My sample size is 1.  Is that a sufficient body of evidence?  Why not?   If I touched a hot stove and burnt my hand, my sample size is still 1, yet I am fully convinced that I am correct to believe I should not do that again -- whether or not a study has been done to back up that conclusion.  


--
  Robert Kesterson
  [log in to unmask]