Paleo question

Jeff

More than 500 posts
No need to get snarky about it.  I was just pointing out that the whole concept the Paleo Diet is built around could possibly be flawed.  If evolution didn't occur exactly the way the Paleo guys say it did, then that could be a problem.  Others here have already pointed out what seem to be inconsistencies with the whole Paleo Diet idea.  If you believed that you only needed to eat spinach to get strong, you could conduct an experiment to see if that is really true.
 

ali

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
The main message behind the paleo lifestyle is nutrient density or just simply proper food. As far as grains go, they are for the most part off menu due to their processing, additives, insulin spiking, anti-nutrient, gluten profile. However, sprouted grains are a different beast altogether, as they are, according to some, one of the most nutrient rich foods available. I don't know if they are considered paleo though as buckwheat is accepted, an older grain and gluten free. I went paleo-ish to discover in my middle age that I have a gluten sensitivity/tolerance issue after a process of elimination and self experimentation, so I'm not going to be critical of the paleo movement but would agree that somewhere, somehow, the very word paleo is now used as a marketing ploy in much the same way as 'organic', 'gluten free' and/or other 'health' products. And products they are.

Interesting here in the uk last night a documentary on red meat eating featured a doctor as a narrator who ate a high-ish quantity of meat over 1 month. Health checks before and after revealed he got fatter, cholesterol was up, BP up etc with the conclusion that excess meat, for a whole load of possible reasons, results in a possible early death. Yet all the footage of him chowing down his meat diet consisted of him eating his burger in a bun, bacon in bread, munching deep fried (no doubt in veg oil) onion rings with no mention that his grain quota was up too! A variable that was totally by-passed. Why is it that a non scientist and lay person can spot this, yet a BBC science documentary featuring a doctor doing the actual study and various Harvard profs fail to mention? Did nothing to shift me from my meat and 4 veg.
 

Jeff

More than 500 posts
Alastair, those are good points.  In my mind, the extra meat wasn't the problem.  I think the Paleo diet is pretty healthy.  There is no doubt in my mind that it would be a huge improvement for most people. It is interesting, though, that when you read Robb Wolf's book, that he actually makes allowances for things that are not strictly speaking Paleo, like Nor Cal Magarittas.  But if you read the forum on his web site, that his followers get all wound up around the axel about things thst aren't Paleo because they wouldn't have been around at the time that Paleo man would have lived.  Robb's disciples are more Paleo than he is.  Even Robb is willing to make concessions for things that either do no harm, or even provide benefit.
 

GeoffreyLevens

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Sorry for snark Jeff. I am just very science based, perceptual based, present based.  A bit of a choke for me to swallow "creationist" um stuff.

 
 

Rickard

More than 500 posts
Geoffrey, I recommend the book The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow to a fellow science based person. The section of model-dependent realism is great.
 

Jeff

More than 500 posts
Geoffrey, no worries.  I certainly don't hold it against you if you don't share my beliefs about God.  I believed that the Bible was the Word of God beforehand, but I have read books written by very credible university level science professors who support a young earth theory and creation.  The notion that all science stacks up against a young earth and creation simply isn't true, it is just not in favor with the mainstream.  But, just like scientists who refute global warming are silenced, scientists who support the creation position are also silenced.
 

GreenSoup

Double-Digit Post Count
I don't know whether evolution was ever at the core of Paleo, but the most solid explanation I had seen for the theory behind the paleo stuff was in "The End of Food," which was a fascinating book in its own right but not related to this specific topic except the history in the first chapter:  Apparently herbivorous ancestors had all kinds of health problems while those who had abundant meat and animal products were very healthy.

Correlation does not equal causation but it does suggest possibilities. I could see how someone might say "eat like they did and I'll experience the health that they had."
 

Jeff

More than 500 posts
GreenSoup,

Actually, evolution is the main premise that the Paleo Diet guys base their whole concept on.  You couldn't read one of their books and come away with any other conclusion.  That doesn't necessarily mean to throw the baby out with the bath water.  Even though I don't believe in evolution, I still see merits in the Paleo Diet approach.  There very well may be a lot of people with an intolerance to gluten.  I don't know if it has always been that way, or if it is something that has developed relatively recently.  I might disagree with the reason for the gluten intolerance since I don't believe in evolution, but I can't disagree with the fact that there really is a gluten intolerance for many people.
 

JamesO

More than 500 posts
For another view on the Christian creation narrative, I think it is more of a social story of God's relationship with humanity than anything else, as was much of the old testament wisdom literature and the style of the "competing" creation narrative of its day, the Mesopotamian creation narrative of Tiamat and Marduk.  I think we Christians have a lot of room for more scientific models of earth's origins than we sometimes think.

If anyone isn't interested, feel free to skip to the next post.

The Christian creation narrative is absolutely the most meaningful story in scripture to me.  In that day and age, the Hebrews considered themselves lower than dirt.  They'd been raised to believe earth and life were just an afterthought -- the result of the chaos that ensued when Tiamat and Marduk were at war.

In comes this new narrative that gives them purpose.  One who's stark contrast to everything else challenges what they've always believed (sound similar to the rest of scripture?).  Here earth was created by one god, not many (requiring a major shift in worldview and the belief in a very powerful god), it's spoken into being without the chaos of war (again, must be powerful, must be peaceful), people are created with intention (they weren't the incidental effect of something else), and god comes down to commune with them (another pattern seen throughout scripture. "Oh that you would rend the heavens and come down" - Isaiah.  The entirety of the gospel narratives.  God's returning.).

Just another way to look at things.  One that's more contextually aligned with it's original audience.
 

GeoffreyLevens

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
I have been on many forums and in many face to face conversations. Discussing religion, the very best you can hope for is that no one gets too upset. It is a waste of energy. Really. I think we really should try to stick w/ developing physical strength and things that directly aid that on this forum.

Have to add that my above post, that is a pretty solid Paleo dis is probably not so appropriate so will remove it if I can. This forum is called "Strong First". Concerns about longer term disease risk, let alone the afterlife, creation of Universe, etc to me seem way out of context here.
 

guacadoggie

Triple-Digit Post Count
Hunter, Paleo/Primal/ancestral principles are structured around pre-agricultural humans. What you listed was "civilized" humans, where agriculture had already been introduced.

Using the principles for diet, and all-around living (barefoot shoes, minding our circadian rhythm, etc.), is not a must. It's simply guidelines. I choose not to eat grains, legumes, and industrial food because I don't like the way they make me feel. I choose to eat whole foods: meats, seafood, eggs, veggies, fruits, nuts, and raw dairy. Sometimes I have some alcohol or some chocolate, but in general, I just try to eat nutritionally dense foods that make my life better. I'm all for this lifestyle, not just diet, but I don't freak out if I have an indiscretion. I've had noticeable differences in my overall health since I started this over a year ago.
 

Jeff

More than 500 posts
Geoffrey,

Evolution is a religious discussion, and one of the main points of Wolf and Cordain in their support of the Paleo diet.

It is possible to discuss the merits of a certain exercise program or diet based on the observable or measuureable results, but in the case of the Paleo Diet, the major proponents of the diet have made religion one of their major presuppositions.

Are you upset with Cordain for making the religious belief in evolution a major part of his argument, or upset with me for pointing out that fact?
 

GeoffreyLevens

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Not upset in the slightest. I totally agree that Paleo is much more of a religion and not really a science based diet. All the decent science points to moderately low protein, moderately low fat, high carb (all complex), and most of all of it from plants as minimally processed as possible. There is no proof that small amounts (under 5-10% of total calories) of animal source foods is a problem but the rest should be from plants. That is the science of it. I do think Cordain is deluded though I have been around long enough to not get upset at all by it.
 

The Scientist

Triple-Digit Post Count
Jeffrey,

You need to revisit a dictionary and begin working to understand the difference between faith and evidence. Religion is based on faith, which is necessarily in the absence of evidence. The evidence for the well-established and supported theory of evolution by natural selection is incredibly strong. Equivalent to that of other well known theories - the theory of gravitational pull, the theory of general relativity, etc... Every time that science and religion have butted heads, religion has lost (the earth's rotation, earthquakes, volcanoes, tectonic plates shifting, on and on...). Your deciding to call something scientific a matter of religion doesn't make it true - you are just embarrassing yourself.

And to those of you who will criticize me for being too harsh and not playing nice, I defend myself in advance. Nonsense like this brings society down and is an embarrassment. I will call it out every time.
 

Jeff

More than 500 posts
Saying there is no God is just as much a religious statement as saying that there is.  Saying that the world evolved is as much a religious statement as saying it was created.

You think my position is stupid?  That doesn't really bother me all that much.  Embarrassed about my faith?  Not so much.
 

Matt

More than 300 posts
I think you could argue that evolution is both a religious and scientific discussion.  There would have to be some hypothesis for the theory which is taken as assumed? - therein lies an element of faith or the equivalent.  Philosophically you could argue that with a lot of science.

Science gets around this by claiming that's for future discoveries/research I guess, which can be a little convenient.

Still, philosophically it is not as black and white as often claimed in my opinion.
 

GeoffreyLevens

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Did I miss something? Did someone say there is not God?

And the above posts (both Jeffrey's and The Scientist's) are EXACTLY what I meant about discussing religion here.   Go back and look at the OP's initial post and see if we are actually in any way addressing his questions.  
 
Top Bottom