watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
This has lead to the question:
Why bother with agriculture?
First we had the booze hypothesis.
The latest idea seems to be that neolithic people wanted to own private property, which is hard to do if you're a nomad.
Time to leave the Paleo diet?
- Thread starter Xcal
- Start date
This has lead to the question:
Why bother with agriculture?
First we had the booze hypothesis.
The latest idea seems to be that neolithic people wanted to own private property, which is hard to do if you're a nomad.
LukeV
Level 7 Valued Member
We know that whatever is out there provided by nature is what we evolved to eat. So somewhere within all of that is an optimal diet for the homo sapien (notwithstanding the possibility that science could some up with something better). So out there in nature, fat is actually pretty hard to come by - uncommon in flora and wild animals tend to be lean except pre-winter and even then they’re not tubby like modern farm animals. I’ve never understand the proposition that humans need to eat a lot of fat. Where were we getting it from?
Yes, it's not a science problem, it's a people problem caused by bias, self-interest and incentivisation. The scientific world is deeply corrupted, as are all other areas of human endeavour, such that you really can't believe a word you're reading unless you know who's written it, what their angle is and where their funding comes from. The scientific method doesn't require us to be told the whole truth. For example, the Grains Council is perfectly at liberty to fund five studies, publishing only the one that demonstrates the benign effect of their product, and keeping private the four that indicate harm. Transnational corporations and research institutes keep private whole areas of their research. It's usually only decades after the event that we learn what their scientists really knew.
Last edited:
Simply strong
Level 4 Valued Member
HI all,
I just read this in my favoured newspaper. what do you think? While it captivated my attention, I've never been a proponet of Paleo, preffering IF and mediteranean style food (not diet!). I know that some in this forum are proponents of the Paleo diet.
It’s time to leave the Paleo Diet in the past: Recent studies have failed to support its claims | Life
The Paleo Diet has been a worthwhile experiment, but at this point it seems likely that people following it might just be wasting money.www.news24.com
I don’t need to read the article.
Yes… leave the Palio diet to die
Simply strong
Level 4 Valued Member
Are you American by any chance?
renegadenate
Level 6 Valued Member
Last edited:
A busy thread, this. I'm still catching up, but this one caught my eye.
The environment in which professionals exist varies quite a bit from profession to profession. My personal example is Buteyko breathing - it will never catch on in the US because it would reduce the sales of companies that make medicines that treat the same symptoms Buteyko breathing addresses, and those companies are often the funding source for the studies that medical professionals and the rest of us read. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's unreasonable to trust professionals in some areas and not trust them in others. And, of course, there is that famous joke:
Q: What do you call the person who graduates last in his/her class in medical school?
A: Doctor.
My own GP (general practitioner) told me he'd support me taking a statin drug if I agree to - I didn't - because my total cholesterol number is higher than the current recommendation. I won't rehash all the details at length but all other evidence - ratios of different kinds of cholesterol, recent research suggesting that higher numbers of the good kind of cholesterol are not only not bad, they are protective, and my score of zero of the coronary calcium test, etc. - suggests that a statin medication simply isn't necessary and neither is a change in my cholesterol numbers. I believe my doctor has been unduly influenced by what he hears from companies that make medicines.
Put another way, I think the leap between good science and trusting professionals might be too broad a chasm to span. There is a ton of science out there and very little way for lay people to separate good science from bad, and likewise very little motivation for medical professionals to do the same.
But! I trust the guy who runs the local home maintenance company to fix things at my house. And I believe myself to be trustworthy as a teacher. I trust my piano tuner but I went through many of them before I settled on him.
JMO, YMMV.
-S-
grouchyjarhead
Level 5 Valued Member
I have the same question. Probably tasty though since I see a lot of them there.
Perfect. You could oil up and do some posing for free eggs and chickens.
silveraw
Level 8 Valued Member
His theory was that we were domesticated by plants.
You pick some wheat bring it back to camp and seeds drop along the route. Next thing you know people stick around there longer because there is more wheat and people start planting it on purpose.
Then the population grows and there are too many people to ever put the agricultural genie back in the bottle.
the hansenator
Level 6 Valued Member
bluejeff
Level 6 Valued Member
I think it’s okay to doubt what some sources have to say. Really, I just think people ought to stop when they read or hear something and ask whether they trust the source, and more importantly, WHY they trust the source. Really, playing the “why” game would help a lot. “Why do I believe this?” “Because of [x].” “Why do I believe [x]?” ….
This is a little different but it relates to trusting information. I had a very good, life long friend who at one point got sucked into very deep conspiracy theories (the lizard alien stuff
). Whenever we were discussing or debating, it always boiled down to “why trust this source over the other?” I’ve noticed over the years that people tend to “throw the baby out with the bath water” when it comes to finding out information was incorrect or a straight up deception. When someone we like is suddenly found to have lied or misrepresented info, we tend to distrust everything else they have to say. My fear, I guess, is that is happening with a lot of science these days. Incorrect information, unclear information, misrepresented information, hidden information, etc all have made people more skeptical.
I’m not getting into the weeds on this one, but briefly take the recent vaccine/no vaccine issue. Or masks. It doesn’t matter what your stance is. The world had to witness science being done in real time, where the evidence points one way, then upon more study points another way. The response from some of the public was to distrust scientists, instead of realizing that science is often messy, and most scientists were probably just trying to do their best given that things were being rushed.
All I’m saying is I see people tend to like science (no matter how legit it is) that supports what they want to be true, rather than what might actually BE true.
North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
Yep, real time experiment plus actual research. A lot of folks jumped on the Cochrane meta that appeared to show masks are ineffective but without noting the context of marginal to poor compliance rates. My n=1, I went 2 years without a single head cold or upper respiratory illness. Within 3 weeks of ending mandatory masking at work I had Covid.I think it’s okay to doubt what some sources have to say. Really, I just think people ought to stop when they read or hear something and ask whether they trust the source, and more importantly, WHY they trust the source. Really, playing the “why” game would help a lot. “Why do I believe this?” “Because of [x].” “Why do I believe [x]?” ….
This is a little different but it relates to trusting information. I had a very good, life long friend who at one point got sucked into very deep conspiracy theories (the lizard alien stuff
I’ve noticed over the years that people tend to “throw the baby out with the bath water” when it comes to finding out information was incorrect or a straight up deception. When someone we like is suddenly found to have lied or misrepresented info, we tend to distrust everything else they have to say. My fear, I guess, is that is happening with a lot of science these days. Incorrect information, unclear information, misrepresented information, hidden information, etc all have made people more skeptical.
I’m not getting into the weeds on this one, but briefly take the recent vaccine/no vaccine issue. Or masks. It doesn’t matter what your stance is. The world had to witness science being done in real time, where the evidence points one way, then upon more study points another way. The response from some of the public was to distrust scientists, instead of realizing that science is often messy, and most scientists were probably just trying to do their best given that things were being rushed.
All I’m saying is I see people tend to like science (no matter how legit it is) that supports what they want to be true, rather than what might actually BE true.
Closer to home, Attia no longer associates closely with Taubs but never really walked back his claims re sugar and practices such as real time glucose monitoring. Further, many people still believe a lot of those debunked claims since the initial assertions were relentlessly pushed, the research exploding them had to make the rounds with a lot less fanfare.
This is another factor re bad or fraudulent research, peer review isn't really intended to catch it, and retractions can take years to become public knowledge if ever.
So in general I trust the scientific method, I don't trust everyone who claims to be employing it. Likewise I don't trust every tradesman I might employ without seeing their work.
renegadenate
Level 6 Valued Member
Research on face masks before/during/after COVID showed they are ineffective (only an N-95 properly worn was effective as no cloth mask can stop COVID particles).
My N=1:
I never wore a face mask. I never had COVID.
I had a minor cold (less than a week) in April 2021 and October 2021. I've never had a cold/flu since.
North Coast Miller
Level 9 Valued Member
This illustrates my point pretty clearly.
Cyrus-II
Level 5 Valued Member
TLDR; :yawn: I'll eat what I want. I don't do "Paleo", but do try to eat a more meat/veggie heavy diet, and go light on the ag cereals...but I will occasionally binge eat bread and pasta, and weekly usually skip a day and fast, and typically only eat two meals a day. I've learned to listen to my own body and a varied diet with a meat heavy source is the one more agreeable to me.
---
Jan 3rd, 2019;
One egg a day LOWERS your risk of type 2 diabetes
Nov 19th, 2020;
www.dailymail.co.uk
"The science has changed"
The "newz", it's like soap operas. You can skip them for six months and come back and it's the same howling and bleating for how we must pay attention to what they are telling us. And to take them oh so seriously. Hat tip to 'Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect'.
Likewise whatever pop culture TV show, movies, music etc. is all the rage...eh, if it's that good or important, someone will eventually tell me about it or I'll catch that movie, show or music later.
Frankly, the reduced stress of doing opting out of news and social media has probably added a few years that would offset whatever angle is being sold by the lame stream media whether it's follow Paleo or don't follow it.
For you history buffs, I'll leave an excerpt of this letter by Jefferson to John Norvell - 1807;
Source: Image 2 of Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, June 11, 1807
---
Jan 3rd, 2019;
One egg a day LOWERS your risk of type 2 diabetes
Nov 19th, 2020;
Having just ONE egg a day increases diabetes risk by 60%, study warns
Australian researchers who studied a sample of 8,545 Chinese adults found a positive correlation between higher egg consumption and high blood sugar levels.
"The science has changed"
The "newz", it's like soap operas. You can skip them for six months and come back and it's the same howling and bleating for how we must pay attention to what they are telling us. And to take them oh so seriously. Hat tip to 'Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect'.
Likewise whatever pop culture TV show, movies, music etc. is all the rage...eh, if it's that good or important, someone will eventually tell me about it or I'll catch that movie, show or music later.
Frankly, the reduced stress of doing opting out of news and social media has probably added a few years that would offset whatever angle is being sold by the lame stream media whether it's follow Paleo or don't follow it.
For you history buffs, I'll leave an excerpt of this letter by Jefferson to John Norvell - 1807;
Source: Image 2 of Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, June 11, 1807
ali
Level 7 Valued Member
The thing is there is scientific consensus of what a healthy diet is and its found with some variation in most public health dietary advice offered by government.
Nowhere in them and no one single person advocates for a diet of excess energy, unlimited sugar, doughnuts, pizzas and alcohol consumption.
Broadly there is agreement that 2000/2500 cal for women/blokes should be a rough estimate for daily energy from a diet of protein, carbs and fat and to limit sugar and alcohol. Food should be sourced from whole foods where possible hence ideally 5 a day thing.
Correct me if wrong but that is what most guidelines offer.
The fact the people don't abide by them doesn't mean that they are wrong. Whether or not you choose food for convenience and cost is more to do with important socio-economic-political variables of the food/diet industry but just purely on what is a healthy diet is covered, there is agreement gained via evidence to reach the consensus of multi-disciplinary health pros and issued as general health advice....for most people.
As it has been said and what the article suggests to ditch paleo due to cost is well founded. Eat a bag of nuts and a banana, healthy snack food which we can all agree on, it is hoped. You can buy a fruit and nut bar if you want, labelled 'fruit and nut bar' with no added ingredients or one labelled 'paleo fruit and nut bar'....it may even have the additional gluten free tag, or vegan, or gmo free, or no added sugar, all natural products etc etc. And that one will be more expensive. I think that was the point of the article.
Take food product off the table so to speak you are left with fresh food. That's that. Pretty much what everyone ate before the 1970's as an old dinosaur like me will tell you.
Nowhere in them and no one single person advocates for a diet of excess energy, unlimited sugar, doughnuts, pizzas and alcohol consumption.
Broadly there is agreement that 2000/2500 cal for women/blokes should be a rough estimate for daily energy from a diet of protein, carbs and fat and to limit sugar and alcohol. Food should be sourced from whole foods where possible hence ideally 5 a day thing.
Correct me if wrong but that is what most guidelines offer.
The fact the people don't abide by them doesn't mean that they are wrong. Whether or not you choose food for convenience and cost is more to do with important socio-economic-political variables of the food/diet industry but just purely on what is a healthy diet is covered, there is agreement gained via evidence to reach the consensus of multi-disciplinary health pros and issued as general health advice....for most people.
As it has been said and what the article suggests to ditch paleo due to cost is well founded. Eat a bag of nuts and a banana, healthy snack food which we can all agree on, it is hoped. You can buy a fruit and nut bar if you want, labelled 'fruit and nut bar' with no added ingredients or one labelled 'paleo fruit and nut bar'....it may even have the additional gluten free tag, or vegan, or gmo free, or no added sugar, all natural products etc etc. And that one will be more expensive. I think that was the point of the article.
Take food product off the table so to speak you are left with fresh food. That's that. Pretty much what everyone ate before the 1970's as an old dinosaur like me will tell you.
Bill Lets
Level 5 Valued Member
“The paleo diet is based on foods that humans ate during that Paleolithic era, which was about 2.5 million to 10,000 years ago,”
Nothing+time+chance = nothing.
90% of evolution is good art work. Millions and millions of years and bones that don’t even fill a U-haul van. Therefore the whole theory is a farce.
Nothing+time+chance = nothing.
90% of evolution is good art work. Millions and millions of years and bones that don’t even fill a U-haul van. Therefore the whole theory is a farce.
WxHerk
Level 8 Valued Member
Sumos are bigger.
LukeV
Level 7 Valued Member
Didn’t one study conclude that we already know the ‘secrets’ to a long and healthy life: don’t get too fat; maintain a healthy blood pressure; walk 7000 steps daily; wear a seatbelt; never smoke; eat lean meat and vegetables. It was something like that and from memory reduced mortality by 25%. Did someone post on that here, lamenting kettlebells didn’t get a look in? Or did I dream it all?
Last edited:
watchnerd
Level 8 Valued Member
Maintain an active social life and network was another