From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 18:35:27 MDT
gts wrote,
> Again, this is about PLANT FIBER, not grain fiber, per se. And my analysis
> included my knowledge of complementary studies about fiber from fruits and
> vegetables but not grains.
That is exactly my point. You are using /your/ analysis and /your/
knowledge. You are reading more into this study than it actually contains.
You are not using only the study's analysis and only the study's knowledge.
If you have to "interpret" that study using your own analysis and your own
knowledge, then you are using circular logic. This logic only works because
you already believe in the Paleolithic diet. Anyone who does not already
believe in the Paleolithic diet will fail to see your proof, because the
necessary "facts" that you are interpreting come from you, not this study.
As a logical or scientific argument, self-referencing belief systems are not
evidence.
> As far as I know, plant fiber is plant fiber is plant fiber. If you have
> reason to believe otherwise then please enlighten us.
No, I certainly agree that plant fiber is plant fiber. Therefore I see no
reason to replace the study's suggested grains and cereals with Paleolithic
foods to get the desired effects.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 05 2003 - 18:49:14 MDT