From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 15:08:12 MDT
gts wrote,
> Agricultural products, including whole grains, are very low
> on the list when ranked according to a nutrients/calorie
> ratio. The same is true for dairy products. It's better to
> lose these foods from the diet and replace the lost
> calories with those from nutrient-dense foods.
The nutrients in food are insignificant compared to the Life Extension
supplements that I am taking. I have no worries about deficiencies, nor do
I have any difficulty getting enough nutrients.
> The assumptions underlying paleodiet theory are 1) the basic
> principles of evolutionary theory are correct (e.g., natural
> selection, adaptation) and 2) modern nutritional science is
> incomplete and fraught with contradictions
>
> The conclusion then is that evolutionary science is a more
> reliable guide to making diet choices than nutritional science.
So whatever "nature" has given us is the best answer, and science can never
hope to improve upon that? This seems to go against everything
Transhumanists believe in. There is a lot of biological and nutritional
research, as well as life-extension studies. I'd rather take my supplements
than eat a "default" diet. There is no reason to believe that evolutionary
forces have maximized life-spans. For Life Extension purposes, nature won't
do it. Science trumps nature all the way. I want to live *longer* than a
"natural" lifespan. Therefore I must eat a diet that is *better* than a
"natural" diet.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 15:16:51 MDT