Re: evolution and diet (was: FITNESS: Diet and Exercise)

From: I William Wiser (will@wiserlife.com)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 15:30:57 MDT

  • Next message: Hal Finney: "Re: Genetic Eng discussion on Slashdot"

    > gts wrote:
    >
    > The key point is that, from a paleodieter's perspective, the *burden of
    > proof* is always on those who would deviate from the default paleodiet.
    It's
    > a question of who has the burden of proof.

    I think the default of most people, scientist, and nutrition scientists is
    the

    status quo. In order to recommend action especially action that changes the

    dietary habits of many people some level of proof is required. My personal

    default is whatever I happen to do and like. In order to change eating
    patterns

    I require good evidence (or personal whim). I developed this system many

    years ago to deal with the large number of health claims I encounter.

    When I first heard the paleodiet idea it sounded like nonsense but after

    seeing folks argue for a few days I think it is an interesting theory. The

    idea that what our ancestors ate during the Paleolithic period is an
    especially

    good base diet for modern humans could provide a wealth of experimental

    ideas for nutritional scientist (if they have not already looked in that
    direction).

    However, it is just a theory. It could go wrong in many ways, some of which

    have been brought up in this thread.

    What was the paleo diet? Was there one diet or many? How similar is our

    metabolism to theirs? How adaptable is that metabolism? What did their

    diet optimize? What do we want to optimize? Are paleo foods even available

    and practical? What do we actually know from nutritional biochemistry and

    nutritional studies of humans? How does what we know match up with common

    diets, established nutritional recommendations, and paleo diet theory? Lots
    of

    unknowns makes it hard to guess the right answers.

    I am curious what knowledgeable paleodiet proponents think of caloric

    restriction. It also seems to me that animal nutrition ought to come into

    this discussion. What diets are good for mammals? What diets are good

    for primates? What diets are good for primates closest to humans

    (orangutans, bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas are in the same family

    (Pongidae))? The concept of biochemical individuality also seems worth

    mentioning.

    It seems to me that if a theoretical paleo diet does not violate any proven

    nutritional principals it's a fine thing for some group of people to try and

    compare to other diets. Agriculture for group survival looks like a rather

    successful experiment but that does not mean it can not be improved on

    by individuals. I think any diet theory would get trumpeted by good

    experimental or biochemical data though. Are there any populations that

    eat close to a paleo diet available for monitoring?

    Maybe a tug of war between ten paleo diet advocates and and ten devotes of

    the current food pyramid would be the best way to decide the argument in the

    mean time. :)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 15:37:44 MDT