From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Thu Apr 24 2003 - 01:58:38 MDT
So, after a few days away from this thread, some last thoughts on it
(for now).
The paleo diet seems moderately compatible with the best modern
nutritional science. It's high in fiber, high in micronutrients, low
in saturated fat, low in simple sugars, and low in high glycemic index
foods. The high protein may or may not be a plus - we know that
saturated fat is a health risk but we're not sure if meat is a health
risk for other reasons. I think there are changes you could make to
the paleo diet to make it substantially more convenient /and/ probably
healthier. Even so, the unmodified paleo diet is almost certainly
healthier than the saturated fat and sugar filled diet of modern
westerners.
My main issue in this whole thread has not been the diet itself, but
the purported evidence and reasoning used to support the diet. The
evolutionary argument is not convincing, for reasons we've hashed over
many times. The clear evidence that early farmers were less healthy
than their hunter gatherer predecessors is more convincing, but still
fairly circumstantial.
If I were trying to convince someone of the paleo diet, I'd start by
positioning it as a diet that reflects the best current science (low
sat fat, low sugar and starch, high fiber, etc...) and would then get
into the health differences between H/Gs and early farmers, and only
last would call on any evolutionary reasoning to show why we might be
better adapted to eating those ancient foods.
Anyway, that's my $.02. This has been an enjoyable and educational
thread for me. Thanks all.
mez
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 24 2003 - 02:09:48 MDT