RE: evolution and diet

From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Thu Apr 24 2003 - 01:58:38 MDT

  • Next message: Dennis Fantoni: "cancer and fat"

    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