From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 12:08:53 MDT
gts wrote,
> I notice that time and time again here on the extropian list that I have a
> greater appreciation for the theory of evolution than many others.
I would say you have more than an "appreciation" of evolution. You seem to
have "faith" in it as well. Besides arguing scientific facts about what it
is, what it does, how it works, you also argue that it provides superior
information about nutrition than modern science. You blast modern
nutritional scientists as useless and prefer to take your cues from
"nature".
Are you really a neo-Luddite in disguise? I don't mean to be funny or
offensive here. But you seem to say that we need to stick to "natural"
diets, and that modern science is not a good guide to figuring things out.
You say it is too dangerous to experiment with nutrition and ignore the
"natural" order already set out for us. You allow some alterations to the
"natural" diet, but these are few and far between, and must be very well
tested and proven before they can weigh in against the "default" order of
nature.
Do you realize that this is exactly the Luddite argument against everything
that science and technology produce? I'm not talking about the extreme
Luddite who hates technology and doesn't know why. I'm talking about the
rational Luddite who believes that science is moving too fast and doesn't
understand what it is espousing, or that its claims are dubious and often
contradictory. You seem to be arguing for the precautionary principal in
regards to nutrition.
> In these threads,
> however, few people are willing to grant that 4,000,000 years of hominid
> evolution has optimized the human genome for a prehistoric diet.
Four millions years of evolution has optimized the human genome for
surviving just long enough to reproduce, and then quickly dying an early
death on the prehistoric diet. This seems orthogonal or even diametrically
opposed to trying to re-optimize ourselves for longevity, which has never
been a goal of evolution. If you want to grow fast, kill your enemies,
reproduce, and die young, then by all means, eat a prehistoric diet. If you
want to be healthy, disease resistant, smarter, and live as long as
possible, I don't see that nature or a prehistoric diet have anything to
contribute in this area. (Unless you want to study long-lived creatures and
transplant their genetics into humans.)
> Nutritionists themselves cannot agree on proper diet.
> They argue on television and at national health conferences.
I always disagree with this claim. After researching thousands of
nutritional experiments for my book, I *never* saw a serious disagreement in
the facts. I hear this stuff all the time on TV, but these are
misinterpretations and conclusions. Yes, scientists disagree on what we
"should do" in response to the known facts. There are many competing
strategies. However, there is little dispute over basic facts. Some facts
are unknown, so good scientists allow multiple possibilities.
However, what one hears on TV and in the news media is so far reduced and so
confused that it bears little resemblance to the actual experimental data
being reported. For example, there are experiments that show 10 grams of
vitamin C fights cancer. So TV will blare out that vitamin C cures cancer.
Then another study shows that the RDA of 1% isn't effective. So TV
announces that the first study was wrong and vitamin C doesn't cure cancer.
Then someone retests and affirms that the cancer-fighting effect is
proportional to dose, so larger doses are better than smaller doses. So TV
reverses its opinion again. But then someone tries to establish an upper
limit for vitamin C and discovers at what point side-effect occur. Then TV
says rather than curing cancer, vitamin C is poison. Then someone clarifies
that rational doses are safe. So TV is pro-C again. Then someone tests
different cancers and clarifies which ones vitamin C is effective against
and which ones it isn't. And TV announces that the cures weren't as
universal as we thought. And so it goes....
A scientist following the experiments sees no contradiction and sees greater
and greater understanding with each experiment. TV, looking for sound bites
and controversy, shows reversal after reversal. Pundits and diet-book
sellers develop flawed strategies based on poor understanding of nutrition.
I avoid fad diets and diet gurus. Reading just experimental abstracts, I
have not change my mind back and forth as you seem to think nutritional
scientists do. TV and diet gurus are not a good source of scientific
information. I would agree with everything you say, if it is directed at
these people, but not at real scientists. Real science keeps accumulating
knowledge and fine-tuning its understanding. There are rarely giant
reversals of opinion as you seem to think. My research into nutrition for
the past couple of decades has been pretty stable and changes slowly over
time. I would suggest that if it appears otherwise, you need to stop
getting your scientific information from TV, websites, and current
best-sellers.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 12:21:26 MDT