From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 17:17:27 MDT
gts wrote,
> I have faith in the *science* of evolution, yes.
I find the concept of *faith* in *science* disturbing. Science is
specifically designed to avoid the need for faith. Utilizing faith breaks
the scientific method.
> I believe it is well established that living organisms
> are best adapted to the environments in which they evolved.
I disagree. That is why I have a roof over my head, heat during the winter,
air-conditioning during the summer, use supplements, see a dentist, and do a
million other things to improve my status beyond my evolution. I believe
this is the basis of being human or transhumanist. I see no reason to
prefer a primitive default over modern improvements in any area of my life.
> Would you argue with a talking giraffe who told you that he
> thought his long neck was for eating the leaves of tall trees? Would you
ask him if he was a Luddite if he insisted that the
> leaves of tall trees should be the main staple of his diet?
Yes, if he refused to eat the same leaves on the same tree lower down just
because they weren't high enough.
> Nutritional science, organic chemistry and other branches
> of the life sciences are only beginning to unravel the
> full picture of human metabolism.
Wrong. Biology and nutrition have the fastest doubling time of current
extant knowledge than any of the sciences. This has been the case for
decades. Medicine and nutrition is one of the oldest sciences.
> For example it has only been a few years since
> nutritionists discovered that vitamin C works
> best in the company of bioflavonoids and other
> antioxidants.
Wrong. Dr. Jacques Masquelier isolated bioflavonoids as the citrus cofactor
for vitamin C in the late 1940's and early 1950's, and called it "vitamin
P." Research into the relationship between vitamin C and vitamin P go back
half a century. I have old books from the '50s and '60s discussing
bioflavonoids. There also were old theories from the '70s about a possible
"vitamin I" that combined vitamins A and E which helped vitamin C, which
later developed into an understanding of how antioxidant cofactors help each
other. I don't know where you get the idea that these are recent
discoveries.
> Similarly, alpha-tocopherol works best in the company
> of gamma-tocopherol.
This is not new or surprising either. Again, there are old books discussing
the need for various tocopherols in the human diet.
> The vitamin supplements you buy today vs 30 years ago
> contain more of the ingredients found in natural
> paleolithic foods, not less.
Like what? Corn and wheat and soy derivatives? Spirulina? I see no reason
to think that modern nutrient pills lean more toward a paleo diet than to
typical nutritional knowledge.
> > Are you really a neo-Luddite in disguise? I don't mean to be
> > funny or offensive here.
>
> No, I hardly even know what a Luddite is. :) I'm just a
> typical guy raised in the San Francisco Bay Area who
> happens to have spent the last five years
> of his life studying diet and nutrition and longevity.
But you seem to trust "traditional" knowledge more than scientific
knowledge. You seem to discount scientists input on nutrition and think
nature is better than science. You also assume that nature is "best",
ignoring the repeated complaints that evolution has never favored longevity.
You argue against modern factory farming, modern food production, modern
nutritional science, and anything else that conflicts with your traditional
diet they way it has been for thousands of years. I can't imagine a more
Luddite position on diet than that.
> > Four millions years of evolution has optimized the human
> > genome for surviving just long enough to reproduce
>
> I agree. This is why I'm happy to deviate from a natural diet
> when there is sufficient evidence to do so. I start with
> the best of what nature can give me, and build from there.
This seems to be the perfect reason for not wanting to stick to a paleo
diet. Since I want to live a long time, and we are naturally evolved to die
young, I would seek to find as many ways to improve this diet as possible.
I would leave nothing to default chance without a scientific reason to do
so.
> By the way cholesterol and saturated fats should not be avoided
> completely.
> We need some of each for optimal health. As with many things,
> moderation is key.
Any evidence? Or is this just another unsupported assertion? The body
makes its own cholesterol and saturated fat. Neither is a required nutrient
that cannot be manufactured. Neither has been associated with any
deficiency diseases of not eating enough. There are essential fatty acids,
and healthy fats that are required by the body, but cholesterol and
saturated fats are not among these.
-- 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 - 17:29:39 MDT