From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 07:44:47 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote,
> --- gts <gts_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > --- Brian Atkins <brian@posthuman.com> wrote:
> >
> > > BillK wrote:
> > >> Colorectal cancer tends to be one of the diseases
> > >> of old age and the diet that helps to prevent it
> > >> did not exist in paleolithic times.
> >
> > > I will give my take: these studies appear to
> > > confirm, rather than disconfirm the paleo diet.
> >
> > Yes, I agree of course with Brian here. There is no
> > reason to believe plant fiber from grain products is
> > in any way superior to plant fiber from paleolithic
> > fruits and vegetables.
> >
> > And plant fiber from fruits and vegetables is generally
> > accompanied by a plethora of other vital nutrients not
> > found in grain products (e.g., vitamin C).
>
> I am glad to see some studies confirming the diet I've advocated on
> this list for a number of years. I have not always practiced it myself,
> but I am getting better.
Mike, you may have missed the way that Brian and gts "reinterpreted" the
studies to say the opposite of what the original authors said. The original
studies advocated a lot of grains in the diet. Brian and gts dismissed the
parts of the study they didn't like, but kept the parts they did like, and
then reinterpreted the results to enforce rather deny the Paleo diet. They
then claimed the study reinforced their anti-grain diet. This totally
contradicts the report's conclusion that "New evidences supports the theory
that a high-fiber diet, including grains, cereals and fruits substantially
lowers the risk of colon cancer." There is nothing in this study that
supports the Paleo Diet. It specifically studied a high-grain non-Paleo
diet.
I am tired of seeing "scientific evidence" being misrepresented here. Most
people don't have time to go double-check sources presented. If someone
claims that a study just came out that shows such-and-such, most people will
take that statement at face value. I am not used to finding such studies
misrepresented, or worse, "reinterpreted" to say things that the original
author never intended. This is very sloppy evidence at best, and
intellectual fraud at worse.
This Paleo Diet "religion" thread seems to be worst at this. There are
logical fallacies and misrepresented scientific studies. When people point
out specific flaws or misrepresentation, they are ignored or talked to
death. In the final analysis, I don't have much complaint about the diet.
People can avoid random food groups if they want, as long as they are
getting their nutrition elsewhere. However, I greatly object to the
/methods/ used to reach these conclusions and persuade others into them.
They are religious, illogical, unscientific, and fraudulent. This kind of
sloppy reasoning, even for a correct position, ends up weakening the
argument, and even weakening the discussion group. People reading this
stuff would (rightly in this narrow case) classify us as religious cultists
who use circular logic and pseudoscience to prove our believes to others as
if they were established scientific fact.
The Extropians List didn't used to be like this.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 05 2003 - 08:00:00 MDT