On what grounds are people voting to close this thread? How does it violate any paleohacks rules?
From that WIKI: "The meaning and importance of various understandings and concepts of "nature" has been a persistent topic of discussion historically in both science and philosophy. In Ancient Greece, “the laws of nature were regarded not [simply] as generalized descriptions of what actually happens in the natural world… but rather as norms that people ought to follow… Thus the appeal to nature tended to mean an appeal to the nature of man treated as a source for norms of conduct. To Greeks this… represented a conscious probing and exploration into an area wherein, according to their whole tradition of thought, lay the true source for norms of conduct.”
To say that the only leg paleo stands on is an "appeal to nature" is a misunderstanding of the way this statement is taken in logic. It has come to represent a logical fallacy of assuming that JUST BECAUSE things are natural, that means they are good. Now, that doesn't mean that NO natural things are good, only that it is illogical to assume that EVERYTHING NATURAL is good just by virtue of being natural. I don't think anyone here is arguing that, although they may sometimes phrase it that way for simplicity's sake. What people are arguing here in logical terms I think is not: ALL NATURAL THINGS ARE GOOD BECAUSE THEY ARE NATURAL
but rather: SOME NATURAL THINGS ARE GOOD AND PALEOLITHIC EATING SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THEM, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME ASK MY ROCK HARD ABS.
Rather than being an "appeal to nature" per se, the argument hinges on form and function...form following function, human beings should do what they have evolved doing in order to maintain function and form.
Good point to bring up though, I could see how that might be confusing as people don't always phrase their arguments on the whole evolutionary eating topic very well.
I am less interested in the dogma and more interested in the fact that I lost 25 pounds and got rid of about 10 minor health problems by changing diets.
Probably the worst argument that could be made against paleo.
So...what do you think we should be eating? Modern processed foods?
Is there anyone (besides the CEO of McDonalds) that believes this?
I thought that being a member of Paleohacks kinda assumed that you were okay with the diet.
....AND yes, I've had 4 Nor Cal Margaritas (make sure you use Club Soda!).... :)'
I know I'm probably feeding a troll here, but anyway...
If you approach paleo with the attitude of "if johnny caveman had it/did it, it must be good; if johnny caveman didn't have it/didn't do it, it must be bad" then yes, it's an invalid argument.
However, if you use the idea of "I wonder what johnny caveman would have done" and then look for the closest modern equivalent and then do some rigorous self-experimentation to see if it makes you look, feel, or perform better. Then there's nothing wrong with it.
Like I said earlier in the potato thread, if you blindly follow some paleo dogma, you're doing it wrong. But if you're using it to form hypotheses that end up helping your lift, then there's nothing wrong with that. That how it's supposed to be done.
Lets assume that it is - a big fat lie. How would we test this notion?
One way would be to compare the effects of the most extreme and eccentric forms of paleo with the best that current dietetic science has to offer.
I would argue that that sort of paleo could be difficult to maintain over time mainly due to social pressures. But in every other respect - in terms of health metrics - it would be, in my opinion, superior.
If my opinion is correct it means that the best man-devised intervention (unnatural) is still inferior to paleo (natural).
Until we have an exquisitely detailed understanding of the interaction between food, physiology, biochemistry and genetics following a diet of what the human genome adapted to over many ten's of thousands of years remains the best option.
Having said that, it does not mean that we cannot improve paleo through increased understanding of relevant science, and there is no doubt we will improve it, however the core template of the diet will be one that is in alignment with paleolithic adaptations for so long as they are genetically valid in modern individuals.
Paleo can be considered as a natural vs unnatural argument, but for reasons that are entirely scientific natural is indeed superior to unnatural and paleo is not a big fat lie.
who really cares if it's working for 90% of us! N=1, remember?
paleo is like a cat in a sac. It can't be that all people eat the same. However I believe the real purpose behind, is to get rid of some people on earth since there isn't enough place for everybody. Some will have to die sooner.
"CLOSE THIS THREAD!" - said in a "Ronald Reagan" sort of voice!