OK I wasn't going to do this hackathon because I have ADD and can't listen through any of them, but I managed Nora's because it's so wrong that my brain was able to somehow focus. That's why wrongess is so fun. IMHO she is probably more insidious than Kruse because she is a good communicator and cites things, but luckily for me I have access to all those things so I can look at them and see she is basically lying or doesn't know any better.

Of course there are things that just don't have any citations at all "Low stomach acid affects 90% of the population"??? I've been looking for any study about that for years and have never found one. Note I am looking for a study, not a book. {It appears that in her book she cites another book by Jonathan Wright on why stomach acid is good for you, so it's an anecdote from his clinical practice)

I think her grasp (and Paul's grasp) of the significance of infant metabolism is not that great. "The healthy adult human brain consumes ∼ 3.5 g glucose/100 g/min, while the infant brain consumes ∼ 5.3 g glucose/100 g/min." From Cunnane's book on human evolution, which has a good chapter on how important ketosis is for babies, because their brain caloric needs are so absurd and the ketogenic state is vital for building brain lipids. I think the infant metabolism is quite irrelevant to adults,except that homo sapien's ability to utilize ketones so well in adulthood is a relic of it. Ketone uptake in infants is 4-5 times faster than in adults and the ability declines with age, though I'd be curious to see any difference if the studies were done in a low-carbing population.

Then she starts butchering staple isotope data, which pisses me off. Nope, that's not how it works, you can't use it that way and any anthropologist will tell you that. Foxes don't cook, you can't extrapolate from them. And your citation is Dr. Eades? I officially dislike her now.

I don't really think she understands the ice age or the multiregional hypothesis either (she would have to be a multiregionalist if she is going to argue for humans being a cold-weather species). Ice age is relative and there were plenty of temperate areas of the world back then, which happens to be where most hominids clustered at the time. Also as I've said many times, human metabolic adaptations to arctic temperatures are relatively recent and poorly distributed, indicating they do not define homo sapiens and in fact may even represent relics of hybridization with other hominids who might have actually evolved in the cold, though that is just speculation.

Now here is a fun HW assignment. Here is the "paper" on Coprolites she cites (it is not a paper, it is an article in a magazine actually, though it's a good magazine) http://www.scribd.com/doc/83243120/Coprolites-of-Man Can anyone find where it says that there is evidence that paleolithic humans didn't eat plants? I can't. And either way, it is from 1975, which makes it pretty outdated, esp since then many of the methods of analyzing coprolites have been revised (and hilariously some of the specimens they thought were from humans were actually from hyenas). In fact, the hilarious thing is that that paper mentions pollen from plants that refutes Nora's assertion that humans lived in an environment similar to the modern high-arctic. And there are few plant foods there? O rly?

I'm getting more than a little offended by the new meme in low carb circles that humans who consume carbs are just addicts who can't he'p themselves. I tend to think these folks would be offended if anyone questioned their consumption of large quantities of butter, cream, etc.

The heroine thing ... complete with chuckling ... took her argument over the edge to hyperbole.

I didn't expect much more from someone who believes all body fat comes from glucose, though.

For anyone interested, my review. I recognize Nora is popular in paleo circles so let the downvotes commence.

Fantastic! I missed her at AHS and hadn't paid much attention to her before now I feel great shame, lol. She's great! I worship the ground Paul Jaminet walks on but I thought Nora made some nice arguments to counter his ideas. I've spent the last year struggling to incorporate safe starch into my life and it's been a bit of a disaster for me. Hearing her speak I felt taken back to my low carb roots which I really needed right now. Even if you are anti-LC if you can keep an open mind I think this one is a good listen.

She actually reminds me of Paul quite a bit in that she seems to be a genuinely nice person who is clearly passionate about her message which she delivers very well. No doubt she is intelligent and seems to know her stuff. Time well spent.

Nora has an addendum now: http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/?p=2296

She says that young people like me are basically too young to know better. Last time I checked, Staffan Lindeberg wasn't exactly young. But I didn't know this was an anecdote battle, though it essentially becomes one when you are having to lean back on "clinical experience" (note that people in Jimmy's latest starch fiasco post attack Chris Kresser for mentioning his clinical experience with low-carb causing thyroid issues, but it's OK when LC zealots like Nora do it).

The reality is that yes, the Kitavans might be "tail enders," outliers, but the genetic and evolutionary evidence also shows LC-adapted arctic peoples are tail enders too, the exact people she wants everyone to model their diet around.

Zero citations of anything to look up this time around though. Maybe an admission of sorts that she has nothing to cite.

Enjoy the respectful way she disagrees and the way she laid out her case for why she disagrees. Lot of good food for thought.

In her book, she recommends calorie restriction, protein restriction, VLC as well as a boatload of supplements. Seems like a very enjoyable life!

I'd rather enjoy my life and have enough energy to move a lot than put myself in an imaginary cage and live a couple of months longer...

Honestly, she scares me a bit and I can't believe I liked her book when I read it the first time.

Also, having lived and travelled throughout Asia, her explanation why Asians don't get as fat is quite stupid.

Finally, listening to her she doesn't sound very excited or enthusiastic about anything, maybe she really needs more carbs/food in gerneral ;)

Nora is making me think, which is always painful. :-))

I can't forget the statement by the Hadza gentleman in the Hidden Planet segment--"When the hunt fails we collect fruit and dig roots." Nora's dislike of combining protein and starch in the same meal rings true in that context.

But, so does Dr Kurt Harris's position that healthy people can enjoy starch without gaining weight. Richard Nikoley of Free the Animal is currently experimenting with that.

I accept my individual responsibility for testing my reaction to various starches and avoiding those that cause problems. Other than that, I think I have a more relaxed view of starches than Nora.

Caught some of it this morning; will have to catch the rest later tonight. I think...some pro-higher-starch feathers may definitely be ruffled in the paleo community by her podcast.

She raises some valid points, though - how do starch proponents know for certain that yeast/parasites aren't fueling desires for starches /the decision that they personally 'need' starch?

For those who don't reject the possibility of influence from internal flora out of hand...we really don't know. Yet.

Brilliant!

I would have loved a bit more to-and-fro between her and Sean, but I though she laid out her arguments clearly.

She's definitely got me considering going vlc again. Given my age/activity level, I think this makes more sense for me.

Now that I have been replenishing nutrient stores for over a year, I suspect I will have an easier time than I did when I first went Primal. I did 6 weeks of vlc, but it felt too restrictive (probably because I was still not over my sugar cravings.)

Not sure that I agree with her about it being generally OK to have more carbs in Pregnancy. My pregnant clients feel much better when they stay LC (if they've been fat-adapted for awhile.)

I am also inspired to read her book, finally.

She has some good points. In particular safe starches are not for everyone. I still fall in the safe starch category however.