Who: Matt Stone – Independent Health Researcher
Topic: Matt Stone Debunks The Paleo Diet. Is the Paleo diet a short-term fix? Are there any long-term side effects stemming from this way of eating? Matt Stone thinks so. Find out why Matt believes that claims regarding carb-induced insulin resistance are no more than a “scientific fairy tale”. And learn how Matt has been able to help people recover their health on a diet high in starches — sometimes with grains and refined sugars!.
What did you think of Matt's presentation?
Perfect illustration of the problem of Matt Stone's philosophy (paraphrasing):
Matt: See I fixed her and now she's perfect! Sean: But she's still 60 lbs overweight Matt: That's ok. She's perfectly healthy and all her other numbers are perfect so I have fixed her. Yay me!
If you are o.k. with working hard to become "perfectly healthy" but remaining significantly overweight or becoming even more overweight than when you started and can be brainwashed into thinking that the extra weight doesn't matter then I think I think he may be a good option for you. Otherwise I'm not so sure.
Matt seems to be a decent guy who is passionate about his beliefs and truly wants to help people. He seems to be a very likeable guy. I just think he's misguided.
It seems legit to offer my n=1 responses; many are diametrically opposed to his "outcomes" talking points of what supposedly happens after 6 months of paleo:
I found his "listen to your body" piece the most valid and had no serious disagreements and I basically agree with his warning to avoid evangelism/dogmatism--but I'm not sure he's following his own advice.
I was ready to stop listening at the 12-minute mark but forced myself to keep going. He never came out and said so but I think he believes that short-term improvements are really hormesis and not directly due to what you're eating since he believes that you can reverse the changes later and achieve positive reactions again.
Current evidence does support his statement that it's possible to be both overweight and healthy, but the odds of being in the healthy group aren't that great as I understand it. I also agree that "dieting" is neutral at best and harmful at worst--but that's not what we do here. We preach against it. And he seems positively inclined toward IF.
I STRONGLY disagree that you have to get healthy before you can lose weight; that may be partially true to avoid rebound weight gain though--I think you need to lose and work toward health simultaneously. I also don't agree that you should avoid forcing your fat off--forcing isn't the word I choose but I do think you need to "shake up" or "shock" your metabolism (think IF, ADF, leptin reset, etc.) to reset it for sustained weight loss.
Okay, he's still got 20 minutes to go and I just can't do any more. Over and out.
Okay, as a person who has took a bunch of anthropology courses and continues to read on the subject (biological anthropology to be exact), MATT STONE has no leg to stand on.
The problem is that he is not just wrong. We all can be wrong about a thing or two, that does not really matter. The problem is HE IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG.
I am sorry, I try not to be negative, but my blood boils when I think of this guy. And just to think that we are all listening to this cr@p???
Okay, let me spell it out for you:
I can write a paper 100 pages long stating the obvious facts that he is wrong about. But I don't have the time in my life for this.
Next time you want me to go into a deep rage, please post something by David Wolfe.
Okay, I'll add my two bits. I applaud Sean for having an alternative. For those of us hoping to never be paleovangelists, I think it is good to hear alternative arguments.
That said, Mr Stone made me raise my eyebrows. Anyone who says "obviously" and "clearly" that much seems to be wanting things to be clear or obvious when they maybe aren't. Example, from around 10 minutes in, (paraphrasing) "Obviously having agriculture when things weren't going so well was a good thing" -- without considering that it may have been a steady food source, but that doesn't mean it is a good food source.
Secondly, the problems he says he's seen with patients -- body temperature, autoimmune issues, etc -- I only see anecdotal evidence. Personally, I'd like science. Someone like Dr. O'Bryan was able to point to studies. (I actually want to contact him to find some of these papers on gluten issues to pass on to family).
Third, paleo ideology is very in-line with a lot of what I already think. It's also lowered my BS meter even further. I get that for some of us that it is a part of identity, but I don't see how that it leads to not making adjustments to diet "six months in". How many of us have fiddled around with the amount of carbs, or types of fat, etc, so that we keep feeling our best?
Fourth, I question his understand of epigenetics or genetics. Yes, we can adapt. But just because we can adapt doesn't mean we should adapt, to a point. We were adapted to SAD, but it wasn't ideal. Here, like with my other points, correlation does not imply causation.
I don't mind paleo criticism, but personally, I'd like some sounder logic. It seems to me that he has an overly simplistic view of paleo as something static, rather than a dynamic, day-in, day-out approach to what we put in our bodies.
I (for one, it seems) got a lot out of his presentation. He essentially encouraged an open mind and paying attention to your body; most of his "debunking Paleo" was aimed at the tenets of low-carb Paleo, which certainly doesn't include all of us here. The only other "anti-Paleo" idea he put out there was that eliminating certain foods isn't always necessary and may sometimes be detrimental. He even advocated low-carb and IF near the end.
There are a bunch of small statements you could quibble with, but for the most part what he's saying isn't too radical. Here are the points I agreed with:
That's the "what not do to" section; as for the "what to do" section, he seemed to focus mainly on rebuilding metabolism, although he didn't get into specifics (I assume that's where the book comes in). I'm not 100% sold on the theory, mainly because I didn't get much data to back it up, but there seem to be a few prominent people in the post-Paleo community championing the thyroid/metabolism idea, so there's probably something to it. As he says near the end, it can't hurt to give it a shot. Despite the fact that Matt Stone would personally profit from us buying his book (just like most people on the summit), he came across as well-spoken, well-intentioned, and very reasonable (although his blog may be a different story). I'm glad he was a part of the convention.
OMG, I just couldn't take another minute listening to this crap after he got into the story of the woman who was doing so well, but still was 60 lbs overweight, but hey, that's OK cause she's "healthy". People can fault Kruse and Jaminet for pulling stuff out of their a$$es, and they might not agree with them, but at least you can tell that they have both thought hard about it. Rather than hearing Matt go on and on about her, I kept drifting to the imaginary presentation where either Jaminet or Kruse would talk about their recommendations for this woman. My attention never returned to this presentation.
It's great to be skeptical, but he makes broad, sweeping statements apparently based on what? Theres is certainly lots of room for critique in the paleo world and I'm comfortable with the questions he asks. I'm less excited with the answers he feels compelled to provide based on his personal observations. As I said in the Paleo Summit comments, I sometimes get the feeling (from some glimpses at his website) that he's more of a contrarian than and genuinely innovative thinker.
I agree with Dan. Matt's presentation was interesting, informative and made good points. Further research on his website interested me enough to buy his ebook (only $20). I'm a fast reader and am almost finished. My take away is that he's a Paleo advocate but rather than going 80/20, he prefers 60/40. I've actually come to find some of the problems he's descirbed (I've been Paleo for a few years with period breaks due to being out at sea for the summers) and have had some of negative side effects. I'm not going to start chowing down on bagels and pasta tomorrow, but it's definitely knocked me out of my 'Paleo is perfect' attitude. Back to Kurt Harris' agnostic ways.