Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

1

Hi All,

Do you feel that the Paleo lifestyle's emphasis on healthy living, if broadly applied, would lead to fewer people leading the 'unbalanced' lifestyle that great achievements often require?

I don't think everyone should train like an elite athlete or use caffeine, sugar, and Adderall for marathon study sessions. For most of us, our health and that of our loved ones is paramount. But, would we want to forgoe the fruits of their labors or encourage a society where they cannot flourish? Surely basic respect for each person's right to conduct his own life will prevent us from off-the-wall actions. But, in an attempt to better comprehend the philosophical aspect of the Paleo lifestyle, I wonder how we would be different without the geniuses who wouldn't exists without modernity.

Thanks for reading & I look forward to your comments, Mike

flag	asked Nov 11 2010 at 14:30 mac389 1,005●3●15

P3christopher · Accepted Answer · 2010-11-12 07:54:20Z UTC

Absolutely just as anti depressants will be the death of art and music. Elite performance begins where rationality ends. One does not get to be the best tennis player or golfer by leading a balanced life. Instead elite performance in a world of 6.5 billion souls means superlative concentration and natural ability.

So what? Do you care who can run a 2:06 marathon or that you can watch them when you are seventy?

Paleo nutrition is simply a modal or framework that we use to apply rational thought and observation to live healthful lives. I have not known many elite athletes but those that I have known were had specific natural talents that were optimized by extreme concentration in their field. Not something I was interested in doing.

Aaron · Answer 2 · 2010-11-11 14:40:53Z UTC

0

If the suggestion/question is that an exceptional individual would somehow be less exceptional because they are eating well and living healthy - no, I don't see how that could be a concern. Why would more health equal less creativity / intelligence / determination / enthusiasm / innovation / drive / etc?

answered Nov 11 2010 at 14:40

Aaron
4,456●4●13

	Perhaps I didn't phrase my question well. Consider either someone who would have died in the wild, say due to congenital abnormalities but had great musical talent or the WWII British fighter pilots who used amphetamines to help them defend Britain. I daresay that either condition is far from 'paleo', but still something worth doing. Killing off the physically weak will make hardy humans but needn't make geniuses, many of whom where noted for poor health from birth. – mac389 Nov 11 2010 at 15:08
	I think some of my physical and emotional health issues as a child made it easier for me to sit still and hone my art skills, so that by the time I was in college I was leagues ahead of my peers when it came to aesthetic and creative ability. If I had been healthier I probably would have been out there playing more and working on my art less. This did kind of locked me into the mindset of the "broken" artist being more likely to create great work, and that actually held me back from improving my health for a long time... – Happy Now Sep 6 2011 at 22:53
	...It took some bravery to step up and potentially lose "it" when I decided I wanted to be healthier. And you know what, I did momentarily lose interest in art if only because I was having so much fun being a somewhat normal human. However, I did pick it up again and when I did I was amazed at the leap I had made. The previous work seemed annoyingly therapeutic, perhaps entertaining to those who are fascinated by emotional imbalance in artists, but a bit embarrassing from my new vantage point. I still have the aesthetic skills, plus a better focus to finish projects, win, win. – Happy Now Sep 6 2011 at 23:01

Eva · Answer 3 · 2010-11-11 16:24:22Z UTC

I don't understand the question. We aren't advocating 'killing off' anyone. We are saying you will live longer and feel better if you eat healthier. This applies to everyone, but especially the weaker and sicker ones. Neither are way saying we should go back to the exact lifestyle that some hunter gatherer tribes may have had. What we are saying is we should eat foods that we are designed to eat in order to be healthier. There have been geniuses throughout history eating a variety of foods. Most of the geniuses of the past probably ate healthier than we do now just because we have such easy access to so much more crap food now. There is no reason to suspect that eating healthier will make people stupider. And while it is a common refrain in psychology that there is a thin line between genius and insanity, there is no one saying that one is a necesity for the other. Nor have I heard anyone say that diet alone can cure mental instability. Certainly, I think it could help in many cases, but personally, I think healthful living would only improve one's ability to think and be brilliant, not ruin it. There are plenty of historical figures who probably could have done even more for society if only they had been slightly more mentally stable. Stability does not destroy genius. It improves it.

Bill · Answer 4 · 2010-11-11 16:04:07Z UTC

-4

I get a hoot out of these attempts to appeal to some long lost healthy lifestyle that modern life has either forgotten or modern clamor for profit has somehow hidden for its own nefarious purposes! Everyone wants to look back to the past to forgotten blissful, healthy lives full of goodwill and caring. Some look to the 50's. Some to the revolutionary times. Some to ancient civilizations. Some to pre-civilized times.

Here's my take. Diets come and go with regularity. Every time a new one comes up, you can find it by a different name some time in the past. The trick to riding the wave is to package it in some new, attractive way that appeals to a modern sensibility or philosophy.

Its like those ever present get rich quick schemes. The scheme itself is not really that productive. But it sure is a great money maker for the ones who sell it. People are going to make money selling books and stuff for the paleo-market. Then it will die off to be replaced by the next money maker.

answered Nov 11 2010 at 16:04

Bill
31●2

1

Bill, I agree that human society probably never lacked opportunistic individuals.But, they can still be sometimes acciendtally right. It is, however, difficult to separate fact from fiction. You raise an excellent point- it is foolish to base a diet on an appeal to an unknowable past. Health dimensions aside, it is unwise to use unverifiable assumption, which must be taken on fatith, in an appeal to rational diet design. But, for some, it is a good hook. – mac389 Nov 11 2010 at 16:11

That someone can be "accidentally right" presupposes there is something called truth that can exist totally separate from anyone knowing it or believing it. If it is "right" it is right whether we know it or not! If someone wants to prove the rightness of the paleo diet I'd like to see it independent of appeals to unknowable history. Whether it is a "good" hook or not depends on whether the diet is "right" don't you think? – Bill Nov 11 2010 at 16:49

1

Actually, Bill, compared to most other diets, there is little money to be made on paleo products, since the message is a simple one: eat real food that human beings are supposed to eat. Sure, there are people making money off of supplements here and there, but the basic situation is not conducive to get-rich-quick marketing. I can't really wrap up a piece of pastured meat, put a celebrity's name on it, and sell it on infomercials. – Paul Nov 11 2010 at 17:49

1

And as for the "rightness" of the paleo diet. We never claim we have certainty about our diet. Caution and skepticism reign on this website. But you can't implicitly assume the correctness of whatever other diet you may be eating, or have been eating your whole life. What's the justification for that diet? The only way to decide is hold them up side by side. And when you do that, the paleo diet not only has the presumption of superiority because of the evolutionary argument, but also probably has a preponderance of evidence in its favor. My educated guess takes me to paleo. – Paul Nov 11 2010 at 17:56

1

Bill- I have no problem with people offering dissenting views. I do kinda have a problem with people making attacking a position they are clearly ignorant of. Look- there are scientific arguments about the harmfulness of grains- particularly gluten grains. There are also scientific argument about how the body regulates satiety and how the food we eat effects this mechanism. These arguments might be wrong, but you clearly have not taken the time to look at those arguments, then you come on here and talk as if you have it all figured out. That I have a problem with. – Nico Nov 12 2010 at 0:22

show 11 more comments

Soft Paternalism & the Paleo Diet

4 Answers