1

votes

How do you characterize those who support conventional wisdom about nutrition vs. those that don't?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created July 13, 2012 at 3:20 AM

Feel free to add to these categories - they are in no particular order!

Would you say that 1 or more, or any combo of the following characterize the conventional wisdom crowd (in no particular order):

1) ignorant/unaware - confused and/or clueless about health

2) corrupt- motives tied to power and/or profits

3) ego - don't want to change beliefs because of pride/ego

4) lazy - know certain things are better for them but still refuse to do it

Would you say those most willing to make the most drastic changes in their beliefs (esp. conventional wisdom) might belong to 1 or more of these categories:

1) geeks, nerds, academics, bio-hackers, etc.

2)jocks, athletes, etc.

3) the really ill/sick people because they've tried conventional wisdom and felt the disastrous effects first-hand

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 14, 2012
at 09:59 AM

Or second world. Dietary choices are a first world economic luxury. So its not really relevant that the whole world cant eat as much meat. Most of the world is more concerned with just eating period.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 14, 2012
at 09:55 AM

Most of the world is third world.

5759bd89db5f73cabe0a6e8f8e6e1cb9

(1467)

on July 14, 2012
at 07:57 AM

@Raisefitness. I used to be pious about it. Now I'm pious about paleo.. Whenever you believe in something strongly, you will keep on finding data to support your theory. Hahah. That is one BIG piece of meat!

03a4ec34751186201a56da298ac843ce

(4100)

on July 14, 2012
at 04:40 AM

@MrsD: Thank you!

87560106d8fb65f9f87e3810d88775da

(-30)

on July 14, 2012
at 12:24 AM

Obesity is AS HERITABLE AS HEIGHT NO SURPRISE. OF COURSE MORONS SISSON AND COLPO DO NOT KNWO THIS.

C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on July 13, 2012
at 10:49 PM

And the vegans/vegetarians are so pious about it. A couple times a week I go to the wholefoods and get a plate of meat from the smoked bbq counter and a plate of veggies. The veg people at the registers always look at me funny, and manytimes make sort of sarcastic comments about all the meat I am eating. I say it is a perfectly balanced meal. here is a pic of a standard meal for me. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vwnkDMSjc8I/T_41PlDSaPI/AAAAAAAAAk4/6KpW-TYSnPg/s1600/dinner-shortribs.jpg

5759bd89db5f73cabe0a6e8f8e6e1cb9

(1467)

on July 13, 2012
at 08:23 PM

@Chinaeskimo. There is a large chapter in 'The vegetarian myth' about the dangers of soy/soya. There is also ALOT of stuff online such as this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2004/nov/07/foodanddrink.features7 although that's a pretty tame article.

C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on July 13, 2012
at 12:46 PM

@chinaeskimo....I have talked with dozens, and if you read enough posts on here you will see people don't have good foundations. @James...True. It doesn't mean that all studies should be held at face value, but always be open to being wrong if science leans that direction. @James...Wow, that was a lot to take in.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 11:14 AM

When you start talking anti-nutrients, or omega -3's, or futher detail, yes theres some good science, but also bound to be some hot air. Theres bound to be a few points where paleo-ism, is making vast oversimplifications ala the lipid hypothesis, or veganism.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 11:12 AM

Whole foods however, that we have always eaten, is a logic thats very very hard to deny. Theres no certainty in something new and poorly understood, like argicultural foods, especially food chemicals and highly refined foods. Whats tricky about this, is the food we are eating now, isnt the food weve always eaten in a strict sense, even if its generally similar. So even if that logic is pretty solid (baring some low level adaption to new foods, on an genetic individual-heritage type basis), and it makes sense to eat those mostly similar foods, its not perfect.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 11:08 AM

A little off-topic perhaps, but this is what happens when people do actually think deeply about things. To be totally honest about "paleo" versus "food pyramid" versus "raw vegan" or whatever, alot of it is guessing, and alot of that guessing is based on what people want to beleive. That doesnt mean its all wrong, but its certainly not vigorously questioned either (pyramid, paleo, whatever).

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 11:03 AM

So my "why"- id probably say, some of my beleif is out of a near hopeless attempt to make sense of the impossibly complex and mysterious world around me, some of it is just because thats how id like to think the world is, not withstanding that this may change if challenged, and the final part would be simple things, that it seems reason can actually make some sense out of, like the easier to visualise logically, parts of nutrition, or simple problems or physical mechanics.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 10:58 AM

Perhaps humanly impossible to do 100%, given our emotional natures, and existential crisis, which leaves us prone to need beleifs & identity, or become depressed and despondant and purposeless. To be honest with myself, I think I only do it most of the time. If I questioned every beleif I had, or anyone else had, with rigirous and thorough skepticism, id be a complete psychological mess, and probably one with no social skills or social connections.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 10:53 AM

Again it mostly comes back to what I heard that nut david icke once say about the news. "Someone told someone, that told someone, that told someone and that told me". And if what happens at the end of that chain is either something emotionally, youd like to beleive is true, or your just neutral about it, youll generally beleive it, unless you learn to question everything, even your own assumptions. Thats very uncommon.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 10:50 AM

I am not convinced there are many truely strong arguments in nutrition. Maybe a few? But certainly not ones that will break people out repeating, legacy, identity or emotional tendancies. The arguments in general, that people respond to, are ones that are in fact more in line with their psychosocial identity, rather than ones that work out of cold hard science.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 10:47 AM

In reference to nutrition, nutrition is a vaguer science in many ways that social sciences. At least in social science you can control for all the variables resonably. Its practically impossible in nutrition to have a firm conclusion, or total resolution. Theres no CERN equivilant that will settle all the issues. Which makes veiws on nutrition, logically based, or pseudoscience rather blurred. Science itself is prone to legacy. What has been said or thought in the past, tends to be repeated and beleived, even with a total lack of evidence. Whether in paleo veiws, or in mainstream veiws.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 10:44 AM

Being such an extreme outside thinker, so much that you are willing to question everything, and not as a contrarian, does not earn you as much social points, identity, or status (unless you invent something, or become a leader, explorer or revolutionary, or guru). Plus humans are emotional creatures. We are prone to view the world through a personal lense. The existential nature of existance, and our higher awareness, virtually demands it of us.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 10:39 AM

People are just not trained to think for themselves. They are taught, socially rewarded, for repeating what someone else says, whether thats the news, schools, or some alternative guru. Actually examining things critically, objectively, requires that you are ready to surrender your original position completely when any sufficient evidence comes in, or soften your position. That you are not building a beleif system, but rather utilising a working theory, or at least building a constantly evolving beleif system. That requires that you not invest emotion, identity, or faith.

Ef26f888ed248de197c37a4cb04ef4a7

(584)

on July 13, 2012
at 08:44 AM

That is partially true. A lot of people take things in the exact opposite direction. Anything that is conventional wisdom they consider wrong and any study showing something negative about their way of eating is flawed and bias. They seem to display a level of critical thinking skills when studies are a bit bias but when Cordain or low-carb studies are funded by the Atkins corporation and skewed in that direction then they're cited as proof.

03a4ec34751186201a56da298ac843ce

(4100)

on July 13, 2012
at 06:36 AM

Most paleo people? Then my experience has been a lot different than yours. Just how many people did you speak to about Paleo, that you can characterize "them" as "most"?

03a4ec34751186201a56da298ac843ce

(4100)

on July 13, 2012
at 05:29 AM

I can never find any straight answers about soy (this is the same as soya, right)? Do you have anything I could read that would set my mind straight?

03a4ec34751186201a56da298ac843ce

(4100)

on July 13, 2012
at 05:28 AM

Yep, that about sums it up!

  • 8508fec4bae4a580d1e1b807058fee8e

    asked by

    (6259)
  • Views
    1.3K
  • Last Activity
    1429D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

8 Answers

3
518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on July 13, 2012
at 04:34 AM

I think it's largely a lack of motivation and a tendency to be non-critical. I wouldn't go as far to say lazy or ignorant, just trusting and with no reason or tendency to question. The lack of questioning is seen in school systems that no longer foster creativity or skepticism- most people accept "just because".

For example, the kids in my dietetics classes are clearly bright, academically inclined, motivated, and focused. But whenever I bring up some kind of critique it's like "...oh yeah. I never thought about that..." because they are used to learning things by route memorization, whether that be facts or techniques, and I think it takes something significant (losing your health, an influential person in your life, etc) to be able to stop and question.

2
03a4ec34751186201a56da298ac843ce

on July 13, 2012
at 05:37 AM

Oh, wow, I (used to) work with a bunch of kids (18-24) who smoked and drank and ate whatever. I would broach the subject about things like diet (and the smoking) and I got a general "I don't give a sh*t" attitude. They just don't care.

Then (since I worked at a Chinese restaurant) there was a HUGE crowd that would order everything "low fat, less oil" who really think they are doing the right thing, they just don't know better.

AND...Right next door is a super busy place that sells Glace (think skim milk ice cream). It is touted as "fructose sweetened." People eat enormous quantities of the stuff, thinking it is healthy. Meanwhile, the owner is obese, his two daughters are obese and his wife was obese (she died of cancer).

So, I see people that either 1) Don'e care or 2) Really truly think they are being healthful

87560106d8fb65f9f87e3810d88775da

(-30)

on July 14, 2012
at 12:24 AM

Obesity is AS HERITABLE AS HEIGHT NO SURPRISE. OF COURSE MORONS SISSON AND COLPO DO NOT KNWO THIS.

2
5759bd89db5f73cabe0a6e8f8e6e1cb9

(1467)

on July 13, 2012
at 05:03 AM

1) Ignorant. I mean you don't know till you know. I was vegetarian and low fat, quinoa, cottage cheese, flax seeds until I got onto paleo and ' the vegetarian myth'. People just don't know. Nowadays everytime I hear someone ordering a soya latte with a superior attitude I feel like taking them aside and throttling them or educating them.

My husband is a buddhist and I converted him to stat eating meat after 33 years. However he is part of a group that runs buddhist festivals where they only allow vegetarian food and they are all about the soya. He's not going to get them to change the veggie food out of respect but he has been giving them all handouts about the dangers of soya. Especially one woman who has cancer who's Dr told her to start consuming soya. Headbang.

C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on July 13, 2012
at 10:49 PM

And the vegans/vegetarians are so pious about it. A couple times a week I go to the wholefoods and get a plate of meat from the smoked bbq counter and a plate of veggies. The veg people at the registers always look at me funny, and manytimes make sort of sarcastic comments about all the meat I am eating. I say it is a perfectly balanced meal. here is a pic of a standard meal for me. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vwnkDMSjc8I/T_41PlDSaPI/AAAAAAAAAk4/6KpW-TYSnPg/s1600/dinner-shortribs.jpg

5759bd89db5f73cabe0a6e8f8e6e1cb9

(1467)

on July 13, 2012
at 08:23 PM

@Chinaeskimo. There is a large chapter in 'The vegetarian myth' about the dangers of soy/soya. There is also ALOT of stuff online such as this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2004/nov/07/foodanddrink.features7 although that's a pretty tame article.

03a4ec34751186201a56da298ac843ce

(4100)

on July 13, 2012
at 05:29 AM

I can never find any straight answers about soy (this is the same as soya, right)? Do you have anything I could read that would set my mind straight?

03a4ec34751186201a56da298ac843ce

(4100)

on July 14, 2012
at 04:40 AM

@MrsD: Thank you!

5759bd89db5f73cabe0a6e8f8e6e1cb9

(1467)

on July 14, 2012
at 07:57 AM

@Raisefitness. I used to be pious about it. Now I'm pious about paleo.. Whenever you believe in something strongly, you will keep on finding data to support your theory. Hahah. That is one BIG piece of meat!

2
4ef079c57d2140bba4dbf4e30240a645

on July 13, 2012
at 04:19 AM

In Denial

Complacent

Afraid

03a4ec34751186201a56da298ac843ce

(4100)

on July 13, 2012
at 05:28 AM

Yep, that about sums it up!

2
C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on July 13, 2012
at 03:53 AM

I will be bold and attempt to answer this. Most people don't really know what they believe about conventional wisdom so they just assume it is true and defend it accordingly. They give weak arguments and really don't have their reasonings dialed in. With that I will say most paleo people are THE SAME WAY!. I was introduced to paleo long before I gave it a true look, and the reason was no one could give me good reasons to consider it, so my weak conventional wisdom arguments were just as strong or stronger than their weak paleo arguments. From just a few days on this board, I can tell that is similar for the conventional wisdom crowd and the paleo crowd. Know what you believe and why....that is my suggestion.

Ef26f888ed248de197c37a4cb04ef4a7

(584)

on July 13, 2012
at 08:44 AM

That is partially true. A lot of people take things in the exact opposite direction. Anything that is conventional wisdom they consider wrong and any study showing something negative about their way of eating is flawed and bias. They seem to display a level of critical thinking skills when studies are a bit bias but when Cordain or low-carb studies are funded by the Atkins corporation and skewed in that direction then they're cited as proof.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 10:58 AM

Perhaps humanly impossible to do 100%, given our emotional natures, and existential crisis, which leaves us prone to need beleifs & identity, or become depressed and despondant and purposeless. To be honest with myself, I think I only do it most of the time. If I questioned every beleif I had, or anyone else had, with rigirous and thorough skepticism, id be a complete psychological mess, and probably one with no social skills or social connections.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 10:53 AM

Again it mostly comes back to what I heard that nut david icke once say about the news. "Someone told someone, that told someone, that told someone and that told me". And if what happens at the end of that chain is either something emotionally, youd like to beleive is true, or your just neutral about it, youll generally beleive it, unless you learn to question everything, even your own assumptions. Thats very uncommon.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 11:14 AM

When you start talking anti-nutrients, or omega -3's, or futher detail, yes theres some good science, but also bound to be some hot air. Theres bound to be a few points where paleo-ism, is making vast oversimplifications ala the lipid hypothesis, or veganism.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 11:08 AM

A little off-topic perhaps, but this is what happens when people do actually think deeply about things. To be totally honest about "paleo" versus "food pyramid" versus "raw vegan" or whatever, alot of it is guessing, and alot of that guessing is based on what people want to beleive. That doesnt mean its all wrong, but its certainly not vigorously questioned either (pyramid, paleo, whatever).

C45d7e96acd83d3a6f58193dbc140e86

on July 13, 2012
at 12:46 PM

@chinaeskimo....I have talked with dozens, and if you read enough posts on here you will see people don't have good foundations. @James...True. It doesn't mean that all studies should be held at face value, but always be open to being wrong if science leans that direction. @James...Wow, that was a lot to take in.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 10:39 AM

People are just not trained to think for themselves. They are taught, socially rewarded, for repeating what someone else says, whether thats the news, schools, or some alternative guru. Actually examining things critically, objectively, requires that you are ready to surrender your original position completely when any sufficient evidence comes in, or soften your position. That you are not building a beleif system, but rather utilising a working theory, or at least building a constantly evolving beleif system. That requires that you not invest emotion, identity, or faith.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 10:47 AM

In reference to nutrition, nutrition is a vaguer science in many ways that social sciences. At least in social science you can control for all the variables resonably. Its practically impossible in nutrition to have a firm conclusion, or total resolution. Theres no CERN equivilant that will settle all the issues. Which makes veiws on nutrition, logically based, or pseudoscience rather blurred. Science itself is prone to legacy. What has been said or thought in the past, tends to be repeated and beleived, even with a total lack of evidence. Whether in paleo veiws, or in mainstream veiws.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 10:44 AM

Being such an extreme outside thinker, so much that you are willing to question everything, and not as a contrarian, does not earn you as much social points, identity, or status (unless you invent something, or become a leader, explorer or revolutionary, or guru). Plus humans are emotional creatures. We are prone to view the world through a personal lense. The existential nature of existance, and our higher awareness, virtually demands it of us.

03a4ec34751186201a56da298ac843ce

(4100)

on July 13, 2012
at 06:36 AM

Most paleo people? Then my experience has been a lot different than yours. Just how many people did you speak to about Paleo, that you can characterize "them" as "most"?

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 11:03 AM

So my "why"- id probably say, some of my beleif is out of a near hopeless attempt to make sense of the impossibly complex and mysterious world around me, some of it is just because thats how id like to think the world is, not withstanding that this may change if challenged, and the final part would be simple things, that it seems reason can actually make some sense out of, like the easier to visualise logically, parts of nutrition, or simple problems or physical mechanics.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 10:50 AM

I am not convinced there are many truely strong arguments in nutrition. Maybe a few? But certainly not ones that will break people out repeating, legacy, identity or emotional tendancies. The arguments in general, that people respond to, are ones that are in fact more in line with their psychosocial identity, rather than ones that work out of cold hard science.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 13, 2012
at 11:12 AM

Whole foods however, that we have always eaten, is a logic thats very very hard to deny. Theres no certainty in something new and poorly understood, like argicultural foods, especially food chemicals and highly refined foods. Whats tricky about this, is the food we are eating now, isnt the food weve always eaten in a strict sense, even if its generally similar. So even if that logic is pretty solid (baring some low level adaption to new foods, on an genetic individual-heritage type basis), and it makes sense to eat those mostly similar foods, its not perfect.

1
8e403031cae4272bac5c25c40446daaf

(176)

on July 13, 2012
at 07:44 AM

Got to be 1) and 3)

But this is kind of a good thing, we exist on meat, but meat is technically hard to grow compared to wheat/corn/other major staples. The world can't all eat meat as a staple, because we don't have the capacity to farm anywhere near enough animals.

In sort, if everyone knew that paleo was the way forward there would be a serious meat shortage and we'd be forced to give up our meaty diets due to the spirally cost of animal products.

Its unfortunate, but the world will have to continue to come up with complex solutions to the simple problem of diet because there are too many of us in this world to all be hunter gathers.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 14, 2012
at 09:59 AM

Or second world. Dietary choices are a first world economic luxury. So its not really relevant that the whole world cant eat as much meat. Most of the world is more concerned with just eating period.

Bb3d1772b28c02da2426e40dfcb533f5

(5381)

on July 14, 2012
at 09:55 AM

Most of the world is third world.

0
Da12b342d4959f5bd776c0f00b072a6c

on July 13, 2012
at 10:36 PM

Your options don't cover it. My educated adult offspring , two with partners in the health professions, are only just opening up to the idea that conventional wisdom is not always correct. It has taken a lot of perserverance on my part to get them this far. 3 main reasons 1. Friends, family and partners who are health professionals have never questioned their training. 2. They are all extremely focused on other areas in their lives. Building new businesses (not lazy) 3.Until they have health issues of their own, there is little reason to question conventional wisdom. (I have only just persuaded my father, an aging ailing retired M.D., to have his vitamin D levels checked and to take supplements because he has had melanomas removed and avoids the sun.)

-2
87560106d8fb65f9f87e3810d88775da

on July 14, 2012
at 12:15 AM

SCIENTIFICALLY ILLITERATE WEIRDOS AND GULLIBLE MORONS.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!