9

votes

Cage match: Mat Lalonde vs. Loren Cordain: Who's right?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created June 18, 2012 at 2:08 AM

I'll confess I didn't understand all the science mumbo-jumbo in the latest podcast from Chris Kresser: http://chriskresser.com/rhr-what-science-really-says-about-the-paleo-diet-with-mat-lalonde

But, at 22:21 minutes into it, during the section: "Why typical claims about antinutrients are wrong",

It sounds like there's a major disagreement about a fairly fundamental aspect of paleo between Mat Lalonde and Loren Cordain. Mat said he didn't want to bring it up "for the sake of the community", but then did.

  1. Could someone please summarize in plain English what's the heart of the disagreement,

  2. Could someone tell me who's right, who's wrong, and which health guru I'm supposed to follow?

I have respect for Robb Wolf because of his willingness to change course and down-size his recommendations on fish oil in the face of new oxidation information. (I like my guru's to be open to new ideas and not to be soo invested in past positions that they refuse to consider new information).

I have tremendous respect for Chris Kresser. He seems like he really keeps up on the latest, latest studies (and reads them); I like that he does't speak in sweeping generalities and doesn't over-sell his points. I like that he seems to pick the best pieces from several philosophies.

I'm not sure what I think about Mat Lalonde.

Thanks,

Mike

PS: you can stream the podcast from the link above, and drag the mouse right to 22 minutes into it.

Bdc6244bdbd664d2168a8e326018ffbe

(431)

on July 13, 2012
at 02:32 PM

Irony taken, but I think its not entirely an invalid way at ALL. And in this case, Mat Lalonde is clearly more qualified irregardless of looks, so the argument is moot.

Da8e709acde269e8b8bfbc09d1737841

(1906)

on July 02, 2012
at 10:13 PM

The fact that Matt doesn't have a blog or a book doesn't in any way invalidate his points. I'm seeing a lot of Matt-hate not based on the logic/science he's using, but more on emotional defense of other Paleo "gurus". That's dangerous.

C3bc92e6b5eba45dc55f43ac3c70cc25

on June 28, 2012
at 02:10 AM

Exactly Matt! I can see why Robb Wolf dubs him the Kraken. Because of the no blogging or website(from my knowledge) He's pretty well hidden.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on June 28, 2012
at 01:16 AM

As far as I've seen, Mat has done a few podcast episodes with Chris Kresser and Robb Wolf. He had a talk at the Ancestral Health Symposium and also at the Paleo Summit. Not saying he's not an intelligent dude, but I wonder what contributions he's made to paleo that gets him speaking gigs like that.

004d08b6edf7473c15fbb634abb6d88a

(281)

on June 25, 2012
at 08:01 PM

There ARE negatives, we're just not aware of them. This "food" can only be as good as our current understanding. A century ago we thought fat, protein, and carbs were the only thing that mattered. Then we discovered vitamins and minerals. And now there are dozens of other things to consider -- phenols, antioxidants, DHA, etc. Despite this, we tend to think we always know the full picture. A food designed on the best knowledge we have at this time will still be lacking critical nutrients or have substances that are harmful when taken out of context of its natural sources. So my answer is no.

5e92edc5a180787a60a252a8232006e9

(345)

on June 25, 2012
at 03:40 PM

I would say Cordain has more credibility than Matt. What do you have on behalf of Matt's stance other than his degree? He hasn't staked out a position. He's merely criticizing Cordain but hasn't really come up with any specifics. His stupid rendition of Paleo is flawed because we assume, if we didn't eat it, it can't be healthy is an old act. He's been singing that same, creaky tune ever since appeared on the scene and started charging fees for his ridiculous seminars. That's been his ticket to fame and slogan. But where is the beef: where is any substance to his position?

5c695836c9b8aba078531335f9a9d6ff

on June 25, 2012
at 12:44 PM

Cordain totally knows everything about antinutrients. He has published gadzillions on them. Biochemists know jack about antinutrients, it is an esoteric field that is probably not mentioned once in any major biochemistry text book. Matt is a dabbler with a big mouth. I wonder if he will recant if he is well refuted?

Ee70ee808f748374744404a00e1c22ed

(1163)

on June 19, 2012
at 10:42 PM

Mambo- I think that Lalonde was referring to Homo's shift from a plant-based diet to an animal-based one when he used meat as an example of a novel food.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on June 19, 2012
at 08:36 PM

Mat's talks seem to center around what can and cannot be said about paleo using the science that has been done on it. That's his schtick (not sic). The whole point as I get from it from it there's relatively little support for all the tenets of paleo.

Medium avatar

(211)

on June 19, 2012
at 08:28 PM

Paleo (eating natural foods) is the most sane diet out there, needing little support (although it's not like support is lacking for such lunacy). You're calling science-based assessments "schtick" (sic)? Um, yes, I would call supported science "the best kind of correct". Until "correct" is proven otherwise. But that's science: the evolution of the testing of ideas.

D1728f99db66ff91d695a6df5cd38b02

(1368)

on June 19, 2012
at 05:19 PM

I really like Mat Lalonde. Jus sayin.

Medium avatar

(8239)

on June 18, 2012
at 04:07 PM

The moral this round, Shari, is: some people are immune to irony. Please don't let this dissuade you. Kudos.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on June 18, 2012
at 03:46 PM

Oh for the love of Pete! I AM OLD! And I have a roll of fat around my middle. I've seen Cordain. He has a little gut there. However, not the point. At all. Clearly I have failed here. You have my apologies.

3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

(2919)

on June 18, 2012
at 03:25 PM

@Air_Hadoken, it's directly related to the topic of the podcast and Mat Lalonde's world view. So no And Raydawg, you're way overthinking it. It's a hypothetical question and I gave you all the information necessary. There are NO negatives to this food except for the fact that it's designed in a laboratory and did not exist in nature at any time.

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on June 18, 2012
at 03:12 PM

More like twenty years, or forty -- like how long the current dietary experiment has been in motion.

464e1c66609d402615ae2b3cf72d53fb

(1472)

on June 18, 2012
at 02:25 PM

Careful, you are going to be old some day too.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19413)

on June 18, 2012
at 02:25 PM

If it wasn't made by Monsanto, ADM, any of the agra/pharma evil companies, and it had all of the above characteristics, I'd consider eating it after it's been on the market for 10 years and lots of studies have ruled on its safety.

5e92edc5a180787a60a252a8232006e9

(345)

on June 18, 2012
at 02:22 PM

You have not seen Cordain. He's fit as a fiddle, has no paunch and is taller than Lalonde. If you had to go by looks, the founding father of Paleo would be your choice over Matt Johnny Come Lately Lalonde.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on June 18, 2012
at 11:45 AM

I don't think Mat self-identifies as a biochemist, he's an organic chemist and worked for Eric Jacobsen at Harvard.

85382cd84288ed28c92cbfe7bfcaf226

(184)

on June 18, 2012
at 10:54 AM

If my aunt had testicals, would she be my uncle?

7fc82eebafd44badc73c520f44660150

(3275)

on June 18, 2012
at 10:28 AM

Yes , do ask as a stand a lone question, very interesting!

A50ca1bb3d72544cb50171bd7b46105c

(130)

on June 18, 2012
at 09:13 AM

Just to add something to your statement Michael, Matt also said, sprouted Legumes might be good (or a good alternative) for Vegetarians (I think to get some proteins, if I remember it correctly)

C56baa1b4f39839c018180bf63226f7d

(3499)

on June 18, 2012
at 05:42 AM

Maybe you should ask this question as, y'know, a question.

Dc6407193ba441d1438f6f0c06af872b

(4400)

on June 18, 2012
at 05:24 AM

Mat doesn't like legumes either. He's just saying to get the reasoning right.

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on June 18, 2012
at 04:24 AM

Shari, your awesomeness is showing again. :)

5e92edc5a180787a60a252a8232006e9

(345)

on June 18, 2012
at 03:58 AM

I'm also not big on Lalonde. He only has a quibble with Paleo with regard to "if we haven't eaten it yet, it musn't be good." He mentions dairy and meats as such new-fangles food sources: guess what, dairy isn't exactly a godsend for lots of people. And animal flesh was introduced eons ago. By that logic, even tubers or water would be new food sources. With regard to new food sources in the New World, their precursors did exist in the Old World in similar forms. If they didn't, every European that never ate yuca/cassava would be having stomach problems. They don't.

3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

(2919)

on June 18, 2012
at 03:40 AM

Honestly, Mat Lalonde rubs me the wrong way. I'm all for healthy skepticism but he's quite quick to shoot down some common sense or "B comes after A" type logic. He also implies that Paleo followers make sweeping generalizations about 'Food X being unavailable during the Paleolithic Era therefore Food X must be unhealthy', which is ironic because that's a pretty sweeping generalization of the Paleo community. Most paleo followers are very sensible people who are more concerned with whether the science points to a food being good for us, rather than its availability during Paleo times.

3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

(2919)

on June 18, 2012
at 03:39 AM

Cordain revised his thoughts on saturated fat.

5e92edc5a180787a60a252a8232006e9

(345)

on June 18, 2012
at 03:14 AM

Actually if you are gonna take sides, check out Paul of PHD's position on legumes. He doesn't like legumes either but I'm not sure if for the same reasons. I'm not sure if Cordain's position is valid but you have to understand, he is not the only one who's against legumes. Robb Wolf is too, but you can disregard him since he suffers from autoimmunity and IBD and his book doesn't distinguish between autoimmune and regular dieters.

Ddfdaa75ac9f47e01fc71162dd0d38dc

on June 18, 2012
at 03:14 AM

Matt. A potato isn't a nuclear weapon and sat fat isn't the devil. There's a good reason people call Cordain's diet "Faileo."

Frontpage book

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

12 Answers

best answer

30
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on June 18, 2012
at 04:01 AM

Mat Lalonde is a biochemist and is more qualified on the subject of antinutrients than Cordain, who has a degree in Exercise Physiology. But that's useful too, so it would be great if they would collaborate. It would be cool if some of the more annoying and pedantic elements of Cordain's paleo would totally die out. Like X is bad because it has lectins in it (which I see somewhat often here and more on reddit.com/r/paleo). Well.. which lectins? What do the studies on those specific lectins say? Are they destroyed by cooking? Are there individual factors that might make some people more or less sensitive to them? Are there ways to figure out whether they are an issue for you?

I think Mat's main issues with Cordain is his exaggeration and simplistic understanding of the impact of food components like phytic acid and lectins. Also recently he said that saturated fat and carbs are OK... grudgingly if you are an athlete. Not many people do well on a paleo diet that restricts both of those things. He used to recommend canola oil and now he doesn't, but he says the only OK oils are olive, flaxseed, walnut, and avocado. He recommends replacing your butter and lard with these things. I'm sorry, but you can find studies of similar quality to the ones he uses to dismiss canola (on animals and in vitro) on why those have issues. I'll stick with coconut, butter, tallow, and lard.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on June 18, 2012
at 11:45 AM

I don't think Mat self-identifies as a biochemist, he's an organic chemist and worked for Eric Jacobsen at Harvard.

5c695836c9b8aba078531335f9a9d6ff

on June 25, 2012
at 12:44 PM

Cordain totally knows everything about antinutrients. He has published gadzillions on them. Biochemists know jack about antinutrients, it is an esoteric field that is probably not mentioned once in any major biochemistry text book. Matt is a dabbler with a big mouth. I wonder if he will recant if he is well refuted?

10
98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

on June 18, 2012
at 03:42 AM

Matt is clearly younger, has lower % body fat,is more fit and better looking so...he must be 'doing it right" therefore he must be correct. Ah book schmook. Cordain is old (god forbid!)and has a roll of fat around his middle. Clearly he's not someone to listen to if that's the best he can do with himself. I'm pretty sure that's how we decide these things around here right?

5e92edc5a180787a60a252a8232006e9

(345)

on June 18, 2012
at 02:22 PM

You have not seen Cordain. He's fit as a fiddle, has no paunch and is taller than Lalonde. If you had to go by looks, the founding father of Paleo would be your choice over Matt Johnny Come Lately Lalonde.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on June 18, 2012
at 03:46 PM

Oh for the love of Pete! I AM OLD! And I have a roll of fat around my middle. I've seen Cordain. He has a little gut there. However, not the point. At all. Clearly I have failed here. You have my apologies.

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on June 18, 2012
at 04:24 AM

Shari, your awesomeness is showing again. :)

Medium avatar

(8239)

on June 18, 2012
at 04:07 PM

The moral this round, Shari, is: some people are immune to irony. Please don't let this dissuade you. Kudos.

464e1c66609d402615ae2b3cf72d53fb

(1472)

on June 18, 2012
at 02:25 PM

Careful, you are going to be old some day too.

Bdc6244bdbd664d2168a8e326018ffbe

(431)

on July 13, 2012
at 02:32 PM

Irony taken, but I think its not entirely an invalid way at ALL. And in this case, Mat Lalonde is clearly more qualified irregardless of looks, so the argument is moot.

9
Medium avatar

on June 19, 2012
at 08:12 PM

I think the Kresser-Lalonde podcast should be required listening for anyone entering into paleo, as the hyperbole of primal seems to cloud the brains of many in The Sphere. The collaborative interview injects much common sense (especially regarding epigenetics and all the "we haven't evolved enough to eat this, this and that" guff) into what is so obviously, in itself, an evolving discussion. I think Lalonde rocks, and has more guts (underneath his flat tummy!) than many in The Movement.

3
96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19413)

on June 18, 2012
at 02:21 PM

There are certainly bugs in Cordain's 1st book, which he has mentioned in various interviews.

I don't know who's right or wrong, but I do know that if I eat too many nuts, it stalls fat loss or causes fat gain. I do know that if I go anywhere near grains, I get instant diarrhea for two days, lose my immunity to cold, and feel completely awful.

I've not tried beans in a long time, but the sugars in them do cause gas, so why bother? I'm very certain that soy is very bad stuff, so I won't try them.

It's very possible that anti-nutrients aren't as bad as claimed, perhaps some of us have some genetic adaptations to them, but the things that contain them still have tons of bad effects, so why would I want to eat them?

Maybe phytate or phytic acid is already bound to metals, and thus can't "steal" any from you, but then again, it doesn't mean that the advertized iron, or magnesium, content of of a food is absorbed as we already know, so the nutritional label on these is wrong to start with.

I do know that eating kale and spinach is something that does make me feel more alert and better over all, and while that's a fuzzy way of measuring it, oxalates, or other phtytate-like substances don't bother me when I eat it - probably because I cook them.

So, overall, this is picking nits, and in the end it doesn't matter in practice... at least for n=1 me. I'll still avoid too much nuts, and all grains.

IMHO, everyone is going to be wrong somewhere, there are perfect paleo gods out there. Just because something Cordain says is wrong doesn't negate the rest of what he says. Nor would I expect Lalonde to be 100% correct on everything he says either.

On top of that new studies are released every day. That's just a part of how science works. Some of those studies are flawed, or possibly faked, others validly negate previously thought correct data.

I'm not sure I'd categorize an interview with Matt where Loren isn't there to answer him one way or another as a "Cage Match" - and if anything, professional wrestling is mostly fake, so please do refrain from the hyperbole. As you'll note the title of the podcast episode isn't "This Just In: Cordain is WRONG!!!!!1!" There's no need to pick up on one detail and use it as "evidence" to negate everything he says.

3
64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on June 18, 2012
at 03:00 AM

I think the biggest issue Mat has is that Loren uses the phytic acid argument too much. People get scared into avoiding phytic acid at all costs in spite of the fact that it doesn't bind minerals the way Loren claims it does.

Also the saponins and lectins, which many people claim we need to avoid, don't behave quite as bad as they're made out to be.

To answer #2, I'm on Lalonde's side.

5e92edc5a180787a60a252a8232006e9

(345)

on June 18, 2012
at 03:14 AM

Actually if you are gonna take sides, check out Paul of PHD's position on legumes. He doesn't like legumes either but I'm not sure if for the same reasons. I'm not sure if Cordain's position is valid but you have to understand, he is not the only one who's against legumes. Robb Wolf is too, but you can disregard him since he suffers from autoimmunity and IBD and his book doesn't distinguish between autoimmune and regular dieters.

Dc6407193ba441d1438f6f0c06af872b

(4400)

on June 18, 2012
at 05:24 AM

Mat doesn't like legumes either. He's just saying to get the reasoning right.

A50ca1bb3d72544cb50171bd7b46105c

(130)

on June 18, 2012
at 09:13 AM

Just to add something to your statement Michael, Matt also said, sprouted Legumes might be good (or a good alternative) for Vegetarians (I think to get some proteins, if I remember it correctly)

2
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on June 18, 2012
at 01:49 PM

Mat is big on what has been supported by science. It's technically correct, but is that the best kind of correct? That's his paleo schtick. He certainly doesn't live and die by what science has supported and what it hasn't, else he wouldn't be paleo (as there's little scientific support for paleo as a whole). I do think Mat is a smart guy, but the dogmatic view of science irks me a bit.

Despite being a founding father of paleo, I've read next to nothing by Cordain. He's certainly been eclipsed by nearly everybody in the paleo community. Folks talk about 'faileo' paleo, but I don't know the details myself and really can't comment.

In the end, it's an apples and oranges matchup, both are paleo. Best to ignore the personalities, but that might just be my anti-political attitude showing.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on June 19, 2012
at 08:36 PM

Mat's talks seem to center around what can and cannot be said about paleo using the science that has been done on it. That's his schtick (not sic). The whole point as I get from it from it there's relatively little support for all the tenets of paleo.

Medium avatar

(211)

on June 19, 2012
at 08:28 PM

Paleo (eating natural foods) is the most sane diet out there, needing little support (although it's not like support is lacking for such lunacy). You're calling science-based assessments "schtick" (sic)? Um, yes, I would call supported science "the best kind of correct". Until "correct" is proven otherwise. But that's science: the evolution of the testing of ideas.

2
3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

(2919)

on June 18, 2012
at 03:42 AM

Hypothetical question for those who adhere to a Paleo Diet: if science managed to create some Frankenfood that mimicked a food in nature, except...

it did not contain any of these: -No Phytates/oxalates -No lectins/saponins/tannins/salicylates -No PCBs/plastics/heavy metals and free of environmental toxins -No artificial preservatives/antibiotics and mold inhibitors -No disaccharides or lactose/fructose/fructans/FODMAPS -No phytoestrogens -No cellulose or irritating insoluble fiber -No gluten/casein -No vegetable oils/trans fats/hydrogenated oils of any sort.

And it had: -Taste wise, it had all 6 tastes in pleasant ratios, including sourness, bitterness and umami. Also, depending on your mood, it may taste like chocolate as well.
-Texture wise, it would be creamy, soft but not fallsapartinyourmouthsoft and some parts of this food are also lightly crunchy. -Can be eaten raw or cooked. -Extremely shelf stable. -Good potassium/sodium balance -High in magnesium/moderate in calcium -High in MCT saturated fat and fat soluble vitamins ADEK -High in Omega-3 PUFAs, that were preserved from oxidation due to the other beneficial parts of this frankenfood. Small amount of essential Omega-6s in the form of LA and GLA.
-Contained all of the B-group vitamins in proper ratios (with a little extra b6) and Vit C -Significant source of bioavailable zinc and heme-iron. -Contained lactic, butyric, acetic and lauric acids. -High in easily assimilated complete protein. -Good source of soluble fiber and resistant starch. -Low in carbohydrates and the carbohydrates that it contains are from glucose, fiber and resistant starch. -Potent source of probiotics. -Contained antioxidants found in berries and many common herbs such as anthocyanins and rosmarinic acid. -Full of live enzymes. -It's basically a divine food with no downsides and would fix all of humanity's health problems if they just consumed this one, hypernutritious ultradelicious food. You get the point.

How many of you would honestly NOT eat this miracle food on the basis that it's a frankenfood (albeit a good one) and a food that was not available during Paleo times?

3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

(2919)

on June 18, 2012
at 03:25 PM

@Air_Hadoken, it's directly related to the topic of the podcast and Mat Lalonde's world view. So no And Raydawg, you're way overthinking it. It's a hypothetical question and I gave you all the information necessary. There are NO negatives to this food except for the fact that it's designed in a laboratory and did not exist in nature at any time.

7fc82eebafd44badc73c520f44660150

(3275)

on June 18, 2012
at 10:28 AM

Yes , do ask as a stand a lone question, very interesting!

85382cd84288ed28c92cbfe7bfcaf226

(184)

on June 18, 2012
at 10:54 AM

If my aunt had testicals, would she be my uncle?

C56baa1b4f39839c018180bf63226f7d

(3499)

on June 18, 2012
at 05:42 AM

Maybe you should ask this question as, y'know, a question.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84

(19413)

on June 18, 2012
at 02:25 PM

If it wasn't made by Monsanto, ADM, any of the agra/pharma evil companies, and it had all of the above characteristics, I'd consider eating it after it's been on the market for 10 years and lots of studies have ruled on its safety.

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on June 18, 2012
at 03:12 PM

More like twenty years, or forty -- like how long the current dietary experiment has been in motion.

004d08b6edf7473c15fbb634abb6d88a

(281)

on June 25, 2012
at 08:01 PM

There ARE negatives, we're just not aware of them. This "food" can only be as good as our current understanding. A century ago we thought fat, protein, and carbs were the only thing that mattered. Then we discovered vitamins and minerals. And now there are dozens of other things to consider -- phenols, antioxidants, DHA, etc. Despite this, we tend to think we always know the full picture. A food designed on the best knowledge we have at this time will still be lacking critical nutrients or have substances that are harmful when taken out of context of its natural sources. So my answer is no.

1
C3bc92e6b5eba45dc55f43ac3c70cc25

on June 28, 2012
at 12:50 AM

What has Lalonde put out ? Does he have a blog,books or any writen articles that sight his points? Excuse my ignorance but all I know about him is from the few podcast he appeared in. should we trust his POV because he's a biochemist? Wouldn't that be the same as "my boy told me to eat 2g of protein per lb of weight. And he's huge!"

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on June 28, 2012
at 01:16 AM

As far as I've seen, Mat has done a few podcast episodes with Chris Kresser and Robb Wolf. He had a talk at the Ancestral Health Symposium and also at the Paleo Summit. Not saying he's not an intelligent dude, but I wonder what contributions he's made to paleo that gets him speaking gigs like that.

C3bc92e6b5eba45dc55f43ac3c70cc25

on June 28, 2012
at 02:10 AM

Exactly Matt! I can see why Robb Wolf dubs him the Kraken. Because of the no blogging or website(from my knowledge) He's pretty well hidden.

Da8e709acde269e8b8bfbc09d1737841

(1906)

on July 02, 2012
at 10:13 PM

The fact that Matt doesn't have a blog or a book doesn't in any way invalidate his points. I'm seeing a lot of Matt-hate not based on the logic/science he's using, but more on emotional defense of other Paleo "gurus". That's dangerous.

1
34cf7065a6c94062c711eb16c0f6adc3

on June 18, 2012
at 08:04 AM

I don't know if Matt is right, but Cordain is more wrong than Matt. Cordain has backtracked on Saturated Fat, but IMVHO that's not enough.

0
5bd61c4447cfefef1021edf8cabe2442

on September 05, 2012
at 08:45 PM

Gosh, this is a hot topic, but really, both of these guys are extremely brave and both bring a lot to the (hopefully meat laden) table.

Ultimately, it's easy to criticise, everyone who makes broad, brave opinions has something wrong somewhere, so it's certain that Loren Cordain has some things wrong. So, Matt has some new, more modern opinions, based on some more modern science, but he is not published, so he is hardly taking the risks that Cordain has taken or brings such a level of benefit to the Paleosphere.

Ultimately, they both bring a lot to the table, and as someone who has benefited from Paleo as an approach, the idea of 'faileo' is not something I can easily take on board.

Ultimately, we all benefit from scientific rigour, so if Mat Lalonde acts as a scientific overseer and makes everyone else work just that little bit harder we won't end up with any Colin T. Campbell style crazyiness in the Paleo world.

I would like to see these guys sit down and thrash this out and given the Lalonde, Wolf, Cordain link I am surprised that has never happened and we have got to this level of beef.

0
7fb4e9fb1162999cdd5099fee49dd0a7

on June 25, 2012
at 03:02 PM

Cordain totally knows everything about antinutrients. He has published gadzillions on them. Biochemists know jack about antinutrients, it is an esoteric field that is probably not mentioned once in any major biochemistry text book. Matt is a dabbler with a big mouth. I wonder if he will recant if he is well refuted? – Paleozombie 2 hours ago

@Paleozombie, you seem to have a major hard-on for Mat. I appreciate that everyone deserves their opinion and you've invested time in Cordain to the point that you come across as close-minded (at least to me).

Biochemists know jack about antinutrients

WTF are you talking about?

I respect Loren Cordain, I've never heard of Mat Lalonde - but at some point Loren Cordain was where Mat Lalonde is now, so he deserves the same open-mindedness. He seems very educated and carries his research/opinion with authority & confidence. It's important to be able to articulate your findings & I actually find him quite humble - compared to Robb Wolf he's Ghandi.

I don't know whether he's right or wrong, I do believe that scientists should be open to their studies being analyzed and disproved or otherwise. Hopefully a response surfaces soon, I do know I've eaten legumes, wheat etc. in the past, and for now at least, I'm going to stick to what makes me feel healthiest.

5e92edc5a180787a60a252a8232006e9

(345)

on June 25, 2012
at 03:40 PM

I would say Cordain has more credibility than Matt. What do you have on behalf of Matt's stance other than his degree? He hasn't staked out a position. He's merely criticizing Cordain but hasn't really come up with any specifics. His stupid rendition of Paleo is flawed because we assume, if we didn't eat it, it can't be healthy is an old act. He's been singing that same, creaky tune ever since appeared on the scene and started charging fees for his ridiculous seminars. That's been his ticket to fame and slogan. But where is the beef: where is any substance to his position?

-1
5c695836c9b8aba078531335f9a9d6ff

on June 25, 2012
at 12:38 PM

Mat is out of his depth. Open wide for humble pie.

Answer Question


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