Have you seen this paper yet? It's 21 pages long but I thought it could be a really useful tool to either refresh your "paleo" knowledge, or to use when needing to direct someone to something thorough and comprehensive. I have for one already posted it on my facebook and twitter page :D Well worth a read.
asked byCarly (4994)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on March 11, 2011
at 03:12 PM
This 'article' is a review and so contains no original research. Also, it's published in an obscure journal with no track record. Academics do judge a paper by where it's published because articles published in higher tier journals (Science, Nature, Cell, J. Clinical Investigation) are usually more scientifically rigorous than lower tier (Research Reports in ..., PLoS ..., ) journals. (It's not lost on me that to do rigorous studies one needs money that one gets most easily by drinking the Kool-Aid.) This paper like most reviews make unwarranted speculation (e.g. about arachidonic acid) and provides no data that establish causal relationships.
Nevertheless, perhaps scientific orthodoxy prevented the paper from getting published in a higher journal. I could believe this explanation for a denial of funding. But given the amount of heretical science papers floating around I don't find that likely. Whether I agree with the content of any scientific paper is immaterial to how I assess the quality of its presentation.
on March 12, 2011
at 10:03 PM
In regards to research - I did some prior to committing myself to paleo eating (with the help of my son) - I'd recommend Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories - it's a lengthy discourse, but along with Robb Wolf's Paleo Solution - I was convinced that Paleo was definitely worth the try - I'm only 25 days on this journey, but wish I'd been born a little later, or not given up on my food research 10-15 yrs ago, the years of waiting for this kind of eating haven't been kind to me - I'm just making up for lost time now, and hoping to extend a few more yrs. to give to my grandchild!
on March 14, 2011
at 05:14 PM
This paper tries to counter various nutritional dogmas, such as as "coconuts are bad for you, because they contain saturated fat", whole grains are great", Omega -6 fatty acids prevent CHD", "milk is nature's perfect food", etc.
To publish all this in a top journal would be hard, because it goes against what is established. As so, I can understand why it was not published in a top journal, such as NEJM, Lancet, American Journal of Nutrition, etc. Normally, when you see a comprehensive review in those journals, you have already seen lots of studies backing it up in the previous years.
REgarding the paper, like all papers it is not perfect and everyone will find at least one point of disagreement, since Nutritional Sciences are subjected to this all the time. Nevertheless, it covers a lot of ground and overall it gives a very broad picture of the relationship between lifestyle, diet and disease with a focus on CHD.
The arachidonic acid point has been subjected to a lot of discussion, but when we see the literature, we see that most studies where AA was found to have adverse effects, the Omega-3 content of the diet was low. The first study, to my knowledge, to analyze a higher AA intake in a population with a high fish intake, was performed by Kusumoto and published in BJN (Kusumoto A, Ishikura Y, Kawashima H, Kiso Y, Takai S, Miyazaki M. Effects of arachidonate-enriched triacylglycerol supplementation on serum fatty acids and platelet aggregation in healthy male subjects with a fish diet. Br J Nutr. 2007 Sep;98(3):626-3) and found no adverse effects.
I see the authors use a paper from Charles Serhan as reference for the AA topic. I have read a lot of papers from Serhan, and his lab has found that AA is necessary for the resolution of inflammation, via lipoxins.