2

votes

Have you seen this "paleo" paper?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created March 11, 2011 at 9:03 AM

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.

http://www.dovepress.com/the-western-diet-and-lifestyle-and-diseases-of-civilization-peer-reviewed-article-RRCC

4e40d2b9e1a762949a25b958762aa10d

(762)

on March 15, 2011
at 03:08 PM

I'll point out that this is more my heuristic in sifting through research. Many share it but there is no intrinsic reason why an article in lower tier journal is bad. Rather, odds are it's not high impact. (Which perhaps matters more for tenure than enduring science.) Newton's calculus is pretty high impact. I hate to see what the NSF reviews for that project would have been!

4e40d2b9e1a762949a25b958762aa10d

(762)

on March 15, 2011
at 03:05 PM

@RG73: It sounds like you also have experience writing, reviewing, and publishing papers. I agree that Nature & Science don't always publish top-quality science and they are telegraphic due to anachronistic space constraints. Still, they, or perhaps Neuron, Cell, & JBC, have more extended experiments and usually more rigorous design.

A6cffe7397214f338ae098613eea6737

(50)

on March 13, 2011
at 12:43 PM

Thanks for the link.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on March 13, 2011
at 12:16 AM

Also, I'll add that Dove Press journals go through the entire review in 3 weeks. When you've sat around waiting 3 months for a journal to get back to you with a decision, the 3 weeks starts to sound a lot better. Also, being privy to the review process, most reviewers aren't sitting with your paper for 3 months. The paper is sitting in their email box for 2 months and 3 weeks, at which point the editor has to pester them to get it done before the deadline. And even then, people are asking for extensions. So I'm a big fan of PLoS and other open access journals.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on March 13, 2011
at 12:09 AM

Eh, I think most scientists will tell you that while Nature and Science are high profile, their review process often isn't always terribly rigorous. It is often political (as is the scientific review proces in general, like pretty much every realm of human endeavor) and they'll willing publish total rubbish just for the attention (witness, for example, the recent "arsenic" bacteria paper--great press, awful science). As for the review, some decent points, but you get the feeling Cordain cherry-picks data and he's kind of obsessed with his anti-diary and low fat ideas.

84666a86108dee8d11cbbc85b6382083

(2399)

on March 11, 2011
at 10:27 AM

Cordain's but "We thank Mr Ricardo Reis Carvalho and Drs Christopher Ramsden and Stephan Guyenet for their critical contributions to this manuscript."

  • 2507b557331c8a674bc81197531e609a

    asked by

    (4994)
  • Views
    1.4K
  • Last Activity
    1518D AGO
Frontpage book

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

4 Answers

4
4e40d2b9e1a762949a25b958762aa10d

(762)

on March 11, 2011
at 03:12 PM

Hi Carly,

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.

HTH, Mike

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on March 13, 2011
at 12:16 AM

Also, I'll add that Dove Press journals go through the entire review in 3 weeks. When you've sat around waiting 3 months for a journal to get back to you with a decision, the 3 weeks starts to sound a lot better. Also, being privy to the review process, most reviewers aren't sitting with your paper for 3 months. The paper is sitting in their email box for 2 months and 3 weeks, at which point the editor has to pester them to get it done before the deadline. And even then, people are asking for extensions. So I'm a big fan of PLoS and other open access journals.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on March 13, 2011
at 12:09 AM

Eh, I think most scientists will tell you that while Nature and Science are high profile, their review process often isn't always terribly rigorous. It is often political (as is the scientific review proces in general, like pretty much every realm of human endeavor) and they'll willing publish total rubbish just for the attention (witness, for example, the recent "arsenic" bacteria paper--great press, awful science). As for the review, some decent points, but you get the feeling Cordain cherry-picks data and he's kind of obsessed with his anti-diary and low fat ideas.

4e40d2b9e1a762949a25b958762aa10d

(762)

on March 15, 2011
at 03:05 PM

@RG73: It sounds like you also have experience writing, reviewing, and publishing papers. I agree that Nature & Science don't always publish top-quality science and they are telegraphic due to anachronistic space constraints. Still, they, or perhaps Neuron, Cell, & JBC, have more extended experiments and usually more rigorous design.

4e40d2b9e1a762949a25b958762aa10d

(762)

on March 15, 2011
at 03:08 PM

I'll point out that this is more my heuristic in sifting through research. Many share it but there is no intrinsic reason why an article in lower tier journal is bad. Rather, odds are it's not high impact. (Which perhaps matters more for tenure than enduring science.) Newton's calculus is pretty high impact. I hate to see what the NSF reviews for that project would have been!

2
D8195c5ae6c967027a3133d74969d0e1

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!

1
A00c387fba0cc880b60246d72eb9def8

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.

JMC

0
Bb4a9de56dc5016b903d96b318a77ef2

on March 11, 2011
at 02:37 PM

Very Nice, Thank you (:

Answer Question


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