3

votes

Do you believe Paleo will be the next trend not vetted by the Scientific Method?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created April 24, 2011 at 3:34 AM

Many major advancements of science were not discovered by the Scientific Method. We read many blogs by scientists or scientists in training like Chris Masterjohn and come away with faith that science may triumph over dogma. But some of the greatest scientific discoveries were not founded by the scientific method. They were first formulated as abstract theories that did not violate known observations and only later were validated by experiment, often only partially. Think about relativity theory, quantum chromodynamics, string and brane theory. Many postulated phenomena have never been the object of observation, like the Higgs Boson and dark matter. What say you about the Paleo method?

Medium avatar

(12379)

on April 26, 2011
at 08:52 PM

Ok - well I think we do agree in principle - just disagree in timing. It seems to me that we are all kind of splitting hairs a little bit here. In my view, the scientific method from start to finish is meant to be undertaken by the same person or group of people. Ask a question - Do research - Formulate a Theory - Test your Theory (experiment) - Draw Conclusions - Write report/thesis/paper etc.

C029fb3c7c1f1ed4a004390bef728e2d

(236)

on April 25, 2011
at 05:37 PM

When is anything "valid"? Is true validity possible? The only things I know to prove truth beyond a shadow of a doubt is the body and the bank account: when the bank account goes up you've made profit when it falls you've lost money. When the body loses fat and maintains muscle you're healthier than when it gains fat and loses muscle. FEEDBACK! :)

F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on April 24, 2011
at 10:05 PM

I sincerely doubt it's luck, but that's my faith in God talking. I also doubt that we evolved through sludge. I think that God had a purposeful goal in mind when He created us. Granted, it might have been through a big bang process, but that's just for us to wonder about :) Happy Easter!

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 24, 2011
at 07:40 PM

No arguments here, Doc.

C029fb3c7c1f1ed4a004390bef728e2d

(236)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:40 PM

Of course it's dogma. It has to be. With endless "scientific" theories disagreeing with us, how can we not just hunker down and close our eyes? Here's an interesting similarity: I believe that when a person engages in a lie it is in all cases negative and harmful to themselves. Now try prove this scientifically. I know this to be true 100%, but to prove it is impossible given the limitations of reason. Welcome to the realm of logic merged with faith.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:01 PM

@Bree: You can disagree all you want, but a cursory glance at the history of science will demonstrate that hypotheses are often proven (or disproven) decades after the fact. There is a reason that new graduate students are sent deep into the stacks of the library to dig up old theory papers--there is a lot of untested theory out there still. There's no reason why you can't do an experiment to test (or retest) old hypotheses decades later. This happens time and time again.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on April 24, 2011
at 02:56 PM

Point taken. But I wasn't thinking about testing the hypothesis that paleo man ate x, y, and z. Rather, I was thinking about the hypothesis that eating a diet of meat, vegetables, and fruits is better for health outcomes than what conventional wisdom indicates. Because this hypothesis involves observable changes, that is why it is "easier" to test than some physics theories that involve crazy stuff.

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on April 24, 2011
at 02:49 PM

Beam me up Scotty

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on April 24, 2011
at 02:24 PM

The scientific method is the closest thing to an actual knowledge about reality generator that we've got. A priori is just another way of saying "I've assumed this about reality", but that's not knowledge, at least not in the sense of justified true belief, it's just belief that might be true and which no skeptic would call justified. The paleo principle emphatically does _not_ generate knowledge. It generates hypotheses _at best_, hypotheses which must be tested to have any validity.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on April 24, 2011
at 02:18 PM

Count me amongst those that are missing the point. Obviously people don't use the scientific method to _generate_ ideas - they use it to _test_ ideas. Ideation takes places all the time in all sorts of circumstances, but merely having a beautiful idea advances nothing. That idea needs to be tested for it to "advance science".

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on April 24, 2011
at 12:51 PM

Without friction there would be no time.

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on April 24, 2011
at 12:49 PM

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Happy Easter one and all

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 12:18 PM

into existence when it is observed. Others say that reality jumps instantly from one state to another when observed. Others say that there is a constantly unfolding infinite manifold of parallel universes, and that each time we make an observation or a choice, we shunt ourselves from one such universe to another. Others yet hold that there indeed can be descriptions where the observer is not necessary for creation of reality. But quantum mechanics began with just a thought. And it continues today to be vetted. I view paleo exactly the same way. I thought it would make a good question.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 12:15 PM

The physics of the very-small or the very-energetic requires rejection of the idea of objective reality as we usually know it. The founders of quantum physics thought there had to be a cozy and highly intertwined relationship between observed physical reality and the state of the observer of that reality. This relationship has been the subject of much thought and inquiry examining the underpinnings of both quantum and relativistic physics, the underpinnings of all contemporary theories of basic physical reality. Some theorists claim that, for the very small or very fast, reality only comes

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 12:04 PM

Jake what if anything guided the process of differentiation and creation of the laws that make the Universe we know feasible? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps what we have is just luck, the result of a random probabilistic process. However, just slightly alter any of the billions of billions of billions of choices that ball of energy made in cooling down. Maybe choices that translate into initial conditions, physical constants and physical laws as we know them and the very fabric of our existence would turn into unfeasible mass. Me personally, this is why I believe in a God. He gave it intention

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 11:58 AM

Jake the Big Bang is simply the original transition from pure possibility, e.g. Everything-Nothing, to the something that that has continued to evolve into the something else that exists now. That is how I look at it as a scientist.First, why did the Universe blink into existence in the first place? Note that science tells us that it makes no sense to ask what came before it or what caused it in a time-process sense, since there was no time until it blinked into existence. I may come back to my speculation on this “why” question a bit later.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 11:50 AM

tin is also not a superconductor.......unless the tempature is vastly changed.........and when it is it behaves very unexpectedly. Scientific method then vetted out why.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 11:24 AM

Stabby I agree with you. The study of Okinawans and supercentanarians show some very interesting over laps that are pillars of paleo lifestyle........my point here is to point out that paleo lifestyle needs to be vetted by science. What Cordain has done is open that discussion. Robb and DeVany have brought it mainstream. This site actually can help vet it by open discussion. What shocks me more is that some bright people here think my very question is somehow preposterous. I think that response shows that there is some paleo bias and dogma already being constructed out there.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 11:18 AM

There are as many untested hypothesis in paleo too. We will never ever know precisely what paleo man ate and we will never ever know what their hormonal status was in response to the diets they ate. It is pure specualtion at this point that has data from anthropologic studies. Moreover today we have to test the theories out on humans with a vastly different physiology and who eat vastly different substrate. The more I type the more physics and paleo seem to have in common. So I definitely think there is some room for comparison.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 11:15 AM

But RG when the hypothesis was made it was not done with any scientifici method. It was a guess......a thought experiment. Same thing theoretical physicists are doing now with the theiry of cosmology. Observational science has to show the framework is correct. I guess the way you look at science and I do is very very different.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 11:13 AM

Jake awesome responses here......

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on April 24, 2011
at 10:28 AM

hindsight is a wonderful thing

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on April 24, 2011
at 09:37 AM

aerodynamically, the bumble bee shouldn't fly

425aa4bfb79556ed50ea693c3edd7e13

(609)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:46 AM

How can you say wolf vetted anything with evidence?

F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:43 AM

To me, paleo is more about building a logical framework around what I should eat. It's not a historical simulation. It's about realizing that there are issues with grains, beans, legumes and the like. I'm gluten intolerant. There's scientific studies for that. How about the recent one in the ny times that sugar is toxic? Great, that's another study I can talk about. Whether or not I chalk it up to de-evolution of the human body, the introduction of agriculture, or the genetic engineering of our food, the conclusion to me is the same, which is the SAD doesn't work in my case, but paleo does.

F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:42 AM

To me, paleo is more about building a logical framework around what I should eat. It's not a historical simulation. It's about realizing that there are issues with grains, beans, legumes and the like. I'm gluten intolerant. There's scientific studies for that. How about the recent one in the ny times that sugar is toxic? Great, that's another scientific fact I can talk about. Whether or not I chalk it up to de-evolution of the human body, the introduction of agriculture, or the genetic engineering of our food, the conclusion to me is the same, which is the SAD doesn't work. Paleo does.

Medium avatar

(12379)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:34 AM

RG - I'm going to have to disagree with you here - the scientific method is not think about it (through experiment) and then 16 yrs later prove it - the scientific method is think about it and then devise an expeirment that will prove your theory to be true (within reasonable statistical parameters). Dr. K this is a very interesting way to view the paleo diet. I am interesting in more of you thinking along this line.

Medium avatar

(12379)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:33 AM

RG - I'm going to have to disagree with you here - the scientific method is not think about it (though experiment) and then 16 yrs later prove it - the scientific method is think about it and then decise an expeirment that will prove your theory to be true (within reasonable statistical parameters). Dr. K this is a very interesting way to view the paleo diet. I am interesting in more of you thinking along this line.

Medium avatar

(5136)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:24 AM

http://madeincantal.com/gascon-diet-and-health/ my people (in spirit at least, and spirits)! Of course they eat non paleo things too, but they credit their longevity to the fat, well, and the armagnac - which makes me want to have some. I agree with Stabby about the sanitation/medicine business.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:18 AM

Markers of health are everything. Epidemiology is nothing. Guys living in the jungle are completely different from agrarians with medicine and sanitation. This has to be the weakest and most widely believed argument ever. Those in Okinawa who live the longest eat the most animal products. Legumes and nuts aren't wheat and seed oils. Meat correlates with sugar and processed food. Cmon, mang.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:09 AM

I think you have a flawed idea of how science is done. Yes, you can do experiments after the fact (this would be say phylogenetic tree building, for example), but researchers usually make predictions of outcomes before experiments. Or they should, since that is the scientific method. As for Einstein, while both general and special relativity have passed most experimental tests, they don't account for every observation. Which is to say, a mathematical construct is not born perfect and all knowing--it has to be tested and refined.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:00 AM

Uh, you can't see proof evolution works? I mean, you know, except for, oh gee, the ridiculous number of experiments done demonstrating evolution? It is fact because, oh, it happens. Oh, but we haven't observed speciation! Oh, except, yeah, we've done it in the lab (not to mention observed it in nature). Oh, but macro-evolution! Done it. Anti-evolutionists have a bad case of not reading, oh, Evolution or the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, or, oh, just about any modern biological literature. But you'll eat based on evolutionary principles? See the disconnect here?

F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:52 AM

I also don't see actual proof that the big bang or evolution works. But it's accepted theory almost made into fact. I also see the positive lab results and other changes that show me that it works (check out freetheanimal). I don't see people who look this fabulous as a result of weight watchers. I see it by eating meat, fat, and working their bodies the way they were designed.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:45 AM

Actually we do have at least one well preserved Paleo man from a glacier. There might be more that I'm unaware of.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:43 AM

Right, it was a thought experiment...which was later proven by experiment and observation. That is the scientific method. Thought experiments and hypothesis making, then testing. Like his notion of quantized photons postulated in 1905 wasn't accept until Millikan's experiments proved in over a decade later. I fail to see how that isn't the scientific method.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:37 AM

Vetted or hypothesis? We cant directly test paelo man can we? We do however draw inferences from skeltal data. But we dont know for sure. We have made hypothesis from the available data. Hence Paleolithic living is not subjected to formal scientific methods. It is currently being tested but we still dont know if eating paleo makes us healthy or confers long life or both. Only scientific method will tell us that. And that is the point of the question.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:30 AM

1921 -1905 is 16 yrs of pure speculation. And his prediction of quasars was not confirmed until Hubble proved it as well.

95eda9fa0cec952b482e869c34a566b6

on April 24, 2011
at 04:29 AM

How does one verify the existence of branes using the scientific method, RG73? Both string and brane theory are just that right now, theories.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:15 AM

not to argue but quantum mechanics began with a thought experiment. Go read Einsteins paper from 1905......not one source noted. It all began with a thought experiment and he was proven correct many yrs later when we could actually measure the bending of light around Mercury in 1921. So I respectfully disagree with you as many physicists would as well.

  • Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

    asked by

    (25472)
  • Views
    1.4K
  • Last Activity
    1403D AGO
Frontpage book

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

5 Answers

7
9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 24, 2011
at 03:58 AM

Everything you're talking about was done via the scientific method. Theorists came up with hypotheses, experimenters tested the hypotheses. I mean I'm not following you at all here. It is possible the Higgs boson has been observed now at the LHC (according to the recent leak). Dark matter is inferred by making observations and attempting to make sense of them, but I fail to see how the inability to directly test dark matter thus far is not the scientific method. Relativity, or at least several of Einstein's hypotheses, have been experimentally demonstrated. Ditto quantum mechanics. String and brane theory can't really be tested with current technology--but that doesn't mean that we've made some advance without the scientific method. It simply means that a theorist came up with a beautiful, but untestable hypothesis. It doesn't mean that string theory is in any way true, nor does a model constitute a scientific discovery. It's math on a page (or in a computer). Until the science is done it isn't real.

So, no, science always advances via the scientific method. Where science has failed to advance is usually due to not applying the scientific method (see Ancel Keys, for example).

Also, since people are testing paleo type diets, and since there is an ample literature on high fat, low carb diets (a large clinical literature at that)...science is advancing against dogma.

Medium avatar

(12379)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:33 AM

RG - I'm going to have to disagree with you here - the scientific method is not think about it (though experiment) and then 16 yrs later prove it - the scientific method is think about it and then decise an expeirment that will prove your theory to be true (within reasonable statistical parameters). Dr. K this is a very interesting way to view the paleo diet. I am interesting in more of you thinking along this line.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:15 AM

not to argue but quantum mechanics began with a thought experiment. Go read Einsteins paper from 1905......not one source noted. It all began with a thought experiment and he was proven correct many yrs later when we could actually measure the bending of light around Mercury in 1921. So I respectfully disagree with you as many physicists would as well.

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on April 24, 2011
at 02:49 PM

Beam me up Scotty

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:30 AM

1921 -1905 is 16 yrs of pure speculation. And his prediction of quasars was not confirmed until Hubble proved it as well.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 12:18 PM

into existence when it is observed. Others say that reality jumps instantly from one state to another when observed. Others say that there is a constantly unfolding infinite manifold of parallel universes, and that each time we make an observation or a choice, we shunt ourselves from one such universe to another. Others yet hold that there indeed can be descriptions where the observer is not necessary for creation of reality. But quantum mechanics began with just a thought. And it continues today to be vetted. I view paleo exactly the same way. I thought it would make a good question.

Medium avatar

(12379)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:34 AM

RG - I'm going to have to disagree with you here - the scientific method is not think about it (through experiment) and then 16 yrs later prove it - the scientific method is think about it and then devise an expeirment that will prove your theory to be true (within reasonable statistical parameters). Dr. K this is a very interesting way to view the paleo diet. I am interesting in more of you thinking along this line.

95eda9fa0cec952b482e869c34a566b6

on April 24, 2011
at 04:29 AM

How does one verify the existence of branes using the scientific method, RG73? Both string and brane theory are just that right now, theories.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:43 AM

Right, it was a thought experiment...which was later proven by experiment and observation. That is the scientific method. Thought experiments and hypothesis making, then testing. Like his notion of quantized photons postulated in 1905 wasn't accept until Millikan's experiments proved in over a decade later. I fail to see how that isn't the scientific method.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on April 24, 2011
at 02:18 PM

Count me amongst those that are missing the point. Obviously people don't use the scientific method to _generate_ ideas - they use it to _test_ ideas. Ideation takes places all the time in all sorts of circumstances, but merely having a beautiful idea advances nothing. That idea needs to be tested for it to "advance science".

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:01 PM

@Bree: You can disagree all you want, but a cursory glance at the history of science will demonstrate that hypotheses are often proven (or disproven) decades after the fact. There is a reason that new graduate students are sent deep into the stacks of the library to dig up old theory papers--there is a lot of untested theory out there still. There's no reason why you can't do an experiment to test (or retest) old hypotheses decades later. This happens time and time again.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 12:15 PM

The physics of the very-small or the very-energetic requires rejection of the idea of objective reality as we usually know it. The founders of quantum physics thought there had to be a cozy and highly intertwined relationship between observed physical reality and the state of the observer of that reality. This relationship has been the subject of much thought and inquiry examining the underpinnings of both quantum and relativistic physics, the underpinnings of all contemporary theories of basic physical reality. Some theorists claim that, for the very small or very fast, reality only comes

Medium avatar

(12379)

on April 26, 2011
at 08:52 PM

Ok - well I think we do agree in principle - just disagree in timing. It seems to me that we are all kind of splitting hairs a little bit here. In my view, the scientific method from start to finish is meant to be undertaken by the same person or group of people. Ask a question - Do research - Formulate a Theory - Test your Theory (experiment) - Draw Conclusions - Write report/thesis/paper etc.

2
C029fb3c7c1f1ed4a004390bef728e2d

on April 24, 2011
at 04:48 AM

Couldn't agree more, Dr. K.

The scientific method, or rather the focus on a posteriori knowledge as the only manner of discerning "truth" is wholly flawed. The Paleo approach is an apriori approach, and hence why we can predict outcomes before we have observable phenomena. This is what Einstein knew about relativity theory before he could prove it.

The scientific method vis a vis pure posteriori knowledge isn't very useful without a priori starting point.

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on April 24, 2011
at 10:28 AM

hindsight is a wonderful thing

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:09 AM

I think you have a flawed idea of how science is done. Yes, you can do experiments after the fact (this would be say phylogenetic tree building, for example), but researchers usually make predictions of outcomes before experiments. Or they should, since that is the scientific method. As for Einstein, while both general and special relativity have passed most experimental tests, they don't account for every observation. Which is to say, a mathematical construct is not born perfect and all knowing--it has to be tested and refined.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 11:15 AM

But RG when the hypothesis was made it was not done with any scientifici method. It was a guess......a thought experiment. Same thing theoretical physicists are doing now with the theiry of cosmology. Observational science has to show the framework is correct. I guess the way you look at science and I do is very very different.

4145b36f1488224964edac6258b75aff

(7821)

on April 24, 2011
at 02:24 PM

The scientific method is the closest thing to an actual knowledge about reality generator that we've got. A priori is just another way of saying "I've assumed this about reality", but that's not knowledge, at least not in the sense of justified true belief, it's just belief that might be true and which no skeptic would call justified. The paleo principle emphatically does _not_ generate knowledge. It generates hypotheses _at best_, hypotheses which must be tested to have any validity.

C029fb3c7c1f1ed4a004390bef728e2d

(236)

on April 25, 2011
at 05:37 PM

When is anything "valid"? Is true validity possible? The only things I know to prove truth beyond a shadow of a doubt is the body and the bank account: when the bank account goes up you've made profit when it falls you've lost money. When the body loses fat and maintains muscle you're healthier than when it gains fat and loses muscle. FEEDBACK! :)

2
F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:31 AM

I would say that paleo has been vetted by science to a reasonable degree. Just look at Cordain, and Wolf, and their evidence for it.

I think that there are interesting things being figured out by people on paleo. I tell my friends "oh, this has changed" and their look of disbelief is priceless. Like my white hair going away via diet. And seeing the change in less than two weeks on a reasonably clean diet. Also the fact that I doubled my weight loss on paleo (I dropped 15 pounds in the first 30 days!).

I think that we (the people doing or talking about paleo) are stuck against popular opinion. Popular opinion is about portion control, counting calories, limiting fat, and look where that has gotten us!

I think that there's a good amount of people who listen to their doctors, the government (in this case, the USDA) and about eating "healthy whole grains" and about limiting fats.

Until we change public opinion, I doubt it's going anywhere. I know more people are looking into it, but I just see that as the first wave. I think it'll go over well in about 5-10 years, but I don't see scientific opinion changing public or popular opinion.

I also look at the damage done by how Atkins died. A lot of people compare this diet to atkins, even though I think there are a lot of big differences (like the idea of low-carb vs no cereal grains). They hear it and go "oh, it's like atkins. Aren't you worried about dying?" And I then get to spend some time explaining the differences and why I'm not worried about my health. In fact, I'm in the best shape of my life, and changing my life day by day.

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on April 24, 2011
at 12:49 PM

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Happy Easter one and all

F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:52 AM

I also don't see actual proof that the big bang or evolution works. But it's accepted theory almost made into fact. I also see the positive lab results and other changes that show me that it works (check out freetheanimal). I don't see people who look this fabulous as a result of weight watchers. I see it by eating meat, fat, and working their bodies the way they were designed.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 11:13 AM

Jake awesome responses here......

425aa4bfb79556ed50ea693c3edd7e13

(609)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:46 AM

How can you say wolf vetted anything with evidence?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:37 AM

Vetted or hypothesis? We cant directly test paelo man can we? We do however draw inferences from skeltal data. But we dont know for sure. We have made hypothesis from the available data. Hence Paleolithic living is not subjected to formal scientific methods. It is currently being tested but we still dont know if eating paleo makes us healthy or confers long life or both. Only scientific method will tell us that. And that is the point of the question.

F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:43 AM

To me, paleo is more about building a logical framework around what I should eat. It's not a historical simulation. It's about realizing that there are issues with grains, beans, legumes and the like. I'm gluten intolerant. There's scientific studies for that. How about the recent one in the ny times that sugar is toxic? Great, that's another study I can talk about. Whether or not I chalk it up to de-evolution of the human body, the introduction of agriculture, or the genetic engineering of our food, the conclusion to me is the same, which is the SAD doesn't work in my case, but paleo does.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:45 AM

Actually we do have at least one well preserved Paleo man from a glacier. There might be more that I'm unaware of.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 12:04 PM

Jake what if anything guided the process of differentiation and creation of the laws that make the Universe we know feasible? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps what we have is just luck, the result of a random probabilistic process. However, just slightly alter any of the billions of billions of billions of choices that ball of energy made in cooling down. Maybe choices that translate into initial conditions, physical constants and physical laws as we know them and the very fabric of our existence would turn into unfeasible mass. Me personally, this is why I believe in a God. He gave it intention

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 11:58 AM

Jake the Big Bang is simply the original transition from pure possibility, e.g. Everything-Nothing, to the something that that has continued to evolve into the something else that exists now. That is how I look at it as a scientist.First, why did the Universe blink into existence in the first place? Note that science tells us that it makes no sense to ask what came before it or what caused it in a time-process sense, since there was no time until it blinked into existence. I may come back to my speculation on this “why” question a bit later.

9f9fa49265e03ddd2bf2bba5477a556b

(3184)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:00 AM

Uh, you can't see proof evolution works? I mean, you know, except for, oh gee, the ridiculous number of experiments done demonstrating evolution? It is fact because, oh, it happens. Oh, but we haven't observed speciation! Oh, except, yeah, we've done it in the lab (not to mention observed it in nature). Oh, but macro-evolution! Done it. Anti-evolutionists have a bad case of not reading, oh, Evolution or the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, or, oh, just about any modern biological literature. But you'll eat based on evolutionary principles? See the disconnect here?

2f54dbe892ec89b12d1db686568e885a

(919)

on April 24, 2011
at 12:51 PM

Without friction there would be no time.

F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:42 AM

To me, paleo is more about building a logical framework around what I should eat. It's not a historical simulation. It's about realizing that there are issues with grains, beans, legumes and the like. I'm gluten intolerant. There's scientific studies for that. How about the recent one in the ny times that sugar is toxic? Great, that's another scientific fact I can talk about. Whether or not I chalk it up to de-evolution of the human body, the introduction of agriculture, or the genetic engineering of our food, the conclusion to me is the same, which is the SAD doesn't work. Paleo does.

F6ea948ab43dc51d72509c0989e670fe

(1639)

on April 24, 2011
at 10:05 PM

I sincerely doubt it's luck, but that's my faith in God talking. I also doubt that we evolved through sludge. I think that God had a purposeful goal in mind when He created us. Granted, it might have been through a big bang process, but that's just for us to wonder about :) Happy Easter!

1
21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:44 AM

  1. Physics and nutrition are very different fields. There are many more untestable hypotheses in physics.

  2. In paleo, we don't need experiments linking every nutrient/food with a health outcome. With simple evolution and genetics as a backbone, we can make fairly sound guesses without doing a bajillion clinical trials on paleo diets.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 11:18 AM

There are as many untested hypothesis in paleo too. We will never ever know precisely what paleo man ate and we will never ever know what their hormonal status was in response to the diets they ate. It is pure specualtion at this point that has data from anthropologic studies. Moreover today we have to test the theories out on humans with a vastly different physiology and who eat vastly different substrate. The more I type the more physics and paleo seem to have in common. So I definitely think there is some room for comparison.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on April 24, 2011
at 02:56 PM

Point taken. But I wasn't thinking about testing the hypothesis that paleo man ate x, y, and z. Rather, I was thinking about the hypothesis that eating a diet of meat, vegetables, and fruits is better for health outcomes than what conventional wisdom indicates. Because this hypothesis involves observable changes, that is why it is "easier" to test than some physics theories that involve crazy stuff.

0
8f4ff12a53a98f3b5814cfe242de0daa

(1075)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:08 AM

I just do not see it happening. There is no modern human group that is exceptionally long lived and eats a paleo like diet. There have been consistent markers of health among people like the Inuit, Masai, etc. But when you get to longest your talking: legumes, wine, rough grain, nuts, and almost always specifically limited meat intake.

There are definite health advantages with paleo perhaps, but you would expect that across the world being long lived would not generally go along with a low meat diet.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:18 AM

Markers of health are everything. Epidemiology is nothing. Guys living in the jungle are completely different from agrarians with medicine and sanitation. This has to be the weakest and most widely believed argument ever. Those in Okinawa who live the longest eat the most animal products. Legumes and nuts aren't wheat and seed oils. Meat correlates with sugar and processed food. Cmon, mang.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on April 24, 2011
at 11:24 AM

Stabby I agree with you. The study of Okinawans and supercentanarians show some very interesting over laps that are pillars of paleo lifestyle........my point here is to point out that paleo lifestyle needs to be vetted by science. What Cordain has done is open that discussion. Robb and DeVany have brought it mainstream. This site actually can help vet it by open discussion. What shocks me more is that some bright people here think my very question is somehow preposterous. I think that response shows that there is some paleo bias and dogma already being constructed out there.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on April 24, 2011
at 07:40 PM

No arguments here, Doc.

Medium avatar

(5136)

on April 24, 2011
at 05:24 AM

http://madeincantal.com/gascon-diet-and-health/ my people (in spirit at least, and spirits)! Of course they eat non paleo things too, but they credit their longevity to the fat, well, and the armagnac - which makes me want to have some. I agree with Stabby about the sanitation/medicine business.

C029fb3c7c1f1ed4a004390bef728e2d

(236)

on April 24, 2011
at 04:40 PM

Of course it's dogma. It has to be. With endless "scientific" theories disagreeing with us, how can we not just hunker down and close our eyes? Here's an interesting similarity: I believe that when a person engages in a lie it is in all cases negative and harmful to themselves. Now try prove this scientifically. I know this to be true 100%, but to prove it is impossible given the limitations of reason. Welcome to the realm of logic merged with faith.

Answer Question


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