2

votes

Have you seen the NPR.org article trashing us?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created October 27, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Have you seen this garbage:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/10/27/141666659/the-paleo-diet-not-the-way-to-a-healthy-future

A self-admitted biased vegetarian relying on bad science and CW junk studies. Unbelievable that this would be published on a left-leaning intellectualist outlet like NPR. What do you think?

7255a87872b75e6f691d84dca769b87e

on October 30, 2011
at 09:19 PM

The "more genuine 'paleo' diet" was one that supported a brain size much smaller than that of modern humans? Right. She can eat her "paleo diet" and leave more meat for me and my 3.08 pound brain.

E639bc85fd42430285596434a6515ad5

(2226)

on October 29, 2011
at 07:31 PM

Another sponsor is Dow Chemical, which is one of the world's largest soybean processors.

E639bc85fd42430285596434a6515ad5

(2226)

on October 29, 2011
at 07:22 PM

Kashi is part of Kellogg Company.

Medium avatar

(5639)

on October 29, 2011
at 04:34 PM

that's pretty damning.

0a0c8c37d3a56738dc017e4ff09f21ee

(480)

on October 29, 2011
at 04:27 AM

@Cody, nothing. I discredit the article and NPR for spewing this stuff out, and for the fact they are taxpayer funded. My money shouldn't go to the publishing of articles like this nonsense, much like the nonsense that is the USDA saying that ketogenic diets lead to imminent heart disease. Would you agree with that?

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on October 29, 2011
at 12:26 AM

The value of the content on NPR varies by the person doing the writing or interviewing. I listed to an interview with Terry Gross, an anti-gun liberal who actually guilt-tripped her interviewee (an actor) into backpedaling on his statement about thinking it would be handy to have a gun in his house to protect his wife and three children.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on October 29, 2011
at 12:25 AM

The value of the content on NPR varies by the person doing the writing or interviewing. I listed to an interview with Terry Gross, an anti-gun liberal who actually guilt-tripped her interviewee (an actor) into backpedaling on his statement about thinking it would be handy to have a gun in his house to protect his family.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on October 29, 2011
at 12:01 AM

@RobE, it would essentially go against the idea of a republic, but it is a nice fantasy think we could direct our tax dollars to represent our values. Supposedly, a "for the people, by the people" government should be smart enough to use our money for the greatest public good. If you get to stop paying for public radio, I get to stop paying for oil exploration subsidies.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on October 28, 2011
at 10:31 PM

Well, there's no such thing as bad advertising. Maybe I'll encounter fewer funny faces when I mention paleo/primal when someone asks why I didn't eat the beans on my plate. It is easier to talk to someone who might disagree with me, than someone who has absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on October 28, 2011
at 08:34 PM

The comments under that article range from the educated Paleo to the dogmatic pro-vegetarian. Even the author will join in and try to explain herself, which she is mangling at each attempt. Hysterical!

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 28, 2011
at 07:46 PM

America is about the free exchange of ideas. Even ideas you disagree with. NPR is a forum for all voices in this country. I have to question people's motives for wanting to silence the free-flow and exchange of opinion's counter to their own. What are you trying to accomplish with this?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 28, 2011
at 07:45 PM

NPR is an amazing outlet and exposes us to many things we would not otherwise be exposed to. This includes many different cultures, ideas, and education. What kind of foaming-at-the-mouth, unthinking, unfeeling, ultra-conservative, nut-job would dislike NPR?

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on October 28, 2011
at 06:45 PM

@The Loon: Point taken, but you know as well as I do that that was a provisional designation and my biggest objection was to their lack of open-mindedness and lack of experience. And I admit that saying "going paleo might be the precondition for not saying silly things about paleo" is somewhat unfortunate rhetorically because it's the sort of thing you would say if you were in a cult. But in a way I am in a cult -- the cult of reason.

0a0c8c37d3a56738dc017e4ff09f21ee

(480)

on October 28, 2011
at 04:55 PM

What is wrong with yelling soundbites? ;)

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on October 28, 2011
at 03:26 PM

no need to worry. the paleo group will keep shooting themselves in the foot before it can get a hold.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on October 28, 2011
at 03:23 PM

I stopped reading when she said she didn't tell people what to eat. At least here, people can modify the titles when they absolutely don't match what is actually being said.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on October 28, 2011
at 03:21 PM

Ooooo, outsiders. Must. Not. Let. them. In. How dare they challenge the great masters.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on October 28, 2011
at 03:20 PM

Well, I am more into the textiles and wondering how they made dresses out of okara.

Medium avatar

(19479)

on October 28, 2011
at 01:05 PM

Great response Maurile!

C2450eb7fa11b37473599caf93b461ef

(3225)

on October 28, 2011
at 10:28 AM

I listen to NPR regularly, and I've rarely heard anything on their news shows that would "align more with the vegan/vegetarian crowd." Like any news source, they have strong stories and weak ones. They're also subject to the same ridiculous 24/7 news cycle that gives us crappy factory-production fake news from all the news outlets. The stereotyping going on in this section of the question is crazy. Would I be more Paleo if I watched Fox News?

5139b8189a2286f2f69425128ccb764c

(220)

on October 28, 2011
at 09:43 AM

No suprises here. NPR's political, shall we say proclivities, would align more with the vegan/vegetarian crowd than paleo.

Fd627132a760e414f2afbf378c8afd9b

(260)

on October 28, 2011
at 07:23 AM

I agree with affine. I am all for news variety, but I don't think I should be forced to pay for opinions that I almost always disagree with. If NPR is truly a good product it should be able to stand on its own two feet like every other news network. This article was not news, and I don't think people who follow paleo should be forced to pay for an intellectually dishonest hit piece on paleo.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on October 28, 2011
at 04:50 AM

Sorry, even though I agree with most of this, I'm gonna have to downvote you for dissing NPR. This article may be idiotic, but NPR is the only radio news I can listen to while commuting without wanting to pull my hair out. Regardless of what you think about their politics, the production value is good, and I don't feel like they are yelling soundbites at me, which seems to be pretty much the only other style out there.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on October 28, 2011
at 03:10 AM

OK, Sara, do you trust an anthropologist's opinion on anything scientific?

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on October 28, 2011
at 02:07 AM

Agreed! Can't have all these people stealing my meat! I need to have a healthy body to conceive the best offspring! Hands off!

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on October 28, 2011
at 02:05 AM

I think what she meant is that the cheap grains come from poor countries to feed our animals. Meaning, by *gasp!* indulging in meat, we are depriving poor people of their grain. But I'm pretty sure that's not the case, considering the grain subsidies our country has. Even so, our cattle shouldn't be eating grain... it should be eating grass... our pigs also should not be eating grains, they should be eating root vegetables, small animals, and insects, and our chickens, while they eat grain, they should also eat weeds, insects, and small animals So... grains shouldn't be a problem! Grr!

3cc6c371d2482e98d1f4e69329399493

(274)

on October 28, 2011
at 01:50 AM

I think a news source that is not obligated to big industry is a benefit to society at large. Comment on the story all you want, but NPR is a national good.

A71dfbf4e7efeb2068b63df478e9ac46

on October 28, 2011
at 01:14 AM

I think I can fend off a whole army of angry fat people and starved and malnourished vegetarian/vegans. That's what's so great about this lifestyle.

B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on October 28, 2011
at 01:11 AM

"just a little extra thinking and a little willingness to doubt what was "obvious" could completely change your world"...this gave me a chill; thanks for writing it :)

Aa69579f867333b08158c70e25f7daf1

(1826)

on October 27, 2011
at 10:13 PM

Ask me if I trust an anthropologist's opinion on anything scientific.

Cc7381bd787721575ea9198048132adb

(5541)

on October 27, 2011
at 09:57 PM

Typical vegetarian that didn't do any actual research and decided to write a review on a diet they don't understand. Utter crap.

36015f7365538d2006024bfdb60e4c15

(175)

on October 27, 2011
at 09:48 PM

Especially without any tools........

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on October 27, 2011
at 09:43 PM

Hunting that giant hairy ice age tofu must have been dangerous.

36015f7365538d2006024bfdb60e4c15

(175)

on October 27, 2011
at 09:43 PM

I actually just laughed out loud at "something tells me that Barbabra is largely, but not 100%, an anthropologist." Mwahahahaha

  • Size75 avatar

    asked by

    (5639)
  • Views
    3.2K
  • Last Activity
    1405D AGO
Frontpage book

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

13 Answers

best answer

6
00c8eb3f6e6a1884216044ca29cf868a

on October 29, 2011
at 09:39 AM

You can find a list of NPR's corporate sponsors over the last several years in the PDFs linked near the bottom of this page: https://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html

Cargill donates over $500K/year. Kashi Company (part of General Mills AFAIK) donates over $250K. I'm guessing that buys some Paleo-bashing.

Some more names from the list: Citgo Petroleum, Georgia Pacific, Citibank, Bank of America, GM, Weight Watchers International...

JS

E639bc85fd42430285596434a6515ad5

(2226)

on October 29, 2011
at 07:22 PM

Kashi is part of Kellogg Company.

E639bc85fd42430285596434a6515ad5

(2226)

on October 29, 2011
at 07:31 PM

Another sponsor is Dow Chemical, which is one of the world's largest soybean processors.

Medium avatar

(5639)

on October 29, 2011
at 04:34 PM

that's pretty damning.

24
Medium avatar

on October 27, 2011
at 09:17 PM

Really lost me here:

Our ancestors began to eat meat in large quantities around 2 million years ago, when the first Homo forms began regular use of stone tool technology. Before that, the diet of australopithecines and their relatives was overwhelmingly plant-based, judging from clues in teeth and bones. I could argue that the more genuine "paleo" diet was vegetarian.

Considering that the Paleolithic starts "around 2 million years ago" when our ancestors started using tools (probably not to make tofu), I think this is preposterous. Something tells me that that Barbara is "largely, but not 100 percent," an anthropologist.

To find a vegan ancestor you probably have to go back like 10 million years ago. I doubt our common ancestor with chimps around 7mya was even completely frugivorous. It's startling how regressive these veg*ns can be. It becomes clear that it's more a religion than a diet.

36015f7365538d2006024bfdb60e4c15

(175)

on October 27, 2011
at 09:48 PM

Especially without any tools........

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on October 28, 2011
at 03:20 PM

Well, I am more into the textiles and wondering how they made dresses out of okara.

0bc6cbb653cdc5e82400f6da920f11eb

(19245)

on October 27, 2011
at 09:43 PM

Hunting that giant hairy ice age tofu must have been dangerous.

36015f7365538d2006024bfdb60e4c15

(175)

on October 27, 2011
at 09:43 PM

I actually just laughed out loud at "something tells me that Barbabra is largely, but not 100%, an anthropologist." Mwahahahaha

7255a87872b75e6f691d84dca769b87e

on October 30, 2011
at 09:19 PM

The "more genuine 'paleo' diet" was one that supported a brain size much smaller than that of modern humans? Right. She can eat her "paleo diet" and leave more meat for me and my 3.08 pound brain.

15
47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on October 27, 2011
at 09:00 PM

I am somehow shocked again and again by the overconfidence of outsiders who write about paleo/ancestral diets. I say "somehow" because I shouldn't really be shocked; it's the most natural thing in the world to think that what you think is better than what everyone else thinks. But at some point you really have to draw the line. Did this author really believe that she could dash off a blog post in an hour and conclusively debunk the work that a number of PhDs and MDs have been doing for years, reading as many papers as they can, and doing all the tough conceptual work that goes along with it? Have a little humility! Any one of us can read her post and see all the usual errors, the bizarre straw-man attributions, the points that have not been tested against any objections, the utter confusion of one concept with another. I think that if she put in the time to have a long, intelligent engagement with paleo ideas she would probably look back on her blog post and be a little bit embarrassed. (But how could that ever happen for someone who has a professional reputation to uphold?)

Ironically it was going paleo that first taught me how to be humble about empirical inquiry. Finding out that just a little extra thinking and a little willingness to doubt what was "obvious" could completely change your world has made me skeptical about a number of other things as well.

It looks like for most people going paleo might be the precondition for not saying silly things about paleo. Not such a big surprise.

B4e1fa6a8cf43d2b69d97a99dfca262c

(10255)

on October 28, 2011
at 01:11 AM

"just a little extra thinking and a little willingness to doubt what was "obvious" could completely change your world"...this gave me a chill; thanks for writing it :)

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on October 28, 2011
at 03:21 PM

Ooooo, outsiders. Must. Not. Let. them. In. How dare they challenge the great masters.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on October 28, 2011
at 06:45 PM

@The Loon: Point taken, but you know as well as I do that that was a provisional designation and my biggest objection was to their lack of open-mindedness and lack of experience. And I admit that saying "going paleo might be the precondition for not saying silly things about paleo" is somewhat unfortunate rhetorically because it's the sort of thing you would say if you were in a cult. But in a way I am in a cult -- the cult of reason.

6
E639bc85fd42430285596434a6515ad5

(2226)

on October 28, 2011
at 03:07 AM

The author started out with a few misconceptions about paleo dieting that she corrected in the course of researching her article (such as that a paleo diet involves eating a lot of factory-farmed meat).

She is left with two remaining criticisms:

  1. There's no such thing as a uniform diet shared by all of our paleolithic ancestors: common conceptions of the paleo diet are based on an arbitrarily selected period of our ancestral past; and in any case, no matter which period we're talking about, human diets varied by region and by season.

  2. Human dietary choices are not shaped simply by our genes; they are shaped also by culture and tradition.

Her first point is a very good one, and I think she gets less mileage out of it than she could have. Her second point misses the mark.

Taking those points in turn:

1.

This is not a criticism of the nutritional precepts of the paleo diet. It is instead a question about its underlying logic. It identifies a potential miconception of paleo-dieters: that our paleolithic ancestors ate anything resembling a uniform diet (that we can now emulate). They didn't. Two responses come immediately to mind. First, any such misconception is not widespread. For the most part, everybody already knows that human diets have always varied quite a bit. And second, even among people who hold that misconception, it has limited practical significance. While the diets of our paleolithic ancestors varied quite a bit, they all had a number of features in common, and it is these shared features that matter to paleo dieters. For example, none of our paleolithic ancestors ate large amounts of high-fructose corn syrup (and other refined sugars), refined flour from domesticated grains, or industrially processed vegetable oils. While the huge majority of ancestral human diets had plenty of other features in common as well, avoiding just those three neolithic agents of disease gets us a long way toward eating a diet that accords with our evolutionary heritage (and therefore with our metabolic infrastructure).

But there's another aspect to this criticism that I think is generally underappreciated in the paleo community and merits further consideration. The author says: "Our ancestors began to eat meat in large quantities around 2 million years ago, when the first Homo forms began regular use of stone tool technology. Before that, the diet of australopithecines and their relatives was overwhelmingly plant-based, judging from clues in teeth and bones. I could argue that the more genuine 'paleo' diet was vegetarian."

Indeed. If it's always best to eat what our ancestors ate, then how did early humans thrive by incorporating meat into their diets in the first place? Put another way, if switching from a generally vegetarian diet to a thoroughly omnivorous diet was an improvement, then who's to say that switching from a meat-and-vegetable???heavy diet to a grain-heavy diet can't also be an improvement?

This fallacy is somewhat common in the paleo community: "Dairy wasn't eaten in the paleolithic era, so you shouldn't eat butter." "Rice wasn't eaten in the paleolithic era, so it must be bad for you." And so on.

That's not how the universe works. What we can say with some confidence is that foods that have long been common in our ancestral diets are safe for us: we are adapted to them.* It does not follow, however, that foods that have not long been common in our ancestral diets are unsafe for us. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. To find out, we need to see what happens when we eat them. We need the scientific method ??? we need experiments ??? not just stories about our ancestral past.

As it turns out, and as we should expect, most foods that we haven't fully adapted to are problematic in a number of ways. Modern wheat, for example, contains phytates and enzyme inhibitors and potential gut irritants that make it less optimal for most humans than a similar amount of broccoli would be. But that's not something we can divine from our prehistory; it's something we must conclude only from careful observation. Paleo-dietary principles do not, therefore, constitute unyielding conclusions; they merely supply testable hypotheses.

Its hypotheses have generally held up quite well when tested ??? but with exceptions. I think paleo dieters who avoid butter on prehistorical grounds, for example, are making a mistake.

2.

The author has the reasoning underlying a paleo diet backwards here. The claim isn't that our ancestral dietary choices were shaped by our genes; the claim is that our genes were shaped by our ancestral dietary choices. Modern koala bears are adapted to eating eucalyptus leaves because that's what their ancestors have eaten for many generations; humans are likewise adapted to eating the types of foods that our ancestors have eaten for many generations. Turned around in the proper direction, this reasoning is sound.


*This is one reason why the idea that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol are harmful to us should be highly suspect until it is supported by good empirical evidence ??? which it isn't.

Medium avatar

(19479)

on October 28, 2011
at 01:05 PM

Great response Maurile!

6
36015f7365538d2006024bfdb60e4c15

on October 27, 2011
at 09:47 PM

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Arthur Schopenhauer

The above quote is very applicable. We are at the ridiculing stage here, just wait til we get to violent opposition - oh, boy. We are going to have a field day when that happens. But in the end, truth always wins, and everyone will say, "Of course you should avoid grains, legumes, gluten, etc. Anyone who knows anything about health knows that!"

A71dfbf4e7efeb2068b63df478e9ac46

on October 28, 2011
at 01:14 AM

I think I can fend off a whole army of angry fat people and starved and malnourished vegetarian/vegans. That's what's so great about this lifestyle.

5
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on October 27, 2011
at 10:29 PM

I stopped reading when she claimed we'd doom more animals to factory farms. Obviously, she didn't delve any deeper than paleo = meat (lots of it).

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on October 28, 2011
at 03:23 PM

I stopped reading when she said she didn't tell people what to eat. At least here, people can modify the titles when they absolutely don't match what is actually being said.

5
0a0c8c37d3a56738dc017e4ff09f21ee

(480)

on October 27, 2011
at 08:46 PM

NPR is super liberal and very pro-tyrannical establishment (in my experience.) If you go against what the government says, even on what is considered a healthy diet, you'll be hearing from these guys.

I think the bigger issue is that we pay for this crap. They get taxpayer money, how outrageous!

If you do read the article, you'll that the idiotic author is against paleo diets because it dooms poor an innocent animals to death.

Quote:

Largely, but not 100 percent, a vegetarian, I don't tell others what to eat. But the paleo-movement seems to doom (even if unintentionally) more animals to life and death in factory farms. A greater percentage of grain crops would also be diverted to rich countries' animals and away from poor countries' people.

Right, so instead of eating a well-rounded diet consisting of absolutely healthy foods, we should ship all of our healthy foods to "poor" countries (with failing governments, of course) for FREE and then eat nothing but sugar because FAT ARE BAD, IT GIVE HART DIZEEZ.

3cc6c371d2482e98d1f4e69329399493

(274)

on October 28, 2011
at 01:50 AM

I think a news source that is not obligated to big industry is a benefit to society at large. Comment on the story all you want, but NPR is a national good.

5139b8189a2286f2f69425128ccb764c

(220)

on October 28, 2011
at 09:43 AM

No suprises here. NPR's political, shall we say proclivities, would align more with the vegan/vegetarian crowd than paleo.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on October 29, 2011
at 12:26 AM

The value of the content on NPR varies by the person doing the writing or interviewing. I listed to an interview with Terry Gross, an anti-gun liberal who actually guilt-tripped her interviewee (an actor) into backpedaling on his statement about thinking it would be handy to have a gun in his house to protect his wife and three children.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on October 28, 2011
at 04:50 AM

Sorry, even though I agree with most of this, I'm gonna have to downvote you for dissing NPR. This article may be idiotic, but NPR is the only radio news I can listen to while commuting without wanting to pull my hair out. Regardless of what you think about their politics, the production value is good, and I don't feel like they are yelling soundbites at me, which seems to be pretty much the only other style out there.

0a0c8c37d3a56738dc017e4ff09f21ee

(480)

on October 29, 2011
at 04:27 AM

@Cody, nothing. I discredit the article and NPR for spewing this stuff out, and for the fact they are taxpayer funded. My money shouldn't go to the publishing of articles like this nonsense, much like the nonsense that is the USDA saying that ketogenic diets lead to imminent heart disease. Would you agree with that?

C2450eb7fa11b37473599caf93b461ef

(3225)

on October 28, 2011
at 10:28 AM

I listen to NPR regularly, and I've rarely heard anything on their news shows that would "align more with the vegan/vegetarian crowd." Like any news source, they have strong stories and weak ones. They're also subject to the same ridiculous 24/7 news cycle that gives us crappy factory-production fake news from all the news outlets. The stereotyping going on in this section of the question is crazy. Would I be more Paleo if I watched Fox News?

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 28, 2011
at 07:46 PM

America is about the free exchange of ideas. Even ideas you disagree with. NPR is a forum for all voices in this country. I have to question people's motives for wanting to silence the free-flow and exchange of opinion's counter to their own. What are you trying to accomplish with this?

0a0c8c37d3a56738dc017e4ff09f21ee

(480)

on October 28, 2011
at 04:55 PM

What is wrong with yelling soundbites? ;)

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on October 28, 2011
at 02:05 AM

I think what she meant is that the cheap grains come from poor countries to feed our animals. Meaning, by *gasp!* indulging in meat, we are depriving poor people of their grain. But I'm pretty sure that's not the case, considering the grain subsidies our country has. Even so, our cattle shouldn't be eating grain... it should be eating grass... our pigs also should not be eating grains, they should be eating root vegetables, small animals, and insects, and our chickens, while they eat grain, they should also eat weeds, insects, and small animals So... grains shouldn't be a problem! Grr!

77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on October 28, 2011
at 07:45 PM

NPR is an amazing outlet and exposes us to many things we would not otherwise be exposed to. This includes many different cultures, ideas, and education. What kind of foaming-at-the-mouth, unthinking, unfeeling, ultra-conservative, nut-job would dislike NPR?

Fd627132a760e414f2afbf378c8afd9b

(260)

on October 28, 2011
at 07:23 AM

I agree with affine. I am all for news variety, but I don't think I should be forced to pay for opinions that I almost always disagree with. If NPR is truly a good product it should be able to stand on its own two feet like every other news network. This article was not news, and I don't think people who follow paleo should be forced to pay for an intellectually dishonest hit piece on paleo.

1d0497f8781845ab371b479455bfee8e

(11157)

on October 29, 2011
at 12:25 AM

The value of the content on NPR varies by the person doing the writing or interviewing. I listed to an interview with Terry Gross, an anti-gun liberal who actually guilt-tripped her interviewee (an actor) into backpedaling on his statement about thinking it would be handy to have a gun in his house to protect his family.

6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on October 29, 2011
at 12:01 AM

@RobE, it would essentially go against the idea of a republic, but it is a nice fantasy think we could direct our tax dollars to represent our values. Supposedly, a "for the people, by the people" government should be smart enough to use our money for the greatest public good. If you get to stop paying for public radio, I get to stop paying for oil exploration subsidies.

2
6120c989fd5b69f42a0834b69b87955b

(24553)

on October 28, 2011
at 11:31 PM

Even though I disagree with the article, especially the idea that 2 million years can be dismissed as insignificant (jeezeecreezee, as hominids our teeth have changed a lot since we were grass eaters) and it paints us paleos as not knowing what we're doing, I would wager most of us have gotten here after a LOT of trial and error and are probably better informed than most about what we decide to put in our mouths.

I have to say it was a very polite "trashing". She went to great pains to praise the community before calling us nutjobs. Personally, I have no problem with dissenting ideas, fearing them is a sign of weakness in my opinion.

She said she had been communicating with the paleo community, and I'm guessing from the fears about expanded factory farming she either posed questions along the lines of "How bad is factory farmed meat?" or at least participated in the conversations to research her article right here on paleohacks.

She'll be back, maybe not today, maybe not even next year, but she'll be back when her health depends on it.

2
8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on October 28, 2011
at 03:25 PM

She is quite wrong if she believes that people who eat more meat than she does aren't also concerned about the treatment of animals and the state of the planet. She herself eats meat. Why is she just so much more holy than others just because she frets about it in print?

2
3838b7c295973fe1423546e8773eadd8

on October 28, 2011
at 12:37 AM

Wow. I can't believe how many people left comments, 271! We need to shut up about Paleo before it's on national news.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on October 28, 2011
at 03:26 PM

no need to worry. the paleo group will keep shooting themselves in the foot before it can get a hold.

19acef0aed67ef8dc1118d8e74edb349

(2954)

on October 28, 2011
at 02:07 AM

Agreed! Can't have all these people stealing my meat! I need to have a healthy body to conceive the best offspring! Hands off!

2
Medium avatar

on October 27, 2011
at 08:41 PM

Unbelievable? I think not. Consider the source.

1
93ae9f2d376e5426e891a9b58d8302fa

(2936)

on October 27, 2011
at 10:04 PM

I'm going to post this link again, the theory of evolution that I subscribe to, which is strictly carnivore:

http://tinyurl.com/3jqbmuo

Or at least the carvorous needs explain all our physical features.

-2
38fca13acabddf7b9c54098507e4041a

on October 28, 2011
at 03:46 AM

Oh who gives a flying f*u*c*K about NPR. Good god grow a pair.

Answer Question


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