I have been pondering the same things of late, and am amazed at how utterly different people can be convinced of the most polarised things. It’s so difficult to keep uprooting one’s own views in order to refine or re-learn, because as humans I think we immediately want stability and security. So we seek what confirms our existing views, and such company that agrees with us.

I applaud the constant struggle of a “fertile mind”, but I am also a little wary of a society where intelligent people do not dare state a concrete opinion, and the intellectually understimulated instead holler categorical statements right, left and centre. (Such as what apparently happened with the McGovern report.)

Again, Mark, thank you for all the work you put into this and how accessible yet scientifically strict and sound this blog is.

100% proud PALEOTARD

It has kind of a ring to it. Thank you, random sockpuppeter!

Moderation can be useful, but an overly heavy hand will just draw more trolls. They will always be there, messing things up because they can. They will hop IPs if you block one. Make new accounts if you close them. The more you engage with them, the more interested they are. The onus is on the community to roll their eyes and move on ASAP.

There is NOTHING wrong with dissent. So long as debate over dissenting issues is carried out in a rational, adult manner. To see someone hoping to quell dissent kind of makes me nervous, actually.

Deletion of outright crap, and reminders to stay civil? Sure, why not. I don’t see post count stars or anything like that helping, because people who don’t know jack can rack up a huge postcount while still being relatively uninformed.

Still, we have the problem of only having older studies because “scientists” – I use the term loosely for individuals in the medical and nutrition communities – have been seeking only to reaffirm what they already “know” or how to manage problems with the information they already “know.” They don’t seek to prove themselves wrong. Old studies show what they show given what was known at the time they were conducted, but that does not necessarily invalidate them. What is a problem is that with the trickle of information that is coming out in favor of a primal-esque lifestyle, studies are still not being done to directly assess the overall effectiveness of conventional nutrition recommendations. It simply has not been done, ever.

Oh. GCBC is more of a chronological narrative than anything. It talks about the industry of nutrition science and how politics within got us to our current state of affairs. Of course it uses old studies; studies relevant to the time period being discussed and the scientific community’s reaction to them. Where that’s not happening, it’s more of a black mark on the current scientific community for not actually investigating things that should have been followed up on decades ago. Taubes doesn’t really call for people to believe one thing or another, just to think. And more importantly, to properly investigate these things that people get so riled up about.

Basically the way I feel. I have TREMENDOUS respect for Lyle’s knowledge and research, but he’s not all knowing by a long shot.

Basically the way I feel. I have TREMENDOUS respect for Lyle’s knowledge and research, but he’s not all knowing by a long shot.

A.) Yes they did/do eat those things
B.) They fermented the toxins out

These were conveniently forgotten practices when man started cranking out high volume & industrialized versions of these crops.