Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Alan Aragon's Argument against paleo/primal lifestyle (with slide show)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Alan Aragon's Argument against paleo/primal lifestyle (with slide show)

    Hello All,

    I've done paleo/primal with some moderate success and I've been a long time reader of MDA. Recently, another well-respected member in the "nutritional community", Alan Aragon, has released a slideshow arguing AGAINST many of the reasons for doing the paleo diet including phytate/lectin arguments, omega 6:3 ratios...etc. Here is a link to the slide show. I would love to hear what y'all think.

    http://www.nsca.com/uploadedFiles/NS...ook/Aragon.pdf

  • #2
    His problem starts when he defines "the paleo diet" in a way that few do, as though there is one and only one way people eat paleo. This leads to a lot of strawmen he can then knock down.

    And since that particular splinter diet he calls "paleo" isn't remotely primal, I suppose it might be of intellectual interest to some. Not to me.

    It's clearly a slideshow created as a presentation to be given to a group that thinks that anything that deviates from CW is bad.

    I will keep doing what works for me, even if he thinks I should eat gluten and sugar deep-fried in industrial seed oils.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
      His problem starts when he defines "the paleo diet" in a way that few do, as though there is one and only one way people eat paleo. This leads to a lot of strawmen he can then knock down.

      And since that particular splinter diet he calls "paleo" isn't remotely primal, I suppose it might be of intellectual interest to some. Not to me.

      It's clearly a slideshow created as a presentation to be given to a group that thinks that anything that deviates from CW is bad.

      I will keep doing what works for me, even if he thinks I should eat gluten and sugar deep-fried in industrial seed oils.
      eKatherine's arguments >>>> Alan Aragon's arguments.
      The Champagne of Beards

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah, lots of strawmen arguments. No added salt? No coffee and alcohol?
        I personally disagree with the hardcore paleo ŕ la Cordain as well, that's why we have Primal and Perfect Health Diet (taters!). I just had white rice in some bone broth, topped off with some homemade kefir.
        The ironic thing about a lot of these bodybuilding gurus is that in practice they'll also mainly eat "real food", though they can never resist making a complete caricature of "paleo" and then bringing it down.

        Comment


        • #5
          Alan Aragon is a nutritional freethinker - the Richard Dawkins of nutrition! But honestly, criticizing diets like the orthodox Paleo diet, which is basically a straw-man anyway, and by using science to deconstruction it is not that intellectual challenging, but there are always some nerds that find a pleasure in doing just that! But seriously, being a nutritional critic is like pissing on already fallen statues, why bother? - Let the few orthodox paleotards have their religion for themselves, no scientific or rational argument will change their mind anyway…
          "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

          - Schopenhauer

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
            Alan Aragon is a nutritional freethinker - the Richard Dawkins of nutrition! But honestly, criticizing diets like the orthodox Paleo diet, which is basically a straw-man anyway, and by using science to deconstruction it is not that intellectual challenging, but there are always some nerds that find a pleasure in doing just that! But seriously, being a nutritional critic is like pissing on already fallen statues, why bother? - Let the few orthodox paleotards have their religion for themselves, no scientific or rational argument will change their mind anyway…
            Nobody's the Richard Dawkins of nutrition dude. Nobody comes close.
            The Champagne of Beards

            Comment


            • #7
              Bah, in the history of western thought, Dawkins is nothing less than a wannabe featherweight thinker! But he makes a lot of noise, and the same is true to Aragon...
              "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

              - Schopenhauer

              Comment


              • #8
                As I repeat about a million times a day, it is NOT about whether something works....technically I could tell people to eat steak and green peppers for every meal and they would not die or even feel sick.

                The questions is ALWAYS, in medicine or nutrition: Is this the minimum effective dose?

                In other words, do I NEED to do X, Y, and Z? Or will just X and Y work? What if I do X and half of Y?

                When it comes to full paleo, I think the harsh truth to both sides is that both arguments are, if taken under the lens of most scientific matters, very weak. The reality is that we don't know that much about what our ancestors specifically ate, other than to say it varied a lot. In most places, they ate whatever it took to survive, like any other creature.

                I have never been an overwhelming hater of grains or dairy. I believe, first and foremost, that our bodies are not meant to operate under consistent high insulin....seeing as grains, sugar, are the main etiology for people walking around this way, I target them. They are all just more levers on the machine, a machine we don't understand. The best we can do is pull the right ones for us.

                Altogether a shambolic, straw-man, garbage heap of an infantile argument....very weak sauce. If that is the best anyone has, I am feeling very good about things
                "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                  Bah, in the history of western thought, Dawkins is nothing less than a wannabe featherweight thinker! But he makes a lot of noise, and the same is true to Aragon...
                  Off topic, but I agree. I'm a hardcore atheist but I think Dawkins is a bigot and doesn't do the cause of atheism much good. His book on it is pretty weak too, he should have stuck with biology.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                    I have never been an overwhelming hater of grains or dairy. I believe, first and foremost, that our bodies are not meant to operate under consistent high insulin....seeing as grains, sugar, are the main etiology for people walking around this way, I target them. They are all just more levers on the machine, a machine we don't understand. The best we can do is pull the right ones for us.
                    Assuming industrial crappy food is not a variable, perhaps people just need to eat less often instead of altering our foods so drastically. So many people eat dinner at 7-8pm, then a snack right before bed at 10-11pm, and then breakfast just a few hours later. I think fasting regularly makes more evolutionary sense but once underlying conditions are present could complicate things, so definitely not something everyone should leap into, also not for those who are very lean and used to eating often.
                    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by eKatherine View Post
                      It's clearly a slideshow created as a presentation to be given to a group that thinks that anything that deviates from CW is bad.
                      If you're going to talk about fallacies in his arguments, at least don't commit them in your own.
                      My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I realize that throwing the word "straw man" around is popular on the Internet these days to refute someone's argument when one cannot come up with an actual valid argument with some substance but c'mon guys.... Where's the strawman... You have to give Aragon his due. He took all of the claims that have been made FOR the primal/paleo diet and refuted them with real world research including commonly held paleo beliefs such as decreasing consumption of omega 6, toxicity of sugar, gastrointestinal distress from lectins/phytates and allergies to gluten... These are all the reasons commonly cited for paleo and Aragon has put up a very good argument about why these widely held beliefs may be false.

                        All that being said, the standard American diet has so much crap in it, that of course a paleo diet is a large improvement... And overall paleo is very healthy. I don't think Aragon is disputing the fact that the paleo diet is healthy or that it works. I think he is simply refuting the idea that certain foods (grains, legumes, sugar...etc) are necessarily harmful. Not sure what to make of this. I guess at the end of the day everyone has to do what works for them.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Who knows if "straw man" is the exactly correct term. I think its close enough in most cases though. This one made me lol..." dairy has an acidic rather than alkaline effect on the body and does not protect bone health". Then he goes on to debunk that. I'm like 99% sure that is a straw man. I have literally never come across a reputable paleo/primal source pronouncing that as a consideration for not consuming dairy. Sounds like he's mixing up vegans and paleo to me. But yeah, most this stuff has actually been discussed right on this forum in even more depth IMO.

                          Anyway I think this pretty much sums it up.... seems he mighta read this book:

                          Is It All Just a “Paleofantasy”? | Mark's Daily Apple
                          Last edited by Neckhammer; 08-21-2013, 07:41 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I can't find a lot to complain about in the slideshow, though as always, evidence supporting whole grain (or at least wheat) consumption is weak as always, even in comparison to refined grains. I'd be interested to see a trial comparing whole grain and no grain diets, but we're pretty much the only community of people that would really care, so I don't ever expect to see it.

                            As for the negative claim about dairy, that's all Cordain, who I've noticed isn't taken very seriously in the greater paleo community. It's not shocking that Mark Sisson's version of paleo that encourages the intake of fatty meat and whole dairy is more popular than the "official" Cordain version.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Aragon already trolls himself into nonexistence on pages 9-10:

                              Page 9: "Immediate ancestors of modern humans are believed to have evolved in the tropics (i.e., Africa) roughly 200,000 years ago, where the large majority (perhaps 70%) of their diet was plant‐based."
                              First, this is false.
                              Page 10: "Actual intake of our Stone Age forefathers is devoid of any accurate historical records."

                              Which is it, Alan? "70% plant based", or "devoid of accurate historical records?" You can't have it both ways.

                              Page 11 features another blatant misunderstanding of the Mercader evidence, showing conclusively that he hasn't read the paper -- just the abstract.

                              I'm not going to bother with the rest, as it's all of a piece. And, as has been said, even if you ignore the false and self-contradictory statements, he's constructing a straw man based on Cordain's version of "paleo" from over ten years ago...one from which even Cordain has evolved.

                              Originally posted by Gorbag View Post
                              Bah, in the history of western thought, Dawkins is nothing less than a wannabe featherweight thinker!
                              If you really, truly believe that (and aren't just trolling), you've just <plonked> yourself.

                              JS

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X