No announcement yet.

Grok haterade

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Grok haterade

    This is a bit of a troll...but...

    I'll admit it--I'm kinda down on the whole "grok" thing. It has its place. Its an analogy and mnemonic device to inform decision making in certain situations. But all too often I feel like people here rely on the grok crutch, rather than merely articulate what a) is scientifically provable about what is healthy (what Mark has primarily relied on in supporting PB) or b) what makes them happy/feel good. At the end of the day, "what Grok did" is largely speculative, does not account for geographic variation among our ancestors, and does not account for millenia of evolution over which Grok likely did things differently. Do we care more about what Grok did 15,000 years ago, JUST before agriculture, or 20,000? 50,000? Where does this heuristic break down?

    My only point here is that justifying and promoting the principles of this lifestyle have to be more sophisticated than "grok didn't eat/do X" because guess what, Grok isn't real. I think its been a great marketing tool for PB because it provides a lens through which people can initially understand the principles behind PB, but at the end of the day, everything we do can and should be backed up by science and/or what makes us feel good, not ideological commitment to a character.

    /end rant

  • #2
    I agree 100% although I still do tend to use the grok thing in conjunction with that actual evidence. Speculating about grok should only be useful for forming a hypothesis which needs to be proven with empirical evidence and reasoned arguments for the reasons you stated. It's just that most of the time what is paleo is what is healthy. Although it doesn't follow that what is healthy is always paleo. No dogma here. That's why I like Mark's approach.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!


    • #3
      You are correct...Grok isn't real. I think Mark did a good job of reinforcing and refocusing people on what Grok is and represents in this blog entry:

      Thank you for helping people refocus and kick away their grok crutch. It is a great marketing tool, but it is also very fable like in the sense that people can better grasp thinking about what grok would do rather than focusing on conflicting and often contradicting health information being spouted these days by everyone. I say anything that gets people thinking and talking about what is healthy...even if it requires using a grok crutch is better than the alternative of blindly following much of the advice that is out there.

      "at the end of the day, everything we do can and should be backed up by science and/or what makes us feel good, not ideological commitment to a character."
      Hmmm...I don't know about this one. Do you really think people are compelled to do something based upon an ideological commitment to a character [grok]? I may be wrong, but I don't get that impression from most of the people on this board. I think what could be viewed as ideological commitment is just a disagreement over specifics when their may be scientific and or feel good support for both positions. I'm also not sure about your assertion that "feel good" is an and/or proposition with science. There is a really good analogy in there somewhere, but my mind keeps places it probably shouldn't...

      I hear what you are saying and I understand you point. Just remember, grok is tongue in cheek talk.
      God is great, beer is good, people are crazy

      Trashy Women

      Beef Cake's Primal Hardcore Porn<strike>Erotica<strike> mean my journal...


      • #4
        this site has a strong scientific base. if you havent had the chance to spend time here then you wouldnt know it i guess...
        challenge yourself
        i blog here


        • #5
          People will try to make suppositions to support their feelings and/or theories, and convince themselves that these suppositions therefore must be true. We see this with religion all the time. But Grok wouldn't do that.


          • #6
            I think Mark trust us enough to know that Grok is a marketing tool.

            A real good one that makes the info much more digestible.

            Nothing less, nothing more.

            But then again Grok On!


            • #7
              i try to think of grok as more of a source of motivation and unification, instead of emulation. However, its true that foundations of primal life, and most any other similar 'diets', are based on anthropological theories of early man. Here specifically, you cant get away from that source, and here it is called grok.

              we have limited information in regard to their lives, but it is not impossible to generate educated and supported hypothesis. I myself have recently been wondering about the notion that humans haven't "evolved" significantly in the last 15 millenia, and i'm no bio or genetics major, but i seem to recall genetic drift occuring in other widespread populations over shorter intervals. How can we know?

              But this is somewhat meaningless, (evident in my overall disinterest in historical anthropology) as we have a perfectly good study subject in modern humans, and we can base our strongest conclusions off of him (and her).

              it takes time and effort to learn, and sometimes a decent amount of specialization to understand, science behind our ideas. We're not all experts, we count on analysis from other all the time, its how information gets distorted.

              Everyone should take the time to click and read some of marks links, and to supplement your knowledge with other sources that take time to analyze specific articles and studies as well as big picture manifestos and guidelines. Personally i love trying to understand peter at hyperlipid and the PaNu collective, its challenging.

              to start, heres a post over at PaNu on a similar subject of people taking grok to the extreme and handpicking the facts they accept




              (sry, long post, just been doing a long paper, and thinkin some of this myself recently)


              • #8
                I'm not that I am all that interested in 'paleo reinactment' but as an underpinning philosphy of health and nutrition it is a good starting point. I like to see the theory backed up with good research, which in some areas is thin on the ground. Where the research is not available I am doing my own n=1 experiment. It is good to keep an open mind but not always easy to avoid filling the gap with our own bias.
                My website:


                • #9
                  Grok would not have liked people dissenting. All hail Grok.

                  EDIT: All trolls shall be sacrificed to appease Grok.
                  A steak a day keeps the doctor away


                  • #10
                    If Grok jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?


                    • #11
                      I know people that have jumped off bridges... for fun... Would Grok have a bridge to jump off of???


                      • #12
                        Perhaps a cliff would be more a more appropriate analogy?


                        • #13
                          "If Grok jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?"

                          Of course! Praise be to Grok!