Last edited by KathyH; 06-25-2012 at 08:13 PM.
First of all, because the evolutionary perspective is the only perspective from which we can truly make sense of the life sciences (including subtopics like health, nutrition, etc). That is to say, everything in all of the life sciences can be explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection (theoretically of course, in actuality there are many things we don't have explanations for, but it is accepted that explanations do exist that make sense with within the framework of evolution). That said, the paleo/primal movement really represents the first time that nutrition science has been thoroughly examined, explained, argued, etc from the evolutionary perspective. This, in my mind, gives paleo/primal considerable weight.
Secondly, because the science, research, and arguments are sound. I won't say that I've been 100% convinced on every point Mark has ever made, or that there isn't at least a little conjecture and occasional guess-work within the primal paradigm, but for the most part on points of contention I've noticed that primal usually has the better/more convincing science to backup its arguments. Honestly, it's pretty difficult playing devil's advocate against primal, whereas the majority of opposing viewpoints tend to get shaky under scrutiny.
Finally (and I understand that this probably means very little), this way of eating just makes very good intuitive sense to me. I can't necessarily explain why, but eating food in as close to its natural state as possible just seems like "the right way", at least to me.
Last edited by ciep; 06-25-2012 at 08:30 PM.
I don't think it's a case of being right or wrong, I'm sure there's way more shades of grey than people tend to acknowledge. It's up to you to experiment and find what you feel best on, that's whats most important to me. When it comes to longevity it's really hard to say that one diet is best. You have countries like Japan that live long healthy lives on fish, rice and veges and countries like Iceland and some of the mediterranean areas that also have a long life expectancy and low disease rates yet consume a diet high in meat and dairy.
I chose to be Primal by using sheer common sense. I read what Mark had to say and it clicked, I immediately felt better and began looking better after just a week (glowing skin, complexion etc.) I just know from my own experiences what works and what doesn't work for my body. I feel that there is no better lab rat than myself.
Occam's Razor - "a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses the one which makes the fewest assumptions and offers the simplest explanation of the effect." For me, Paleo/Primal wins hands down on that.
Plus when I'm standing in the grocery store, the simplest options, and the ones which I have to make the fewest assumptions about their goodness for me, are whole, unrefined, single ingredient foods -- plants, animals, nuts, etc.
My Primal Journal - Food, pics, the occasional rant, so...the usual.
I love cooking. It's sexy science that you stuff in your face. - carlh
There is no research showing primal is bad. That is the sad thing, so many people say it is bad or say grains are good but there is not a stitch of research showing that.
Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
Don't forget to play!
So you're a skeptic, huh? Welcome to the club.
To the OP's question, I'm sorry to say there is no answer to that. In your life you'll only ever know what's optimal for you, and you'll only know that through personal experimentation. If you ever find yourself in a social setting (like this internet forum perhaps) with such a strict dogma that personal experimentation is not incouraged, I'd suggest moving along. I don't however think that would be an accurate description of the crowd gathered here, although I do admit every group has it's outliers.
While this won't be an answer, it does make for an interesting exercise.....
Imagine that most of what you "know" about nutrition came from studies funded by Agri-business. Whole grains lower bad cholesterol for example. Well, lets also imagine what you know about blood cholesterol came from studies funded by Pharma-business. LDL-c numbers are an indicator of CVD or heart attack risk and HDL numbers should be higher for example. These are "truths" in the medical industry today, and no run of the mill doctor will stray from the book in diagnosing and perscribing for you. They won't risk a lawsuit, and the "book of truths" protects them. Dogma.
Now lets imagine there's a backlash to this. Pioneers of "paleo" theory take it in the extreme opposite direction. No grain is acceptable, carbohyrates in all forms are poison, that's why you make ketones, etc.
Like most things in life, I imagine the closest thing to truth lies somewhere in the middle, getting drowned out by the outliers having a shout down at one another.
Went Primal: 20 DEC 2011
Starting: 6'1" 220 lbs
Starting Energy: "bleh...."
Current: 183 lbs @ 8.33% BF (Jackson/Pollock 4 caliper method)
Current Energy: "WOOHOO!" See my journal HERE.
"Paleo? Try it, but be wary of the cult mentality that comes with it. Paleovangelists are everywhere and a bit scary."
These arguments and debates where there are such large swooping generalizations and are based on such limited cultures without broader global context are prove to me that I can't take any of this "evidence" seriously.
You are dodging the issue as much as I am, obviously you have made up your mind. Sorry that inquisitive mind questioning things means attacking to you. I think I am debating and you think I am attacking.
I also eat meat and plenty of veggies and fruits, how am I different from you then? I also know by my OWN EXPERIENCE, so is your anecdotal experience better than mine or is it just different?
So back to original question "Why Mark?" Still no idea. Inconclusive evidence, too many broad generalizations for me.