Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Article/Science Madness! page

  1. #1
    john_solo's Avatar
    john_solo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    242

    Article/Science Madness!

    Primal Fuel
    We are all here because the Primal/Paleo lifestyle agrees with us, we believe in it and it makes sense to us. What I've been noticing is that every few days someone posts an article, study, or blog post that is contrary to primal/high fat eating and offers a different approach. Some portion of the responses are people shitting their pants wondering if PB is the right thing to do. Others spend countless posts arguing or getting belligerent about the subject in general.

    No matter what your take on PB vs. High Carb vs. Low Fat vs. IF vs. Whatever, you can find innumerable studies/bloggers/science-y persons to either support you or refute you. I can say that every time I see something that is in anyway contrary to the PB, I immediately start worrying if I am destroying my health and shortening my lifespan by living according to the PB. I then calm down, think of my own experience with this lifestyle, and remember that this makes sense for me. Does it mean I won't freak out again when I read someone citing 'science' that this is all crap...probably not. But I do feel more secure in my choices the longer I adhere to PB. So, general advice to all, especially newbies, is to CALM DOWN!

  2. #2
    Stabby's Avatar
    Stabby is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Stabsville
    Posts
    2,462
    It isn't that there is just so very much evidence to refute the primal way of eating, it is that some silly people don't know how to interpret studies and draw invalid conclusions from them. Usually it's epidemiology where they find a correlation between something like animal protein and diabetes and then claim that to be causation while ignoring the obvious absurdity or ignoring contrary evidence. I agree with the notion that every little bit of cherry-picked CW shouldn't elicit the kind of reaction it does in some.

    For some primal bias check out this site. Super-biased but also super-educating for those with a critical eye. HEALTHY DIETS AND SCIENCE
    Last edited by Stabby; 04-20-2011 at 02:05 PM.
    Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

    Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

  3. #3
    JKC's Avatar
    JKC
    JKC is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Alberta Canada
    Posts
    1,026
    I bookmarked that site - thanks stabby!
    Karin

    A joyful heart is good medicine

    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot

    Mmmmm. Real food is good.

    My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread29685.html

  4. #4
    MariaNYC's Avatar
    MariaNYC is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    252
    Me too! I wish the posts had comments enabled, though.
    I just looked at the one from Apr. 16 titled "Men treated with cholesterol lowering drugs have a 142% increase in heart disease deaths".
    The hilarious part is, when you go to the abstract, the first sentence under results is "Total coronary heart disease risk was reduced by 46% in the intervention group as compared with the control group at end-trial."
    Ummmm, what?? How is this "risk" being assessed, when deaths from hearth diseases were 142% higher in the intervention group? Simply amazing!
    The rest of the results section is written in terms of absolute numbers and relative risk (as opposed to %, which are typically easier to understand), I'm guessing in an attempt to obfuscate the unsavory results!
    Everything in moderation, including moderation.

  5. #5
    Dave_o's Avatar
    Dave_o is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Nort West Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    418
    Good link Stabby.

    It does any concept good to have a counter argument thrown against it. If the practice and science of paleo style eating was so flimsy that it couldn't withstand some petty CW or vegan message board onslaught, then it deserves to be thrown on the rubbish heap.
    The problem is people trying to apply hard rules of diet to something as dynamic and varied as the human body. As they say, it works for me - but your results may vary.
    Debate is healthy, it strengthens the legitimate and exposes the poorly researched as fraud.
    However, blindly accepting that Sission, Taubes ect have put the full stop on the whole debate of diet is blinkered and ignorant. No body has all the answers, no body gets it right 100% of the time.

    I often wonder if one of the many diet luminaries dropped dead from from myocardial infarction or developed cancer how their legion of disciples would react.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •