Alan Aragon's Argument against paleo/primal lifestyle (with slide show)
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.
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.
Originally Posted by eKatherine
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Gorbag
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...
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
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.
Originally Posted by Gorbag
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.
Originally Posted by TheyCallMeLazarus