Author Topic: Paleofantasy  (Read 17640 times)

Offline greenchild

  • Lieutenant
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Karma: 11
    • View Profile
    • life as I know it
    • Email
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2013, 12:13:52 PM »
ugh.  My newest issue of Discover Magazine arrived today . . . with an article written by none other than Marlene.  In it she basically says apparently we all only eat meat and not much else, we excercise in short bursts of activity to mimic chasing prey, and donate blood to mimic blood loss. Oh yeah, and we apparently all want to be polygamous, we all practice all forms of attachment parenting, and don't think that cancer ever happened to our ancestors. Has she ever even bothered to MEET and TALK to anyone, or just hand pick some books, blogs, and forums she didn't agree with??

Seriously makes me want to revoke my subscription to what *used* to be a good magzine.

Offline paleophil

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Karma: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2013, 04:04:50 PM »
Here are some more Caveman forum folks that are mentioned in the book:

celticavegirl
Il Capo
smcdow
klcarbaugh
Destor

And some Paleo-friendly authors' names I recognize that were mentioned:

Loren Cordain
Mark Sisson
Jared Diamond
Christopher McDougall


Offline Eric

  • President
  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
  • Karma: 241
    • View Profile
    • CAVEMANFORUM
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2013, 05:48:27 PM »
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I'm investigating the matter.

Offline Warren Dew

  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 5753
  • Karma: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #18 on: March 05, 2013, 10:17:14 PM »
I see the book is available on Amazon now and can be reviewed.

Offline Lguerrero

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2013, 04:48:13 AM »
I have had lots of naysayers comment negatively on my paleo lifestyle and read many articles on the same.  My perspective is, Paleo isn't' a religion. I don't claim that my lifestyle is better than yours or that you should stop eating your grains and high processed foods just because "I say so".  I know how I feel. I know how my life was before paleo and how it is now. That's the only "evidence" I need. Not to mention all of the amounts of research that have been done on why Paleo enthusiasts believe what they do.  I think that every time you have something good to add in your life, there will be at least three people telling you why it is wrong or bad. With that in mind, I just keep doing what I know makes my life better. The end.


Offline samjohn

  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 2563
  • Karma: 154
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #20 on: March 07, 2013, 03:32:31 PM »
The idea that someone has come in and selectively quoted certain members without permission then turned it into a book to be sold at profit pisses me off quite a bit.

Offline Eric

  • President
  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
  • Karma: 241
    • View Profile
    • CAVEMANFORUM
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #21 on: March 11, 2013, 05:26:19 PM »
Apparently our musings amongst ourselves and the NY Times health blog were her top two sources!

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/10/paleofantasy_stone_age_delusions/

Also, nothing like someone who's never written or researched diet/nutrition to pen a book about such topics.  Her "expertise" from her own website:

- Sexual selection and mate choice
- Animal communication
- Effects of parasites on host ecology, evolution and behavior
- Conflicts between natural and sexual selection.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 05:39:21 PM by Eric »

Offline Warren Dew

  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 5753
  • Karma: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #22 on: March 11, 2013, 06:05:19 PM »
My negative Amazon review is catching a lot of flak - to the point where someone tracked down my home phone number to talk to me about it.  I think the book's promotional folks might be unhappy.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 06:21:27 PM by Warren Dew »

Offline Eric

  • President
  • Administrator
  • General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
  • Karma: 241
    • View Profile
    • CAVEMANFORUM
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2013, 06:34:21 PM »
I was talking to Mark Sisson via email; he's just ordered the book.  It'll be fun to read his scathing review when he's done.

I think I'll avoid paying for a collection of content stolen from me  ;)

Offline paleophil

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Karma: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #24 on: March 11, 2013, 07:37:51 PM »
"The most persuasive argument Zuk marshals against such views has to do with the potential for relatively rapid evolution" (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/10/paleofantasy_stone_age_delusions)

Note that term--"rapid evolution"--well. Years ago I expected that this would become the primary argument of science-oriented and corporate Paleo critics and it's coming to pass. I even predicted that "rapid evolution" would be the term they would use (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/rapid-evolution-counterargument-against-rpd/msg27862/#msg27862). It's the only somewhat-logical argument they can use. It contains a shred of truth (and I knew the example of lactase persistence would be cited ad nauseum, however inconvenient for vegans), which is more than their other arguments contain. What it ignores is that even millions of years of adaptation to a novel food can sometimes not be enough. A fascinating example of this is the giant panda. After many millions of years of eating mostly bamboo, it still does not digest it very well. Nature does not work to ensure that we are optimally adapted to a novel food, and certainly not within the blink of an eye that 10 thousand years represents in evolutionary terms.

Most of us who eat "Paleo" will likely eventually be confronted with the "rapid evolution" argument.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 07:47:06 PM by paleophil »

Offline samjohn

  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 2563
  • Karma: 154
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #25 on: March 11, 2013, 07:45:11 PM »
I don't know why there seems to be such a widespread hard on for proving the Paleo diet wrong, despite interventional studies invariably showing an immediate and substantial benefit to health. No reliance needed on evolutionary theories, interventional studies show this way of eating is healthy.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/10/paleofantasy_stone_age_delusions/

In the article above there seems to be a complete ignorance of the idea of different levels of evolutionary pressure. With the grasshoppers example, the evolutionary pressure to be silent would be very strong, because if one was not silent, one would get eaten, quite possibly before breeding.

The evolutionary pressure to be able to eat grains without causing health issues would not be all that strong as the health problems caused tend to be cumulative, starting off quite mild but increasing as time goes on to be felt in full force later on in life, past the age at which one would usually have had children.

In that article Zuk is quoted as saying 10 thousand years is 'plenty of time' for humanity to select out an genetic issue with digesting grains and it might well be if certain conditions were met, but that does not mean that it did indeed happen, and interventional dietary studies show strong evidence that it did not.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 07:47:54 PM by samjohn »

Offline samjohn

  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 2563
  • Karma: 154
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2013, 07:52:52 PM »
I was talking to Mark Sisson via email; he's just ordered the book.  It'll be fun to read his scathing review when he's done.

I think I'll avoid paying for a collection of content stolen from me  ;)

Just email her marlene.zuk@ucr.edu and ask for a copy. If she's used content from this forum, it is the least she could do.

Offline paleophil

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 115
  • Karma: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2013, 07:57:09 PM »
I don't know why there seems to be such a widespread hard on for proving the Paleo diet wrong,
Maybe because there's little profit in Paleo and it challenges many huge international industries and the governments they pay for? I'm actually a mite surprised that they haven't started killing off Paleo proponents yet.

Quote
The evolutionary pressure to be able to eat grains without causing health issues would not be all that strong as the health problems caused tend to be cumulative, starting off quite mild but increasing through life to be felt in full force later on in life, past the age at which one would usually have had children.
And many people reach grandparent age despite having nasty chronic diseases, and they often even say things like "Oh I'm healthy, I just have arthritis, gout, high blood pressure, have to take medications for pain, anxiety and so I can sleep, etc., etc., etc. You know, the usual. I only take 12 medications, nothing beyond the ordinary."

What they don't realize is, "humans are not broken by default," as Angelo Coppola points out. We don't have to accept chronic diseases as a "normal" part of aging.

Quote
In that article Zuk is quoted as saying 10 thousand years is 'plenty of time' for humanity to select out an genetic issue with digesting grains and it might well be if certain conditions were met, but that does not mean that it did indeed happen, and interventional dietary studies show strong evidence that it did not.
10 thousand years certainly wasn't anywhere near enough time for giant pandas and their ancestors to optimally adapt to a new diet. Millions of years later, they still have difficulties with it. There's a dramatic difference between adapting enough to survive and pass on genes vs. adapting to the point of optimal health, but critics will try to cloud over this difference. Their profits and government jobs will depend on it.

Until recently, they largely ignored us as irrelevant. They are starting to take notice. Once they see us as a real threat, watch out.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 08:14:00 PM by paleophil »

Offline Warren Dew

  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 5753
  • Karma: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2013, 11:45:15 PM »
"The most persuasive argument Zuk marshals against such views has to do with the potential for relatively rapid evolution" (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/10/paleofantasy_stone_age_delusions)

Note that term--"rapid evolution"--well. Years ago I expected that this would become the primary argument of science-oriented and corporate Paleo critics and it's coming to pass. I even predicted that "rapid evolution" would be the term they would use (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/general-discussion/rapid-evolution-counterargument-against-rpd/msg27862/#msg27862). It's the only somewhat-logical argument they can use. It contains a shred of truth (and I knew the example of lactase persistence would be cited ad nauseum, however inconvenient for vegans), which is more than their other arguments contain. What it ignores is that even millions of years of adaptation to a novel food can sometimes not be enough. A fascinating example of this is the giant panda. After many millions of years of eating mostly bamboo, it still does not digest it very well. Nature does not work to ensure that we are optimally adapted to a novel food, and certainly not within the blink of an eye that 10 thousand years represents in evolutionary terms.

Most of us who eat "Paleo" will likely eventually be confronted with the "rapid evolution" argument.

At least it does have a shred of truth, which is more than can be said for many of her defenders.  It does have a number of problems, of course.  Lactase persistence, for example, has been discussed repeatedly before here.

One that I haven't seen discussed here is this:  evolution is only rapid when the organism is poorly adapted to the environment, such that selection pressure is strong.  If the organism is perfectly adapted, obviously there's no evolutionary pressure to change.  The fact that evolution has been rapid since the invention of agriculture is actually just another form of proof that we're poorly adapted to agriculture.

To argue that we're now well adapted to agricultural foods, they would have to argue that evolution was fast 10,000 years ago, but has slowed down again.  The evidence is against that.  In fact, evolution seems to have become, if anything, even more rapid since the industrial revolution.

In that article Zuk is quoted as saying 10 thousand years is 'plenty of time' for humanity to select out an genetic issue with digesting grains and it might well be if certain conditions were met, but that does not mean that it did indeed happen, and interventional dietary studies show strong evidence that it did not.

The problem with that theory is that we didn't have a gene for problems with digesting grains that could have been selected out; rather, we would have had to have had a preexisting a gene to tolerate digesting grains.  From the continued prevalence of various forms of leaky gut, diabetes, etc., we didn't have such a gene - or more accurately, we didn't have the full suite of genes that would have been required.

Offline Warren Dew

  • Global Moderator
  • General
  • ****
  • Posts: 5753
  • Karma: 370
    • View Profile
Re: Paleofantasy
« Reply #29 on: March 11, 2013, 11:47:58 PM »
There's a dramatic difference between adapting enough to survive and pass on genes vs. adapting to the point of optimal health, but critics will try to cloud over this difference. Their profits and government jobs will depend on it.

Exactly.

Quote
Until recently, they largely ignored us as irrelevant. They are starting to take notice. Once they see us as a real threat, watch out.

Maybe we should pretend that we're kooks - or reassure their blue pill prejudices.