CrossFit Discussion Board

CrossFit Discussion Board (
-   Nutrition (
-   -   Don't believe in Paleo because... (

Scott Clark 12-28-2008 07:07 PM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
Great post Wade.

I'm a big fan of Michael Pollan and the Weston A. Price foundation. Price's studies are monumental and showed that Neolithic foods can be very healthy when prepared properly and when they come from great sources. Of course there are those with intolerance to gluten and dairy, and for those I would say that Paleo is as good as it gets.

Joey Powell 12-29-2008 04:53 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
Scott, I did not present the concept. I recommended the book for further modification and understanding of the diet I had been working on him with. Upon reading the book, how much I don't know, I got a phone call. He was aggressive towards the concept.

He was offended to his very core. So we agreed to disagree. He was not going to be a regular client, so I saved what I could of an relationship, patted him on rear, and sent him on his way.

I guess I had viewed it that even from a Biblical perspective...Eden was sort of Paleo, and after "The Fall" Adam and Eve's diets changed because they "worked the land" and "toiled in the dirt". So regardless of outlooks, it was a sound approach to eating.

Tirzah Harper 12-29-2008 07:13 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
I think the theory of evolution is pretty likely and I STILL don't swallow the Paleo diet hook, line, and sinker as the be-all, end-all of nutritional perfection. :D

There are, in my observation, some people who feel great eating paleo-style and some people who do not. In my mind, that means this dietary theory is great for some and not for others, and if it works for you, DO IT.

I'm all about doing what actually gets you the results you want, not what looks like it's supposed to work in the meantime but actually gets you ****-all in the end. This applies to everything in life, come to think of it...

Brad Davis 12-29-2008 07:30 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
[QUOTE=Joey Powell;480769]...He was offended to his very core. So we agreed to disagree. He was not going to be a regular client, so I saved what I could of an relationship, patted him on rear, and sent him on his way.....[/QUOTE]
I had something like this happen also. A couple of years ago, I pointed one of my friends to a Paleo Diet website and he was pretty ticked off by "evolved for millions of years" that is put forth by Cordain as if it's a fact instead of theory. Why would Cordain not measure his words out a bit better here? "Adapted for" serves the purpose as well as "evolved for." He needed a marketing guru on board to keep him from POing a substantial chunk of potential diet followers.

One problem is that the Old Testament has the word "bread" in it countless times. God actually *gave* bread for the people to eat in one form or another in a few places. Cordain would have everybody believe that God is giving food to the people that's terrible for them?! The idea that bread is bad, period, flies in the face of The Bible, at least in some people's opinion. People take their Bibles pretty seriously.

Andy Shirley 12-29-2008 07:36 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
Oh man. Now this is a topic almost worth getting banned for.


Dawkins and others have refuted irreducible complexity quite completely in several different publications(specifically Behe's flagellar argument, and the usual eye argument).

Matthew Stafford 12-29-2008 07:40 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
[QUOTE=Ben Chapman;480511]Nice Princess Bride reference.[/QUOTE]

Hah, glad you caught it.

I'm staying out of this discussion for the most part, but the co-opting of the word theory bothers me. A theory is is a well substantiated explanation while a hypothesis is a wild guess. A hypothesis does not become a theory until the discrepancies between the hypothesis and evidence/observations are resolved.

As Jamie mentioned, gravity, relativity and wave-particle duality are all theories, theories that are used daily to provide us with things like GPS, high speed communications and space flight. Evolution is also a theory, albeit one that generates more controversy than relativity. If you disagree with evolution, please refer to it as a [I]flawed[/I] theory, attack it on its merits, or decry that it was ever promoted from hypothetical to theoretical rather than insinuate that theory means something different than it actually does. Otherwise, it cheapens the word and promotes anti-scientific/anti-intellectual sentiments.

Dylan Miley 12-29-2008 08:07 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
[QUOTE=Wade Smith;480637]I'm actually surprised a MOD hasn't stepped in to warn this thread of its potential in stepping over the line and its possible ultimate demise. [/QUOTE]

Why would a mod step in? Because someone DARES challenge the paleo diet?

Jason Scheffler 12-29-2008 08:14 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
[QUOTE=Dylan Miley;480858]Why would a mod step in? Because someone DARES challenge the paleo diet?[/QUOTE]

Cool your jets Dylan.

No not because someone asked questions about the paleo diet but a mod no doubt is keeping a close eye because of the religious parts folks are carefully and quite nicely skirting.

Frank Dennis 12-29-2008 08:27 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
[QUOTE=Dylan Miley;480858]Why would a mod step in? Because someone DARES challenge the paleo diet?[/QUOTE]

No, because an apparent underpinning of whether or not the paleo diet is valid based upon the premise of evolutionary adaptation is inextricably tied to what you accept as the explanation of the origins of life.

However, as many have pointed out already, that's not really a factor; [I]whatever[/I] the origin of life, it's demonstrable through a great deal of anectodal evidence, and some scientific evidence, that eating foods as closely as possible to their natural state yields better health than eating highly processed foods.

As for what should or shouldn't be included (dairy, grains, etc.) there are lots of ways to approach that, from either the perpective of inclusion or exclusion in an ancient diet, which make sense. Unfortunately, until someone cracks time travel, there just aren't any sources of evidence to give definitive answers. For instance if you accept evolution then, yes, it's unlikely that ancient man consumed any milk beyond infancy, certainly not that of another species, until after the advent of agriculture and animal domestication.

However, it's not beyond possibility that even while in a nomadic, non-agricultural phase communities kept small numbers of domestic animals, or that milk may not have been harvested from animals killed while hunting. Modern hunter-gatherer tribes use organs, blood... why not the milk?

The same thing goes for grains; at some point before agriculture became widespread, man must have discovered that those grains were a potential food source. So, for at least some time, they were probably included in a paleolithic diet.

If you don't accept evolution, then there was still a transition, as has been pointed out, from the original biblical diet and what our ancestors ate after The Fall. Still, records aren't exactly complete and what should be included, and what shouldn't, could be argued from both sides. Especially since the lists of foods specifically forbidden by sacred commandment have changed over the centuries.

However, for myself, I've felt better and had more stable energy levels since ditching grains. There are those who'd say my diet isn't really paleo because milk and eggs are still on the menu, but that's OK. Milk and eggs are great (unless you're lactose intolerant), and I still feel good.

Edit: Jason got there first... and was less wordy than me. But, you know... everyone is less wordy than me. :D

Robert Wolf 12-29-2008 09:05 AM

Re: Don't believe in Paleo because...
[quote=Ben Chapman;480518]Like I already said, the quite absent fossil record that is so greatly hailed as evidence, but speciation should show literally millions of intermediary specimens at significant populations numbers, for the modification to happen, it would happen one modification at a time, obviously modifications like that haven't even been observable in current history, hence the incredibly long timeline that evolution requires. The iterations demonstrating the descent with modification would need to be astronomical in type, but also in volume, large populations of intermediaries would need to be produced to eventually get the genetic diversity to cause the modifications. So far, no one can point to any of these, and believe me, I've looked.

The other contrary evidence I would offer is the concept of irreducable complexity, addressed initially by Michael Behe. Behe was a biochemist doing research on flaggelar motors. The whole concept of irreducable complexity poses the impossibility of a complex structure arising out of the coming together of individual parts. Meaning it even one item is missing, the product is useless. Look it up for a more detailed explaination. So far the only refutation I've seen for it is a bunch of what ifs, no real research or unbiased commentary. Behe came to his conclusions during the course of his research, being neutral and an evolutionist to begin with. So there are a few examples.[/quote]

All my links are WFS
As a biochemist I am truly staggered by the complexity of life. Once you start working with DNA and the seeming chicken and egg issue of DNA replication and the attendendent need for proteins to aid in DNA replication things get complex and interesting indeed...but the issue of irriducible complexity has never borne itself out. We keep finding cellular mechanisms which can perform a given function that was stated "CAN NOT BE MADE SIMPLER". That is one issue. A second issue arrises from some of the work of [URL=""]Stehan Wolfram[/URL] and his work on Cellular Automatia. The notion that all of complexity occurs in simple stepwise fasions is inaccurate and greatly obscures many of the mechanisms of extreme complexity such as DNA replication and protein folding. Id also highly recommend the book "African Exodous". I doubt if it will change your mind, but at least you will know what all of us loosers who buy the whole evolutionary biology thingy are deluding ourselves with. It has the best synergy between fossil records and molecular biology I have seen to date.

Also, for the continuity of YOUR argument you need to pick whether you are a new-earth creationist or if you DO buy into evolution (which you are saying is bunk) but with some outside influence. The inteligent design folks FULLY embrace evolution, an old earth and all of that. They are theoretically trying to say life is too complex a thing for it to have happened without outside intervention and have claimed since the early '90's to have a means of analyzing DNA and protein folding in such a way that "proves" this point. They have NEVER generated a scrap of data on this claim and have largely abandoned it.

I saw one of the Honchos from the [URL=""]Discovery Institute[/URL] speak on this topic at the University of Washington. The notion was compelling, but it has never gone anywhere and they never do any actual RESEARCH. Once you discover that the mission is NOT to uncover facts, but to push an agenda which grows from their [URL=""]Wedge Strategy[/URL]...which you gotta love the open-minded mission here: "to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions". Once you understand they have absolutely NO interest in science, but rather pushing a political/religious agenda, then things start making sense. But again, these guy accept evolution...grudgingly. This is how they allow their work to kinda pass the sniff test and keep the topic alive. So, if you are in cahoots with these guys you DO in fact "believe" in evolution (albeit via outside influence) or if you are a Young Earth creationist you are in a VERY rarefied club, one which does not play well with the discovery institute. Here is a nice piece in which three Christians (one from the Discovery institute) proceed to rip each other to shreds on the [URL=""]topic[/URL].

so, for the continuity of your own argument, I'd pick a camp and run with that.

So, that's all pretty "solid" stuff, this point is much more an observation and much in the realm of opinion: I find it interesting that the only religious entities who find issue with the notion of evolution are those of a fundamentalist ilk. These same entities find concepts of physics and cosmology useful in that they generate GPS systems for weapons targeting, cell phones, atomic bombs and the like but conveniently ignore the anything which MIGHT be at odds with their religious views. [URL=""]Pope John Paul 2[/URL] ( I doubt you'r catholic but I liked this guy a bunch and he was a THINKER) was of the position that so long as evolution does not try to teach that there is no God, there was no problem with it AND that this theory best describes the world around us. Now, for some damm reason, scientists try to weigh in on this topic of "is there or is there not a god" when the issue is one of the supernatural...if there is a god and the supernatural, it may not lends itself well to proof in a test tube! All science can say is "Have not found proof yet..." this is where faith comes just buggars me to see folks draw battle lines in these very interesting places.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:19 AM.

CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.