[ExI] Carbohydrates and energy

[Harvey Newstrom]

Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote,
> On Apr 19, 2011 8:23 AM, "Harvey Newstrom" <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
> >
> > No faith at all.  I look at the scientific evidence.
> 
> OK, then what scientific evidence do you have that your diet is healthy? Has
> it even been studied?

You're joking, right?  Just read all the sources you are pointing me
toward.  They are full of refutations of the current scientific thinking
that high-fat is bad.  They explain why all the doctors are wrong, why
the scientific studies are wrong, why the glycemic index is an
inaccruate measure, why bloodtests are an inaccurate measure, why animal
studies don't apply to people, why paleontologists are misinterpretting
the data, etc., etc.  There is no doubt that this stuff has been
scientifically studied.  Nor is there any doubt what the current
standard scientific consensus is.  The paleo diet hypothesis is still in
the minority opinion among professionals and research, whether you like
it or not.  It's ludicrous to ask if anybody has studied this stuff yet.

> > This article looks like hand-waving and denialism to me.  It argues maybe
> > the scientists are wrong.  Maybe animal experiments don't apply to humans.
> > Maybe the lab doesn't represent the real world.  Maybe more research is
> > required.  Maybe.
> 
> I don't think Taubes argues that *maybe* more research it's
> required...clearly he thinks it is required.

"More research required" = FUD.  It's all fine to doubt all the existing
evidence.  But eventually there has to be evidence on your own side.  If
the fossilized evidence of grain use by Neanderthals is wrong, then
where do you get an accurate picture of Neanderthal diet?  If glycemic
index is an inaccurate, then how do you measure sugar impact?  If blood
tests are wrong, than how do you determine blood cholesterol and sugar
levels?  If researchers are misinterpreting reports, scientists are
misreading results, and doctors are promoting propaganda, then where do
we get reliable information?  Low-carb diets are not a new hypothesis
anymore.  We have decades of research and results now.  The request for
"more research required" cannot be continued indefinitely, just because
previous research failed to produce the desired results.

> > If we don't use current science or current experimental results or the
> > scientific method, what do we base our nutritional opinions upon?
> 
> How about (1) knowledge of human biochemistry and (2) knowledge of the diets
> that our species evolved under?

I tried that.  Paleos either "disbelieve" the results, accuse the
researchers of conspiracy, or claim the archaelogical evidence is
undefineably "thin".  I've show my evidence.  Seriously, what additional
evidence would convince you?  How about showing some evidence *for* the
Paleo theory instead of merely asserting that prevalent theories are
wrong.

> > Multiple historical sites?
> > Wide-spread geography? Different latitudes?  A dozen different grains
> > cataloged?  Proof of widespread cooking of grains?  Fossils in teeth and
> > excrement and storage of grains?
> >
> > What part of all of this are you calling "thin evidence"?
> 
> That's less than half a dozen examples of wild grain consumption. Compare
> that to the thousands of sites with evidence of meat consumption.

A lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.  Yes, I gave a small number
of sites where fossilied teeth and feces were examined for diet.  That's
because that's all I know about that have examined teeth and feces to
determine what the diet was.  Yet they all came up with grains.  Do you
have ANY examples where teeth and feces were found to be lacking grains?
100% seems like a good success rate to me.