Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 199 posts

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#111

Post by reycharles »

Tichy wrote: post #91
akiselev wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't say something like "(which doubters are free to research themselves)" and follow it up with a claim like "many pre-Agricultural societies had (and have, actually) far lower rates of the so-called "diseases of civilizations." Actually you shouldn't even want to as there's a certain problem with gathering data on populations that lived 10,000 years ago with a geographically dispersed sample size of ... oh, I don'…

This information does not just come from fossil records but also from studying living specimen, who still exist in the world today. The article mention that those people also had time to evolve, but I don't think that is much of a killer argument. Then the question would still remain (speaking of diet, which is only one aspect) why they were able to adapt to their diet and we weren't able to adapt to our diet.

> Then the question would still remain (speaking of diet, which is only one aspect) why they were able to adapt to their diet and we weren't able to adapt to our diet.

I think perhaps the point is that there isn't evidence that we haven't been able to adapt to our diet.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#112

Post by Evgeny »

akiselev wrote: post #49
ellyagg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, it's a review by someone with an axe to grind about a book by someone with an axe to grind. I'm not a "Paleo" person, but the hinting in this article that folks trying to infer better living patterns from the past are loons is faintly preposterous. We have just mounds of evidence (which doubters are free to research themselves) that many pre-Agricultural societies had (and have, actually) far lower rates of t…

Can't say something like "(which doubters are free to research themselves)" and follow it up with a claim like "many pre-Agricultural societies had (and have, actually) far lower rates of the so-called "diseases of civilizations." Actually you shouldn't even want to as there's a certain problem with gathering data on populations that lived 10,000 years ago with a geographically dispersed sample size of ... oh, I don'…

The keyword, I would suggest, is paleopathology

Here is what I consider a decent introduction into the subject

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2009/03/paleopathol...

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#113

Post by Tichy »

reycharles wrote: post #111
Tichy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This information does not just come from fossil records but also from studying living specimen, who still exist in the world today. The article mention that those people also had time to evolve, but I don't think that is much of a killer argument. Then the question would still remain (speaking of diet, which is only one aspect) why they were able to adapt to their diet and we weren't able to adapt to our diet.

> Then the question would still remain (speaking of diet, which is only one aspect) why they were able to adapt to their diet and we weren't able to adapt to our diet. I think perhaps the point is that there isn't evidence that we haven't been able to adapt to our diet.

We have certainly adapted to an extent, but not enough yet. Proof: civilization diseases do exist. (Not necessarily all about diet, but general lifestyle compared to traditional societies).

The fact that these diseases exist shows that we haven't adapted to not have them.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#114

Post by dalke »

s_baby wrote: post #65
dualogy wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not denying that there certainly are such factors at play at some level, but not sure how decisive they are: I'd wager they won't make a dent if you consume 4500 calories of Paleo a day, and likewise won't if you consume 1200 calories of junk-food a day -- say for the average non-athlete rather-sedentary adult.

There's a reason Atkin's diet is so popular. It's because it's extremely effective at shedding weight. Sure there might be a point at which you're gaining weight due to the fact that it's an astronomical amount of calories and there are going to be differences in biology but over-all people find eliminating carbs will cut the weight even if they don't cut calories.

Lots of things are popular. However, I thought the rough consensus was more like what's outlined in (pulling up a recent relevant paper) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/

"Successful weight loss can be achieved with either a low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet when coupled with behavioral treatment. A low-carbohydrate diet is associated with favorable changes in cardiovascular disease risk factors at 2 years."

"Data from several randomized trials over the past 6 years have demonstrated that low-carbohydrate diets produced greater short-term (6 months) weight loss than low-fat, calorie-restricted diets (1-5). The longer-term (1 to 2 years) results are mixed."

"Implication: Overweight persons can achieve substantial weight loss at 2 years if they participate in a behavioral intervention combined with a low-fat or a low-carbohydrate diet."

Also, attrition rates were about the same between the two.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#115

Post by lifeisstillgood »

Tichy wrote: post #96
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #56

One of the things that make me wonder is the idea that there are " diseases if civilisation" (accepted, look at increases in asthma etc) and that they are caused by diet Of all the things that exist in the modern world, lead in atmosphere, weird fungicides in our furniture fire retardants, etc, why is it the one thing that is under individual control that is the main contributor to our malease - it seems far too link…

They studied what happened to people who switched to agriculture 11000 years ago, via the fossil record. Also you can watch what happens to people who lived in a traditional way and then entered society. That way I think a lot of things you mention can be excluded - not that lead and fire retardants are not dangerous, but that is another area of problems.

But we have no evidence that the diseases we wan to get rid of are diet driven, even obesity is amenable to better social cures than lets all eat this way.

Where can I find details on what did happen to people 11,000 years ago?

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#116

Post by anthonyb »

tjogin wrote: post #84
dlytle wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the primary arguments of a keto/paleo diet is that the different diets affect how many calories your body thinks it needs, how it uses them, and how it influences behavior as a result. (Disclaimer: using imaginary numbers below to illustrate the theory.) Let's say your body typically wants 1000 calories at breakfast, and you eat 1000 calories with a heavy load of carbs. Carbohydrates with a high glycemic index…

This is pseudo science, there are droves of scientific literature that shows that meal timing is irrelevant and that as long as macronutrient content is similar, a calorie is a calorie.

Where is the parent saying anything about meal timing? It's about the effect on your body of a particular meal. Carbs and sugars spike insulin much more than fats or protein.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#117

Post by randomsearch »

ellyagg wrote: post #23
brd wrote: post #9

The biggest problem I have with Zuk is that the entire premise of this book is based on a straw man argument. The "Paleo" in paleo diet comes from the fact that there was a clear dip in human health once we entered the neolithic era (i.e. started farming). We are not emulating a caveman's diet per se, we are simply trying to find and remove what caused that original dip in health. To anyone uninformed about the paleo…

Indeed, it's a review by someone with an axe to grind about a book by someone with an axe to grind. I'm not a "Paleo" person, but the hinting in this article that folks trying to infer better living patterns from the past are loons is faintly preposterous. We have just mounds of evidence (which doubters are free to research themselves) that many pre-Agricultural societies had (and have, actually) far lower rates of t…

> Hunters and gatherers weren't obese.

The obesity epidemic is a modern phenomenon. It has nothing to do with the change from hunter gatherer to farmer.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#118

Post by Evgeny »

tjogin wrote: post #46
ellyagg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, it's a review by someone with an axe to grind about a book by someone with an axe to grind. I'm not a "Paleo" person, but the hinting in this article that folks trying to infer better living patterns from the past are loons is faintly preposterous. We have just mounds of evidence (which doubters are free to research themselves) that many pre-Agricultural societies had (and have, actually) far lower rates of t…

Diseases of civilization are a function of congregation, not eating grains. Obesity is the result of a caloric surplus. Cavemen didn't have that luxury.

Obesity is the result of a caloric surplus. Cavemen didn't have that luxury.

Obesity epidemic is a very recent phenomenon. Are you arguing that there were no societies that had caloric surplus up until late in the XX century?

Or would you say that American Samoa with obesity levels of 70% [1] somehow have the luxury of having calorie surplus, while people of Switzerland (8.2% obesity) are struggling to get enough food?

Speaking about Paleo diet in particular, why don't those guys gorge themselves into obesity [2]?

The Kitavan people have been under greater study for their remarkable health characteristics. The people show no indication of coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, dementia, congestive heart failure, acne, low or high blood pressure, or obesity. There is also almost no indication of cancer.

The Kitavans have abundant food supply and are not threatened by malnutrition or famine.

[1] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

[2] http://wiki.whebsite.com/kitava

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#119

Post by anthonyb »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #115
Tichy wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They studied what happened to people who switched to agriculture 11000 years ago, via the fossil record. Also you can watch what happens to people who lived in a traditional way and then entered society. That way I think a lot of things you mention can be excluded - not that lead and fire retardants are not dangerous, but that is another area of problems.

But we have no evidence that the diseases we wan to get rid of are diet driven, even obesity is amenable to better social cures than lets all eat this way. Where can I find details on what did happen to people 11,000 years ago?

Yes we do. There was an article last week about how ingesting sugar has been categorically linked to diabetes - in the same way that smoking is linked to lung cancer.

Re: “Paleofantasy”: Stone Age delusions

#120

Post by kahawe »

Reading about any type of nutrition research has become beyond frustrating to me.

There are constantly new results doing away with old truisms only to have those results, in turn, questioned and overturned by other studies and then there are basically opposing theories being found as valid, too. To make matters worse, there is an overwhelming abundance of less-than-scientific literature following the latest "fad" scientific results, plugging some diet "silver bullets" and to top it off, most "professionals" in that area are nothing but gym rats that payed lots of money for some training on a specific diet fad and then that is the only thing they will in turn plug to their customers. And the actual professionals, as in doctors, well mostly they appear to not be up-to-date with the latest-and-greatest "proven" theories so I always feel like I am missing out some of the good stuff that the latest fads are promising me.

All I wanted was a REALLY, actually healthy diet. Do I eat mostly wholemeal bread and rice as is common where I am from? Paleo and Atkins tells me this is literally poisoning and destroying my body and THE worst thing I could do next to shooting myself in the stomach. So only lots of fat, meat and vegetables? But "everyone knows" lots of meat is bad and one should only eat meat maybe twice a week, says the official generals statement here. Of course there are the different shades of vegetarians and vegans who all have discovered the one truth and the ONLY ethically correct way of living and they have the studies to back them up on the "healthy" side but e.g. the legumes they are eating are supposed to be literally poison according to the paleo crowd... yet beans are healthy, says another group, also backed by studies. Oh and fish, we all should eat more fish right? Yet we keep hearing how polluted the oceans are and how fish are full of mercury and probably nuclear waste from dumping it into the north sea. And I could go on and on and on....

For practically each diet recommendation or "fad" backed by studies you can easily find at least one opposite or contradicting study and at least two other, even more "true" and new diet fads.

Ultimately, this means I have no idea what I should actually, really really be eating and it leads me to the conclusion that: diet and health are the educated masses' modern equivalent to religion. Everyone is following their one true savior and will launch into borderline religious flame wars against the "infidels" of the other fads and theories.

Yet actually definitive answers seem to be missing.

And I am sorry if this seems like an incoherent rant, somehow it is, but I assure you with all the best intentions. Maybe it is just the tech inside me that wants a clear and definitive answer.

Post reply on HN