6 ms·

You are getting down-voted because Paleo is not scientific.

DiabloD3 12y ago
A diet whose only goal is to use science to eat nutritious food that is not toxic in any way and engineer a diet to do so, is not scientific? Explain to me how that works.
- simplexion 12y ago
  Just because the goal is to use science does not mean it does. It uses evidence where it suits the beliefs of Paleo. This article is well written by an awesome scientist: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/09/10/3842158.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/09/10/3842158.ht...
  - DiabloD3 12y ago
    A quick glance at that article seems its just whats called the Paleo Strawman: it talks about the Paleo name (and how it is connected to the Paleolithic era), but doesn't actually discuss the diet at all and just says "oh, Paleo is wrong because eating what we ate over 10 thousand years ago isn't appropriate for us today", even though the Paleo diet does not say that. The Paleo diet is about reducing inflammation, reducing toxins, and reducing anti-nutrients. The majority of the three of those comes from refined sugars, grains, seed oils, and legumes. What it DOESN'T do is blindly say "oh, our pre-agricultural ancestors ate that so it must be the best thing ever" because that has no place in Paleo as it is not scientific. The article proves that Karl S. Kruszelnicki (I've never heard of him before) has no interest in doing research into what he is writing about, because he does not mention any of what I just said in his article.
    - simplexion 12y ago
      No True Scotsman! Instead of taking a quick glance at the article... actually read it.
      - DiabloD3 12y ago
        That is not a No True Scotsman. A No True Scotsman is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I , a Strawman is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0 What that article did was a Strawman, and a rather popular one used to promote grain-based diets.
manticore_alpha 12y ago
You may disagree with the use of "Paleo" nomenclature, but the pillars of the diet are sound - and a 1,000% improvement on the USDA food pyramid.
- simplexion 12y ago
  The pillars of a lot of diets seem sound but aren't based on evidence and often ignore it. I believe the best diet is based on a quote from Michael Pollan; "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." I disagree with a lot of what he says but that quote is fantastic.
ajcarpy2005 12y ago
You could say that about any diet. To vastly simplify Paleo, it's like chicken instead of sugary fruit loops. In other words, it goes counter to what may be convenient to eat, colorful, or marketed and branded really well to consumers. That in itself doesn't make it scientific but it starts with an assumption that the easiest and most popular/likable foods are not necessarily the only foods we should eat for long-term health.
- simplexion 12y ago
  I'm all about the Plio diet anyway. https://medium.com/the-nib/introducing-the-plio-diet-77d3dce94098 https://medium.com/the-nib/introducing-the-plio-diet-77d3dce...
  - simplexion 12y ago
    Why does Hacker News hate funny?
- ajcarpy2005 12y ago
  That's fine, keep down-voting. Just as I predicted. Note that in my comment I am not asserting that Paleo is scientific but that it isn't really less scientific than most other diets either. The whole point was that there are many different interpretations of what exactly Paleo even is within the group and some of them are more advanced than just speculating which foods the 'caveman' might have eaten. I agree that if that's all you're basing your diet plan on then you're rather unscientific. FWIW, many primitive people who move to the US and begin changing their diets to more convenient (perhaps cheaper, more available) foods begin experiencing health issues.
phkahler 12y ago
>> You are getting down-voted because Paleo is not scientific. Weather or not the basis of Paleo is sound is not relevant to his point. Not only does he claim benefits for himself, but notes that others seem to agree in similar ways. I'm really getting pissed at the commercial medial establishment for denying anything that doesn't have clinical trial can be good. Plants or minerals that have helped people for thousands of years are called "homeopathic" or "alternative" by real doctors. Now we're seeing studies that claim various things have no benefit "for people on an already healthy diet" as a footnote. Yet good old aspirin is a plant derivative, as are some other things. But I digress. His point is independent of the basis for the diet and hence should not be downvoted for that.
- tinco 12y ago
  > Plants or minerals that have helped people for thousands of years are called "homeopathic" or "alternative" by real doctors. No, homeopathic medicin is called homeopathic by real doctors. Homeopathy is not ancient, it was invented in 1796. It also does not involve plants of any kind. Plants that do help or seem to help and have been in use for hundreds or thousands of years are only called alternative when there either has not been research to show that they are effective, or there has been research that shows they are not effective. Alternative does not necessarily mean bad. The word is merely used as a way to distinguish unproven medicine from scientifically proven medicine.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    While I think the parent comment does not understand what "homeopathic" means, I don't think it's correct that "[homeopathy] does not involve plants of any kind." My understanding is that the "active" ingredients are often plant based - after all, it was cinchona overdose that started this mess. If that's the case, homeopathic remedies don't contain the plants anymore (through over-dilution), but homeopathy as a process involves plants.
- dalke 12y ago
  We also have centuries of history which show that practices people thought were good actually did nothing, or made things worse. People got better despite the treatment, which caused them to believe that the treatment was the success. It took over 1,000 years for the humorism of Ancient Greece to be discarded as wrong, and Hippocrates' theories on bloodletting, once a mainstay of medicine, to be relegated to only a few modern uses. Mercury has been a part of traditional medicines for thousands of years across Eurasia. "There is hardly a disease in the nosology for which mercury in some form has not been used." "No doubt many patients died after years of suffering from slow mercurial poisoning." (Quotes from http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020134syphilis/020134syphilis-ch9.htm http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020134syphilis... ) . While mercury still has some medical uses, the fact is that centuries of reports claimed wide benefits and successes for mercury is evidence that claiming benefits for oneself, and the agreement of others, is not strong evidence that it actually is good. It may be good, but it isn't sufficient. It may actually be bad. There's also drugs which we know are effective, but which are usually riskier and less effective than other drugs. Eg, sulfa drugs vs. beta-lactams. While treating with sulfa drugs absolutely has benefits, promoting it over other, better possibilities leads to overall worse healthcare. That's why sulfas aren't a first line drug any more. In terms of a Paleo diet, it may be good, or not, or it may be that other diets are better. How do you know which it is? How do you know which traditional uses of mercury are toxic? Which traditional uses of bloodletting are worse than not doing bloodletting at all? We only have three solutions: trials (which gives the clearest evidence when done right), epidemiology (much harder to interpret), and mechanistic (there's no reason to believe that a leg amputation will help a cold, and the best case outcome quite severe, making it unethical to test that experimentally. This is mostly used to reject unlikely possibilities which have poor evidence backing it.)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
kaitai 12y ago
I feel like this is one of those instances where someone is responding to a different conversation (not necessarily you, but many of the respondents). Who said Paleo is scientific? A diet along those lines, for me, reduces mood swings, hunger, and the combination (hangriness), while being tasty and improving the list of numbers they measure at the doctor's office. We do all have to live with our n=1, after all. Eat what's truly tasty and makes your life good! Somewhere there is a flame war about what the Paleolithic humans ate, and whether that was what we are nicknaming "paleo" now. We shouldn't take the names too seriously, though, or we'll be confused about what the South Beach diet is (big macs?), the Beyonce diet (...?), etc. Low-fat and low-cholesterol diets have accurately descriptive names. Not catchy. Also once seemingly backed by science, which was incomplete enough to be wrong or influenced heavily by agricultural lobbyists. An discussion about whether "reducing inflammation" as discussed on the internet is scientific would be interesting. The article mentions curcumin and omega-3s: what do we really know?
UrMomReadsHN 12y ago
The entire idea of the "paleo diet" is based off of quacky. http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/30/jane-says-if-you-believe-science-dont-go-paleo http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/30/jane-says-if-you-... When I go through my depression episodes I am unable to eat for days. Food tastes like cardboard and is repulsive. If i eat more than a couple bites I vomit. Yet not eating doesn't make me less depressed. So the idea of just eliminating the current fad "inflammatory food" just doesn't seem plausible to me. Especially since the food seems to change with time. Many people resent being told they "just need to cut out grains/meat/sugar/fruit/cooked food." Food fads come and food fads go.

A diet whose only goal is to use science to eat nutritious food that is not toxic in any way and engineer a diet to do so, is not scientific? Explain to me how that works.

simplexion 12y ago
Just because the goal is to use science does not mean it does. It uses evidence where it suits the beliefs of Paleo. This article is well written by an awesome scientist: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/09/10/3842158.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/09/10/3842158.ht...
- DiabloD3 12y ago
  A quick glance at that article seems its just whats called the Paleo Strawman: it talks about the Paleo name (and how it is connected to the Paleolithic era), but doesn't actually discuss the diet at all and just says "oh, Paleo is wrong because eating what we ate over 10 thousand years ago isn't appropriate for us today", even though the Paleo diet does not say that. The Paleo diet is about reducing inflammation, reducing toxins, and reducing anti-nutrients. The majority of the three of those comes from refined sugars, grains, seed oils, and legumes. What it DOESN'T do is blindly say "oh, our pre-agricultural ancestors ate that so it must be the best thing ever" because that has no place in Paleo as it is not scientific. The article proves that Karl S. Kruszelnicki (I've never heard of him before) has no interest in doing research into what he is writing about, because he does not mention any of what I just said in his article.
  - simplexion 12y ago
    No True Scotsman! Instead of taking a quick glance at the article... actually read it.
    - DiabloD3 12y ago
      That is not a No True Scotsman. A No True Scotsman is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I , a Strawman is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0 What that article did was a Strawman, and a rather popular one used to promote grain-based diets.

manticore_alpha 12y ago

You may disagree with the use of "Paleo" nomenclature, but the pillars of the diet are sound - and a 1,000% improvement on the USDA food pyramid.

simplexion 12y ago
The pillars of a lot of diets seem sound but aren't based on evidence and often ignore it. I believe the best diet is based on a quote from Michael Pollan; "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." I disagree with a lot of what he says but that quote is fantastic.

ajcarpy2005 12y ago

You could say that about any diet. To vastly simplify Paleo, it's like chicken instead of sugary fruit loops. In other words, it goes counter to what may be convenient to eat, colorful, or marketed and branded really well to consumers. That in itself doesn't make it scientific but it starts with an assumption that the easiest and most popular/likable foods are not necessarily the only foods we should eat for long-term health.

simplexion 12y ago
I'm all about the Plio diet anyway. https://medium.com/the-nib/introducing-the-plio-diet-77d3dce94098 https://medium.com/the-nib/introducing-the-plio-diet-77d3dce...
- simplexion 12y ago
  Why does Hacker News hate funny?
ajcarpy2005 12y ago
That's fine, keep down-voting. Just as I predicted. Note that in my comment I am not asserting that Paleo is scientific but that it isn't really less scientific than most other diets either. The whole point was that there are many different interpretations of what exactly Paleo even is within the group and some of them are more advanced than just speculating which foods the 'caveman' might have eaten. I agree that if that's all you're basing your diet plan on then you're rather unscientific. FWIW, many primitive people who move to the US and begin changing their diets to more convenient (perhaps cheaper, more available) foods begin experiencing health issues.

phkahler 12y ago

>> You are getting down-voted because Paleo is not scientific. Weather or not the basis of Paleo is sound is not relevant to his point. Not only does he claim benefits for himself, but notes that others seem to agree in similar ways. I'm really getting pissed at the commercial medial establishment for denying anything that doesn't have clinical trial can be good. Plants or minerals that have helped people for thousands of years are called "homeopathic" or "alternative" by real doctors. Now we're seeing studies that claim various things have no benefit "for people on an already healthy diet" as a footnote. Yet good old aspirin is a plant derivative, as are some other things. But I digress. His point is independent of the basis for the diet and hence should not be downvoted for that.

tinco 12y ago
> Plants or minerals that have helped people for thousands of years are called "homeopathic" or "alternative" by real doctors. No, homeopathic medicin is called homeopathic by real doctors. Homeopathy is not ancient, it was invented in 1796. It also does not involve plants of any kind. Plants that do help or seem to help and have been in use for hundreds or thousands of years are only called alternative when there either has not been research to show that they are effective, or there has been research that shows they are not effective. Alternative does not necessarily mean bad. The word is merely used as a way to distinguish unproven medicine from scientifically proven medicine.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  While I think the parent comment does not understand what "homeopathic" means, I don't think it's correct that "[homeopathy] does not involve plants of any kind." My understanding is that the "active" ingredients are often plant based - after all, it was cinchona overdose that started this mess. If that's the case, homeopathic remedies don't contain the plants anymore (through over-dilution), but homeopathy as a process involves plants.
dalke 12y ago
We also have centuries of history which show that practices people thought were good actually did nothing, or made things worse. People got better despite the treatment, which caused them to believe that the treatment was the success. It took over 1,000 years for the humorism of Ancient Greece to be discarded as wrong, and Hippocrates' theories on bloodletting, once a mainstay of medicine, to be relegated to only a few modern uses. Mercury has been a part of traditional medicines for thousands of years across Eurasia. "There is hardly a disease in the nosology for which mercury in some form has not been used." "No doubt many patients died after years of suffering from slow mercurial poisoning." (Quotes from http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020134syphilis/020134syphilis-ch9.htm http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020134syphilis... ) . While mercury still has some medical uses, the fact is that centuries of reports claimed wide benefits and successes for mercury is evidence that claiming benefits for oneself, and the agreement of others, is not strong evidence that it actually is good. It may be good, but it isn't sufficient. It may actually be bad. There's also drugs which we know are effective, but which are usually riskier and less effective than other drugs. Eg, sulfa drugs vs. beta-lactams. While treating with sulfa drugs absolutely has benefits, promoting it over other, better possibilities leads to overall worse healthcare. That's why sulfas aren't a first line drug any more. In terms of a Paleo diet, it may be good, or not, or it may be that other diets are better. How do you know which it is? How do you know which traditional uses of mercury are toxic? Which traditional uses of bloodletting are worse than not doing bloodletting at all? We only have three solutions: trials (which gives the clearest evidence when done right), epidemiology (much harder to interpret), and mechanistic (there's no reason to believe that a leg amputation will help a cold, and the best case outcome quite severe, making it unethical to test that experimentally. This is mostly used to reject unlikely possibilities which have poor evidence backing it.)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

kaitai 12y ago

I feel like this is one of those instances where someone is responding to a different conversation (not necessarily you, but many of the respondents). Who said Paleo is scientific? A diet along those lines, for me, reduces mood swings, hunger, and the combination (hangriness), while being tasty and improving the list of numbers they measure at the doctor's office. We do all have to live with our n=1, after all. Eat what's truly tasty and makes your life good! Somewhere there is a flame war about what the Paleolithic humans ate, and whether that was what we are nicknaming "paleo" now. We shouldn't take the names too seriously, though, or we'll be confused about what the South Beach diet is (big macs?), the Beyonce diet (...?), etc. Low-fat and low-cholesterol diets have accurately descriptive names. Not catchy. Also once seemingly backed by science, which was incomplete enough to be wrong or influenced heavily by agricultural lobbyists. An discussion about whether "reducing inflammation" as discussed on the internet is scientific would be interesting. The article mentions curcumin and omega-3s: what do we really know?

UrMomReadsHN 12y ago

The entire idea of the "paleo diet" is based off of quacky. http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/30/jane-says-if-you-believe-science-dont-go-paleo http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/01/30/jane-says-if-you-... When I go through my depression episodes I am unable to eat for days. Food tastes like cardboard and is repulsive. If i eat more than a couple bites I vomit. Yet not eating doesn't make me less depressed. So the idea of just eliminating the current fad "inflammatory food" just doesn't seem plausible to me. Especially since the food seems to change with time. Many people resent being told they "just need to cut out grains/meat/sugar/fruit/cooked food." Food fads come and food fads go.