7 ms·

It is fallacious to say 'just because our ancestors lived that way, it is good'. There is seldom sufficient evidence to back up such claims. Paleo diets [1] are

by shas3 13y ago

It is fallacious to say 'just because our ancestors lived that way, it is good'. There is seldom sufficient evidence to back up such claims. Paleo diets [1] are not necessarily good. Nor are paleo-lifestyles [2]. Even several claims of paleo-enthusiasts like Christopher McDougal ('Born to Run') and Jared Diamond are disputed and contradicted by research [3]. A posteriori, there may be 'evolutionary'-type reasons for say, our body's over-eagerness to eat sugary stuff [4]. That doesn't mean that you can attribute everything to evolution without sufficient evidence. The truth is what it is: lack of exercise and poor diet both contribute to increased risk of diseases. You can appeal to 'our ancestors' lifestyle' as reliably as you can appeal to say, the benefits of 'biblical diet'. Both are identically fallacious. (As an aside, there are several comments on different posts in HN that wrongly apply evolutionary principles to everything from coding practices to behavioral traits [5]!) [1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-half-baked-how-hunter-gatherer-really-eat/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-paleo-diet-hal... [2] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-style-running-best-new-studies-cast-doubt/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/is-barefoot-style-r... [3]http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jan/09/history-society http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jan/09/history-society [4]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/evolutions-sweet-tooth.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/evolutions-sweet-t... [5]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7050286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7050286

faster 13y ago
Zuk's critique of the paleo diet has itself been soundly criticized, e.g. [1] and [2]. Of course she's gotten many details right; the food that is available today doesn't resemble Paleo-era foods very much, so how can we truly recreate their diet? She cherry-picked studies though, just like Ancel Keyes did when he declared that dietary fat was killing us. As for barefoot running, the barefoot shoes are seen as a magic bullet, and of course that's not the case. They can be a guide to suggest that you fix your gait but if you don't want to do the work, you can harm yourself as much in Vibram Five Fingers as in Nikes or Adidas. Paleo-izing everything is in fashion. That doesn't mean it's all wrong though. [1] http://philosophyandpsychology.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/defending-paleo-a-response-to-marlene-zuks-critique-of-paleofantasy/ http://philosophyandpsychology.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/defe... [2] http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-it-all-just-a-paleofantasy/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-it-all-just-a-paleofantasy...
ajcarpy2005 13y ago
The 'main thrust' of Paleo is simply eating whole foods in a state of freshness and from quality sources. (that being arguably more common before industrialization and the marketing of 'prepared' foods that come pre-seasoned and individually wrapped, etc.) As an aside, pre-seasoned processed food can give us a false sense of variety because even though most packaged foods have corn syrup or wheat or corn or one of those popular foods, by adding different spices or making different 'foods' out of it such as pizzas or other recipe transformations, it makes the same basic ingredients taste and seem different. But if you focus on eating whole foods with somewhat minimal processing or transformation into recipes, you can readily realize how much true variety you're obtaining.
- Someone 13y ago
  "eating whole foods in a state of freshness and from quality sources. (that being arguably more common before industrialization" Arguably, indeed. Before the invention of refrigeration, the average "state of freshness" probably was a lot less than what we now call fresh. Also, "quality sources" will have been rare in the not so uncommon years with harsh winters, failed harvests, etc.
stcredzero 13y ago
It is fallacious to say 'just because our ancestors lived that way, it is good'. Well, sure, if you're claiming it's some sort of lemma in a proof. Stuff our ancestors used to do is likely to be neutral or good for you, due to the way evolution works. The key is likely. I'd agree with you that it's a fallacy to hold "ancestors used to do it" as some kind of oracle. You can appeal to 'our ancestors' lifestyle' as reliably as you can appeal to say, the benefits of 'biblical diet'. Both are identically fallacious. There should be a name for the meta-fallacy of treating what should be a hazy rule of thumb as a mathematical identity.
- DenisM 13y ago
  - Hey Zag, I made a discovery: if you cook meat, it's easier to eat and safer! - I don't know, Bog. My parents have always eaten meat raw, and they lived healthily to the old, ripe age of 26.
  - cpncrunch 13y ago
    It appears that our ancestors have been cooking food for 1.9 million years (i.e. the entire time that Homo Sapiens have been around).
- fauigerzigerk 13y ago
  >Stuff our ancestors used to do is likely to be neutral or good for you, due to the way evolution works. That's not true when it comes to age related diseases like cancer or heart disease. Through most of mankind's evolution these diseases did not affect our procreation rate at all. Evolution optimizes for procreation not for longevity. It is very likely that an ample supply of burgers, fries and fat cheese (especially during winter) would have led to higher birth rates not lower ones. It could well be that much of our ancestors' lifestyle is poison for anyone over 50.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    That's not true when it comes to age related diseases like cancer or heart disease. Well of course! Whether it's "good" or "bad" is kinda hazy and contextual as well. A gene that might encourage heart disease at age 50 might also make us better at spearing ferocious animals at age 19. It is very likely that an ample supply of burgers, fries and fat cheese (especially during winter) would have led to higher birth rates not lower ones. I know of someone from the pacific island of Yap, and his entire generation was stunted in their growth from his culture's encounter with American junk food. It could well be that much of our ancestors' lifestyle is poison for anyone over 50. So then it's fine for young hipsters to practice?
DenisM 13y ago
To further illustrate your point about too much enthusiasm for explaining things with evolutionary adaptation: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2713 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2713

by shas3 13y ago

faster 13y ago

Zuk's critique of the paleo diet has itself been soundly criticized, e.g. [1] and [2]. Of course she's gotten many details right; the food that is available today doesn't resemble Paleo-era foods very much, so how can we truly recreate their diet? She cherry-picked studies though, just like Ancel Keyes did when he declared that dietary fat was killing us. As for barefoot running, the barefoot shoes are seen as a magic bullet, and of course that's not the case. They can be a guide to suggest that you fix your gait but if you don't want to do the work, you can harm yourself as much in Vibram Five Fingers as in Nikes or Adidas. Paleo-izing everything is in fashion. That doesn't mean it's all wrong though. [1] http://philosophyandpsychology.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/defending-paleo-a-response-to-marlene-zuks-critique-of-paleofantasy/ http://philosophyandpsychology.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/defe... [2] http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-it-all-just-a-paleofantasy/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-it-all-just-a-paleofantasy...

ajcarpy2005 13y ago

The 'main thrust' of Paleo is simply eating whole foods in a state of freshness and from quality sources. (that being arguably more common before industrialization and the marketing of 'prepared' foods that come pre-seasoned and individually wrapped, etc.) As an aside, pre-seasoned processed food can give us a false sense of variety because even though most packaged foods have corn syrup or wheat or corn or one of those popular foods, by adding different spices or making different 'foods' out of it such as pizzas or other recipe transformations, it makes the same basic ingredients taste and seem different. But if you focus on eating whole foods with somewhat minimal processing or transformation into recipes, you can readily realize how much true variety you're obtaining.

Someone 13y ago
"eating whole foods in a state of freshness and from quality sources. (that being arguably more common before industrialization" Arguably, indeed. Before the invention of refrigeration, the average "state of freshness" probably was a lot less than what we now call fresh. Also, "quality sources" will have been rare in the not so uncommon years with harsh winters, failed harvests, etc.

stcredzero 13y ago

It is fallacious to say 'just because our ancestors lived that way, it is good'. Well, sure, if you're claiming it's some sort of lemma in a proof. Stuff our ancestors used to do is likely to be neutral or good for you, due to the way evolution works. The key is likely. I'd agree with you that it's a fallacy to hold "ancestors used to do it" as some kind of oracle. You can appeal to 'our ancestors' lifestyle' as reliably as you can appeal to say, the benefits of 'biblical diet'. Both are identically fallacious. There should be a name for the meta-fallacy of treating what should be a hazy rule of thumb as a mathematical identity.

DenisM 13y ago
- Hey Zag, I made a discovery: if you cook meat, it's easier to eat and safer! - I don't know, Bog. My parents have always eaten meat raw, and they lived healthily to the old, ripe age of 26.
- cpncrunch 13y ago
  It appears that our ancestors have been cooking food for 1.9 million years (i.e. the entire time that Homo Sapiens have been around).
fauigerzigerk 13y ago
>Stuff our ancestors used to do is likely to be neutral or good for you, due to the way evolution works. That's not true when it comes to age related diseases like cancer or heart disease. Through most of mankind's evolution these diseases did not affect our procreation rate at all. Evolution optimizes for procreation not for longevity. It is very likely that an ample supply of burgers, fries and fat cheese (especially during winter) would have led to higher birth rates not lower ones. It could well be that much of our ancestors' lifestyle is poison for anyone over 50.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  That's not true when it comes to age related diseases like cancer or heart disease. Well of course! Whether it's "good" or "bad" is kinda hazy and contextual as well. A gene that might encourage heart disease at age 50 might also make us better at spearing ferocious animals at age 19. It is very likely that an ample supply of burgers, fries and fat cheese (especially during winter) would have led to higher birth rates not lower ones. I know of someone from the pacific island of Yap, and his entire generation was stunted in their growth from his culture's encounter with American junk food. It could well be that much of our ancestors' lifestyle is poison for anyone over 50. So then it's fine for young hipsters to practice?

DenisM 13y ago

To further illustrate your point about too much enthusiasm for explaining things with evolutionary adaptation: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2713 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2713