Posted: May 07, 2010 7:36 am
I've been having an ongoing discussion of sorts with an acquaintance of mine about the Paleo Diet. Note that this is the type of woman who is easily mislead by any flimsy argument that might sound even remotely controversial or conspiratorial. She witnessed a young man being interviewed on the Colbert Report one night who looked physically fit -- his presence on the show was for the purpose of exposing the media to the Paleo Diet concept, one which this man did not invent, did not write a book about, did not write an article or a blog about, nor does he have a functioning website about it. He simply abides by the dietary requirements. His hypothesis (which he claims to be of absolute truth) is that people should return to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and diet, as it will make them healthier and increase longevity. He also claimed that hunter-gatherers, before the Neolithic movement and widespread agriculture/domestication, lived well into their 80s and all had perfectly straight teeth. My (ahem) acquaintance presumes this man, who harbors no legitimate credentials in order for me to allow myself to presume his assumptions about homo sapiens before the Neolithic revolution as correct, is accurate in his statements.
She even went so far to make statements to this effect: "I think that there is a possibility that scientists are just telling us what they want us to think about our health and our dietary needs in order to further some sort of political agenda that deals with the agricultural industry, which is making us all sick and unhealthy."
My argument was this: First of all, in regard to that last paranoid conspiracy theory statement, one should always consider the simplest explanation to be the most accurate. This explanation for what seems to her to be the most unhealthy lifestyle (one of our current agriculture being mostly based on corn -- she had just watched Food, Inc. -- and mostly sedentary) is most definitely the most complicated notion, that it would need SO much evidence to support even a sliver of her claim, that the probability that it is even remotely correct is too slim to even take it seriously -- not even for a moment.
Secondly, you cannot generalize "hunter-gatherer" societies this way. There are too many across the globe to simply categorize them as having eaten the same foods, accomplished the same tasks required to obtain their nutrients, were able to feast on large enough amounts to adequately sustain their body's nutritional needs, etc. "Hunter-gatherer" is too vague a term to be able to base an entire fad diet (which is what this is) on this concept. It's like saying "I'm on the 19th Century Diet!" You have to be more specific!!!
Thirdly, there is no way -- absolutely no .. freaking .. WAY -- that the claim that "hunter-gatherers" lived to their 80s and all had perfectly awesome dental features. All evidence acquired through years of research and discovery has pointed to the contrary. They generally lived short lives (compared to today's), their teeth were not perfect (what does that matter, anyway?), and these two aspects of their lives were not determined solely upon their diet. What about the times when their resources were so scarce that some ended up starving to death? What about the circumstances that it took in order to obtain their meat? Some died trying to get their protein intake. To say, also, that these people were happier because they were healthier than we are now is a judgment that we are not prepared to make! They spent a good deal of their time fighting for and working to get food, some time doing leisurely activities, but often didn't live past 30s. Since the Neolithic revolution, the long-term consequences have been civilization, culture, arts, intellectual expression, writing, and eventually scientific discoveries that lead to the understanding of ourselves, our world, medicine, etc. It's more than just about the diet!!
Fourthly, during the research conducted upon current hunter-gatherer societies in places like the jungles of Congo in Africa, it has been noted that these individuals are generally not healthier than those who live in the modern world with agriculture. Although, hunter-gatherers usually don't work all day long for their food, especially if they've moved to an area rich in resources. Despite this, though, their lives are not usually very long-lasting (unless they are fortunate enough to receive outside assistance with medication), their teeth aren't perfect (again, why was this such a huge deal?), the probability of women dying from childbirth is higher than it is for one who does so in a hospital setting, the mortality rate for infants is higher, and the women usually do not reach puberty until about the age of 16. The reason for this is because of slight malnourishment. Ever heard of the fact that women who are anorexic tend to lose their periods? That's because their bodies aren't receiving enough nourishment. Why are women in places in the United States and western Europe (and elsewhere where there is an abundance of food) reaching puberty at a much younger age, around 12 years? Because they are better nourished. So, no, "hunter-gatherers" are not healthier than those who follow the agricultural movement.
After the presentation of my argument refuting the notion that a Paleo Diet is better than what we have now was met with adamant refusal to acknowledge my points. She argued with every idea that I presented, even though I've had far more involvement with anthropological studies than she ever has. She basically wanted me to take her back in time when there was some kind of hunter-gatherer society among the plains of Africa or in the forests of Western Germany and physically show her the mortality rate and their unkempt teeth.
Is there anything that I missed here? Am I somehow erroneous in my argument? Is there any credence to the Paleo Diet? How does one reason with someone who expects so much out of a rational discussion, to the point that it's impossible to give her what she demands in order to be proven wrong in her assumptions? Should I just give up on this quest to show her how her thinking is skewed and incorrect?
To answer a question that I feel may be asked: Why do I care so much that she change her mind about this? It's mostly because I'm the type of person who wants to work on my debating abilities, and also because I can't STAND it when someone is incorrect in their beliefs or their perception of something (and, no, I don't think that most knowledge or understanding or reality is subjective). There are some things where subjectivity rules, but there are many more where either something is factually correct, or it is incorrect. I would like to see if anyone else has any information that I may have missed in this discussion or if there is something that I may have misunderstood, myself. I want, more than anything, to build upon my knowledge, and to prepare the best answers possible for other people who may know even less than me about a particular subject. Plus, I'm just one of those people who can't get off the computer at night because I'm debating with some idiot on a Facebook status for hours... "I can't go to bed, honey. Someone's wrong on the internet!!"
She even went so far to make statements to this effect: "I think that there is a possibility that scientists are just telling us what they want us to think about our health and our dietary needs in order to further some sort of political agenda that deals with the agricultural industry, which is making us all sick and unhealthy."
My argument was this: First of all, in regard to that last paranoid conspiracy theory statement, one should always consider the simplest explanation to be the most accurate. This explanation for what seems to her to be the most unhealthy lifestyle (one of our current agriculture being mostly based on corn -- she had just watched Food, Inc. -- and mostly sedentary) is most definitely the most complicated notion, that it would need SO much evidence to support even a sliver of her claim, that the probability that it is even remotely correct is too slim to even take it seriously -- not even for a moment.
Secondly, you cannot generalize "hunter-gatherer" societies this way. There are too many across the globe to simply categorize them as having eaten the same foods, accomplished the same tasks required to obtain their nutrients, were able to feast on large enough amounts to adequately sustain their body's nutritional needs, etc. "Hunter-gatherer" is too vague a term to be able to base an entire fad diet (which is what this is) on this concept. It's like saying "I'm on the 19th Century Diet!" You have to be more specific!!!
Thirdly, there is no way -- absolutely no .. freaking .. WAY -- that the claim that "hunter-gatherers" lived to their 80s and all had perfectly awesome dental features. All evidence acquired through years of research and discovery has pointed to the contrary. They generally lived short lives (compared to today's), their teeth were not perfect (what does that matter, anyway?), and these two aspects of their lives were not determined solely upon their diet. What about the times when their resources were so scarce that some ended up starving to death? What about the circumstances that it took in order to obtain their meat? Some died trying to get their protein intake. To say, also, that these people were happier because they were healthier than we are now is a judgment that we are not prepared to make! They spent a good deal of their time fighting for and working to get food, some time doing leisurely activities, but often didn't live past 30s. Since the Neolithic revolution, the long-term consequences have been civilization, culture, arts, intellectual expression, writing, and eventually scientific discoveries that lead to the understanding of ourselves, our world, medicine, etc. It's more than just about the diet!!
Fourthly, during the research conducted upon current hunter-gatherer societies in places like the jungles of Congo in Africa, it has been noted that these individuals are generally not healthier than those who live in the modern world with agriculture. Although, hunter-gatherers usually don't work all day long for their food, especially if they've moved to an area rich in resources. Despite this, though, their lives are not usually very long-lasting (unless they are fortunate enough to receive outside assistance with medication), their teeth aren't perfect (again, why was this such a huge deal?), the probability of women dying from childbirth is higher than it is for one who does so in a hospital setting, the mortality rate for infants is higher, and the women usually do not reach puberty until about the age of 16. The reason for this is because of slight malnourishment. Ever heard of the fact that women who are anorexic tend to lose their periods? That's because their bodies aren't receiving enough nourishment. Why are women in places in the United States and western Europe (and elsewhere where there is an abundance of food) reaching puberty at a much younger age, around 12 years? Because they are better nourished. So, no, "hunter-gatherers" are not healthier than those who follow the agricultural movement.
After the presentation of my argument refuting the notion that a Paleo Diet is better than what we have now was met with adamant refusal to acknowledge my points. She argued with every idea that I presented, even though I've had far more involvement with anthropological studies than she ever has. She basically wanted me to take her back in time when there was some kind of hunter-gatherer society among the plains of Africa or in the forests of Western Germany and physically show her the mortality rate and their unkempt teeth.
Is there anything that I missed here? Am I somehow erroneous in my argument? Is there any credence to the Paleo Diet? How does one reason with someone who expects so much out of a rational discussion, to the point that it's impossible to give her what she demands in order to be proven wrong in her assumptions? Should I just give up on this quest to show her how her thinking is skewed and incorrect?
To answer a question that I feel may be asked: Why do I care so much that she change her mind about this? It's mostly because I'm the type of person who wants to work on my debating abilities, and also because I can't STAND it when someone is incorrect in their beliefs or their perception of something (and, no, I don't think that most knowledge or understanding or reality is subjective). There are some things where subjectivity rules, but there are many more where either something is factually correct, or it is incorrect. I would like to see if anyone else has any information that I may have missed in this discussion or if there is something that I may have misunderstood, myself. I want, more than anything, to build upon my knowledge, and to prepare the best answers possible for other people who may know even less than me about a particular subject. Plus, I'm just one of those people who can't get off the computer at night because I'm debating with some idiot on a Facebook status for hours... "I can't go to bed, honey. Someone's wrong on the internet!!"